Really? WOW.

You would not believe that Jesus was God then I guess and He is directly quoted in the gospels primarily.

Frog,

Who are you taking exception with here?

Mark

Mark - he's taking exception with me - following me around at the moment.

frog,

I hasten to point out that the quote from Malachi 2:16 that Mortarman referenced is attributed directly to God.

If the bible is in fact the "Word of God" as it claims of itself, it carries all of the authority of the God who inspired it. If it is not truly God's word, since it claims such to be the case, it is the most dangerous document ever published. In that case it carries no more authority or relevance than a television script.

And as a Christian, I do in fact believe that Jesus was indeed God, since He claimed to be God on more than one occasion. So quotes of Him are indeed direct quotes of the Living God.

So IMO, quoting scripture is quoting God with the caveat that anything quoted to prove a point must be supported by scripture in its entirety; that is, not antithetical to scripture in its whole, and the text must be read exegetically and not in an effort to read a predetermined meaning into it by interpreting it to have some hidden or "mystical" meaning.

Paul often claimed to be speaking on behalf of God and when he was giving his opinion, not that of the Lord, he was careful to point that out.

JMHO

Mark

Have MM or FH looked at the attitude of the early church leaders (ones who maybe even had direct teaching from the apostles) to see what their attitude is to divorce and remarriage?

Here’s one to kick it off….

Early Church Quotes


emphasis mine

Here's a quote from Don Martin, preacher at the Holly Street church of Christ in Denver, Colorado.

Don Martin

Of note in this link is his quote here....


Again emphasis mine.

In fact of all the research I have done, I have found only one site that would support the argument presented here by FH and MM.

Codrington

However listening to FH and MM you would think their opinion is shared by all Christian scholars.

So, are you saying you believe that marriage to a different spouse after divorce is always adultery?

That is not my position but it is the position of many scholars I have read. I am actually still sifting through exactly what my position is. There is very little I am absolutely sure of at this point.

One thing I am sure of is the illegitimacy of affair marriages for believers. For unbelievers I am currently undecided. (However my current thinking is that they would not have to divorce and could stay married.)

Note: in saying it's my CURRENT thinking it means I could be pursuaded as this discussion moves on and change my mind.

Certainly the early church - the men closest in time to the Apostles seem to be adamant that re-marriage is not possible which sort of leaves me reeling quite honestly. By that measure half my family is in an adulterous relationship.

I have a question...what if the divorce is something you personally don't want and can't stop.

Does that mean if I meet someone else someday it would be considered adultry. All the while my WH gets to mess around guilt free?

Still

Huh???

Really? I dont think I ever claimed that all Christian scholars agreed on any of this. Consensus really doesnt matter to me. What I am searching for is the truth.

If most of the scholars are right, then great. If they arent, then who cares?

At the end of the day, I really care not what others think or say. I am more concerned with what Scripture says and what the Holy Spirit says. If I am wrong, I wanna know (and the Holy Spirit will let me know). Honestly, I hate being wrong so if I am, And the truth can be shown...I have no problem siding with the truth and letting go of my previous position.

That is why you will rarely see me say "well Pastor Schmedlack says..."

If your husband leaves you and remarries, he is guilty of adultery and so is his new wife. If you divorce him due to infidelity, then the marriage has ended which means the marriage contract no longer exists. It is broken. You legally ended the contract (covenant). Thus, you are free to remarry, only in the Lord.

I understand as BK has put out there, that there are many scholars who believe as he has said. Again, in the end, it doesnt matter what the scholar says. Jesus asked "Who do you say I am?" This is a personal relationship. As such, I can go directly to Him and He will provide the answers.

Again, if I am wrong, I trust the Lord will show me. I pray that He does.

Personally, I would love for what BK is showing us to be true. I actually used to believe that. But that does not keep inline with what we know about God, sin, and forgiveness. It just doesnt.

MM,

If the marriage contract no longer exists then is he also free?

Still

Yes.

But remember...how can a marriage contract (covenant) be broken? Who can do it? Scripture says only God can. And God has given us several ways that can happen. One is the death of our spouse physically. The next is that we are married to an unbeliever and they want to leave. The third is due to immorality. All three end the marriage. In the third, though, only the BS can seek a divorce (as the WS has no standing because their spouse has not been immoral). So, if a BS has cause and pursues a divorce...then the covenant is broken and the marriage is over. If the WS seeks the divorce, but the BS does not want it...then the marriage still exists. Which means any sex by the WS or the BS with anyone else is adultery!

MM,

Thanks... I guess my situation is "unique". My WH is committing adultry with a married woman (who has not filed for divorce). I filed then H countered. In February I asked him to reconsider as I didn't wnat this divorce.

So one hand our covenant will be broken and he will no longer be commiting adultry. Bt on the other hand (because I no longer want the D) if after I meet someone I will be commiting adultry.
Boy we can really mess up what God gives us.

Still

BK, finding "scholars" to support almost any position is not all that hard to do. It is why I have always said that when faced with differing opinions between believers, the authority that we must turn to is the Word of God, and let it, if it speaks clearly and definitively on a subject, be the "final authority" even in cases where we might not like having to surrender our opinion to God. Some things, God has not clearly revealed, or fully revealed, and it's "okay" to have differing opinions on those things (i.e. when the 2nd coming will occur, not that it WILL occur).

"Illegitimacy" is an interesting term that we have to be careful with in how we apply it. For example, all children born out of wedlock are considered "illegitimate." But those children are welcomed into the family of God when they accept Jesus Christ just as "legitmate" children. They all become adopted sons and daugthers of God, and it's fairly safe to assume that when God adopts someone there is no "stain" of illegitimacy remaining and they are welcomed in as a "new creation" in Christ. ALL of their past, all of their sins, etc., are put away "as far as the East is from the West."

That does not mean that God forgets anyone's sins. It simply means that we (believers) are declared righteous and our sins have no bearing on whether or not our future is in heaven with God, where no sin can exist. The sins ARE recorded and they WILL come into play when God judges and rewards, or withholds rewards, to believers.

Being "illegitimate" is a "condition," a "state," that exists when certain criteria are met. If that was the "end of the story," then no one would be saved and Christ's sacrifice would NOT cover all sins and would not be sufficient to pay the just penalty of God for sin. But it isn't the "end of the story." That was WHY Jesus had to come bodily and die as our substitutionary sacrifice so that His sacrifice could be imputed to us by God's Will and Plan from the beginning of Creation.

The issue with God is not that we accept Christ and become "perfect" creatures, never to commit a sin again. It's that ALL of our sins ARE forgiven because of what Christ did, not by anything we can do.

So that brings us back to the issues of "liberty" and "license" in Christ. That is something Paul talked about and we really don't need to get into all of that now, other than to acknowledge that both those who abuse their position in Christ and those who follow as faithfully as they can (i.e., the Prodigal Son and his Brother) are always the "legitmate" sons of God. One certainly will be in receipt of greater "rewards" in heaven, but both will be in heaven and not "cast out" as an unbeliever.

Therefore, the issue really isn't whether or not one marriage or another is "legitimate" or "illegitimate," it is whether or not the husband and wife are believers or not. ALL sin separates us eternally from God without Jesus Christ as our personal Lord and Savior. IN Christ, ALL of our sins are forgiven and we are given "right standing" before God. The "issues" with respect to marriage, divorce, and remarriage, in that context seem to be an excercise in "judging others," as the older brother was judging the Prodigal Son. Adultery is a SIN. And God is NOT going to tell anyone to commit a sin, hence Jesus' clarification to the Pharisees. Jesus did also say that a BS who remarries after divorcing on the grounds of marital unfaithfulness CAN remarry without committing adultery theirself, IF they are very careful in who they might marry.

In any event, the question about forgiveness of sin, of any sin save blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, is what must anyone DO in order to receive God's total and unconditional forgiveness? Is there any "work" of any kind that forgiveness is "contingent upon?"

Those questions, in turn, lead to the concept of "Repentance" of sin. Again, what must anyone DO in order to be truly repentant of sin in their life?

Just some things to think about and perhaps to discuss further.

I don't understand I guess why this post even exists.

I am being purposely sarcastic in that there are people struggling with Infidelity with the real possiblity of a D in some cases and now people have to worry about the ramifciations of their D in God's eyes argued by people.

Some of the posts Big K's specifically are IMVHO very judgemental.

The bible is a book or document based on Faith. Not proof IMVHO.


I agree with that statment Mark.

I will say this, I am sure there are Jews, Catholics, Muslims, Christians, Buddists, Athiests and Agnostics on this board.

It is insulting to me to have you push your "beliefs" about what God deems right on others when it comes to Marriage, Divorce and the Bible.

I have actaully researched the Authors of the Bible and it is a bit suprising as to when some of it was written and by whom it was written.

From some of my research there are actually parts of books where the Author is unknown and yet it is attributed to someone. Wow on my part.

Malachi wasn't written by Malachi.

Based on Mark 1:2-3, the book called "Malachi" was apparently actually written by Isaiah, since there the author of Mark quotes from "Malachi" but attributes it to Isaiah. The title "Malachi", taken from 1:1 is simply the Hebrew phrase "my messenger", and the word is so translated in 3:1.

The date of the book would then be sometime between 740 and 690 BC.

Larry per your question about civil marriages well I have an answer from the Roman Catholic Church.

If I am not married in the Roman Catholic Church by a Roman Catholic priest I am not married in the Eyes of the Roman Catholic God!!!!!

I was married by an American Catholic Priest because I wanted to be married out side.