Why is divorce never allowed?

[follower of Christ]

You are wrong FOC, on several counts.

1) I am NOT misquoting, in light of the fact that Jesus states that IF YOU LOVE HIM, YOU WILL OBEY HIM. To go our willfull way, inspite of His known truth, IS willfull apostasy, wouldn't you say?

You ARe applying to marriage passages that have NOTHING to do with marriage, from Hebrews.
this shows exactly how studied you are in this matter.
You dont get to quote passages that have nothing to do with marriage and apply them to Gods holy union of marriage.

Also, your post above implies that those who DONT leave their remarried status are not covered by the sacrifice of Jesus. and hence NOT saved.
This is going to be reported to moderation immediately after I post this.

2) I am simply showing what Jesus HIIMSELF has taught- WHEN will you acknowledge the simple meaning, 'Whosoever shall put away his wife and marry another, committeth adultry... vs 12And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she commitheth adultry.

Hmmm....so...whom are you stating is being dishonest in this passage...Matthew or Christ?

And I say to you, that whoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marrying a divorcee commits adultery."
(Mat 19:9)

sorry sister but YOU dont get to alter the rules simply because you decided NOT to marry.

3)AGAIN- YOU PUT WORDS IN MY NOUTH I NEVER SAID. I suggest, for the sake of a fair debate- you stop this

I DID NOT say divorce and remarriage are the topic of Hebrews- BUT RATHER WILLFUL DISOBEDIENCE.

YOU are the one who brought a passage about willful APOSTACY into a marriage discussion.
If you didnt want to be called on it, then you should have known not to misrepresent Gods word like that
Hebrews has NOTHING to do with marriage and divorce


t

Seems to me in Romans 7:3- the word 'adulteress' denotes an ongoing LIFESTYLE. Something to consider...

I already know what it ''seems'' to say to those of your doctrine.

Tell me, Romans there says the wife is bound by LAW until her husbands death.....Can you show me a single verse IN THE LAW that says this?

Ill spoil the fun now, NO you cannot, because the passage doesnt exist. Did you know that?

Did you also know that the very LAW that paul seemingly says binds a woman to her husband till DEATH.......provided FOR divorce and thus she would NOT be bound to him until death?

Im sure you did.
And obviously since you knew these facts, you also concluded that Romans 7 is NOT the rules for marriage, but is using ONE aspect of Gods marriage union to show our relationship to the law and to the new covanent.

Romans 7 is not the rules for marriage.

and STILL........you must reject Jesus' own words to believe what you do.
Do we call Him a liar when WE say till death alone, when HE has said ''except for whoredom'' ?

`And I say to you, that, whoever may put away his wife, if not for whoredom, and may marry another, doth commit adultery; and he who did marry her that hath been put away, doth commit adultery.'
(Mat 19:9)


I believe we do indeed.

 

[follower of Christ]

I said to Delicate.....

YOU are the one who brought a passage about willful APOSTACY into a marriage discussion.
If you didnt want to be called on it, then you should have known not to misrepresent Gods word like that
Hebrews has NOTHING to do with marriage and divorce

To add, delicate, Ive been arguing this stuff for a very long time with literally hundreds and hudreds of people of your belief.

You know that you are the FIRST and ONLY one to pull that line out of Hebrews about the sacrifice as far as Ive ever seen?

That alone ought to tell you something is quite amiss.
If the REST of those who believe as you do KNEW your passage was applicable, dont you think they would be stating it as well?

Im trying to help out here because Im starting to see that you may not be as studied as I first thought.

God bless.

 

[follower of Christ]

I said to Delicate.....

YOU are the one who brought a passage about willful APOSTACY into a marriage discussion.
If you didnt want to be called on it, then you should have known not to misrepresent Gods word like that
Hebrews has NOTHING to do with marriage and divorce

To add, delicate, Ive been arguing this stuff for a very long time with literally hundreds and hudreds of people of your belief.

You know that you are the FIRST and ONLY one to pull that line out of Hebrews about the sacrifice as far as Ive ever seen?

That alone ought to tell you something is quite amiss.
If the REST of those who believe as you do KNEW your passage was applicable, dont you think they would be stating it as well?

Im trying to help out here because Im starting to see that you may not be as studied as I first thought.

God bless.

 

[Delicate]

You ARe applying to marriage passages that have NOTHING to do with marriage, from Hebrews.
this shows exactly how studied you are in this matter.
You dont get to quote passages that have nothing to do with marriage and apply them to Gods holy union of marriage.

Also, your post above implies that those who DONT leave their remarried status are not covered by the sacrifice of Jesus. and hence NOT saved.
This is going to be reported to moderation immediately after I post.

FOC- AGAIN! YOU ARE MISREADING MY WORDS!

Moderators- I AM NOT STATING WHAT FOC CLAIMS! I AM stating from scripture- that to willfully continue in sin after coming to a saving knowledge of Jesus, is to renounce His blood sacrifice- and I mean ANY sin as defined by the Lord himself.

FOC- I would suggest, if you have a problem with clear scripture stated here- you are under conviciton, sir.

Jesus has clearly defined adultery, according to Mk. 10:11-12, Lk 16:18,
Ro. 7:2-3, 1Cor. 7:39.

It is not my place to convict- but to simply state truth. THESE ARE NOT MY WORDS, BUT JESUS' WORDS.

FOR THE RECORD, FOC, THESE ARE NOT MY WORDS, THEY ARE THE WORDS OF JESUS.

 

[Delicate]

To add, delicate, Ive been arguing this stuff for a very long time with literally hundreds and hudreds of people of your belief.

FOC- Your debating this issue for so long, does not prove you an authority, only the extent of your misguided zeal on the topic. :wink:

 

[Delicate]

I need to be sure it is understood- the previous few post I've sent are in reference to remarriage after divorce.

:wink:

 

[follower of Christ]

To add, delicate, Ive been arguing this stuff for a very long time with literally hundreds and hudreds of people of your belief.

FOC- Your debating this issue for so long, does not prove you an authority, only the extent of your misguided zeal on the topic. :wink:

yeah sis, Im sure that convinced everyone you are right :wink:

 

[follower of Christ]

FOC- AGAIN! YOU ARE MISREADING MY WORDS!

Moderators- I AM NOT STATING WHAT FOC CLAIMS! I AM stating from scripture- that to willfully continue in sin after coming to a saving knowledge of Jesus, is to renounce His blood sacrifice- and I mean ANY sin as defined by the Lord himself.

YOU are the one who was trying to USE Hebrews in your arguement against REmarriage. Shall I quote you?

delicate said...
Agree, Jesus forgives. He also supplies power to overcome the sin- to repent. Repentance is defined as, a change of mind, of direction. Again, to go on in sin, is to deny the power of God to STOP the sin. We are called to be overcomers, where is there any victory in continued sin? Actually, we DENY the blood of the Lord, if we refuse His power to overcome sin. According to Hebrews, 'there remains no more sacrifice' .

Jesus said, 'If you love me, you will keep my commandments'. We prove our love for the Lord BY OUR OBEDIENCE. Be careful on this one- it is absolute heresy to think we can go on in sin.

WERE YOU OR WERE YOU NOT REFERING TO THOSE WHO DO NOT LEAVE THIS SECOND MARRIAGE ?!?!?!

FOC- I would suggest, if you have a problem with clear scripture stated here- you are under conviciton, sir.

Please leave your emotionalistic propaganda at the door sis.

Ive debated this with people who have bible college educations.

I assure you Im not feeling convicted over you misrepresentation of scripture.

Jesus has clearly defined adultery, according to Mk. 10:11-12, Lk 16:18,
Ro. 7:2-3, 1Cor. 7:39.

AND..............Jesus has defined and exception !!!!
You DO know what an ''exception" is, correct?

And I say to you, that whoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marrying a divorcee commits adultery."
(Mat 19:9)

see "except: there?

It is not my place to convict- but to simply state truth. THESE ARE NOT MY WORDS, BUT JESUS' WORDS.

and THESE ARE NOT MY WORDS BUT JESUS' WORDS

And I say to you, that whoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marrying a divorcee commits adultery."
(Mat 19:9)

FOR THE RECORD, FOC, THESE ARE NOT MY WORDS, THEY ARE THE WORDS OF JESUS.

FOR THE RECORD DELICATE, THESE ARE NOT MY WORDS, THEY ARE THE WORDS OF JESUS

And I say to you, that whoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marrying a divorcee commits adultery."
(Mat 19:9)

 

[follower of Christ]

The coucil of Jerusalem laid out FOUR things for the gentile church to follow.


Act 21:25 As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from
-things offered to idols,
-and from blood,
-and from strangled,
-and from fornication


Now, was Paul ONLY telling us to stay away from unlawful PREmaritial sex there?
Or was it only Illicit sex in the BETROTHAL year?

It was both, and it was ALL other sexual sin as well, as the porneia covers any and all sexual immorality, just like our word ''whoredom'' might.

Jesus words have been rendered as the EXACT word (g4202 porneia) that is used in Pauls words above.

Mat 19:9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

fitting the whole concept of marriage that unlawful sex PREmarriage, betrothed marriage and consumated marriage has ALWAYS been a breach of the marital covenant when proven to be willful.


We KNOW Paul was NOT just prohibiting unlawful sex PREmarriage or during the betrothal year either

He was telling us to abstain from ALL sexual immorality

Jesus states 'wife'' or ''woman'' very clearly, not betrothed.
If he had meant betrothed all He needed to do was use the word "mnēsteuō".

There is not a single indication that Jesus ONLY meant premarital or betrothed in His exceptoin clause.
Not one.

And it does not fit the use of the word porneia at all without some qualifiers being added to His remark.

Like it or not, ignore it or not........there IS an exceptoin given by our Lord.
Theres really nothing anyone can do about that, is there?

 

[Delicate]

Ive debated this with people who have bible college educations.

If this is thrown in to intimidate, it's waisted. I have a bible college education as well.

Again, 'except for fornication' in Matt. is referring to the jewish betrothal period. This is the ONLY interpretation that brings consistancy to ALL the gospel verses that state the same thing.

 

[Delicate]

There is not a single indication that Jesus ONLY meant premarital or betrothed in His exceptoin clause.
Not one.

Again, the jews understood what was being said. If you take the betrothal exception to mean something else, how do you explain Mk 10:11-12, Lk, 16:18- that simply states- 'whosoever puts away his wife commits adultry...' Never is the 'except clause' included or implied.

It's important to interpret lesser understood scripture by that which is clearly understood. Matthew 19:9 must be looked at this way.

 

[follower of Christ]

Ive debated this with people who have bible college educations.

If this is thrown in to intimidate, it's waisted. I have a bible college education as well.

Ive noticed you are adept at misquoting and taking things out of context.
REread my post and see what the intent was in that comment.

Again, 'except for fornication' in Matt. is referring to the jewish betrothal period.

I believe I asked for scriptural PROOF of this.
You havent provided it........because.........you have no scriptural proof to offer in this matter.......because.....porneia is NOT about Jewish betrothal....it is SEXUAL sin.....whoredom....committed by ANYONE..

ARe you stating that Paul was only warning those were are betrothed to abstain from sexual immorality?

The coucil of Jerusalem laid out FOUR things for the gentile church to follow.


Act 21:25 As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from
-things offered to idols,
-and from blood,
-and from strangled,
-and from fornication


Now, was Paul ONLY telling us to stay away from unlawful PREmaritial sex there?
Or was it only Illicit sex in the BETROTHAL year?

It was both, and it was ALL other sexual sin as well, as the porneia covers any and all sexual immorality, just like our word ''whoredom'' might.

Jesus words have been rendered as the EXACT word (g4202 porneia) that is used in Pauls words above.
Quote:

Mat 19:9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

fitting the whole concept of marriage that unlawful sex PREmarriage, betrothed marriage and consumated marriage has ALWAYS been a breach of the marital covenant when proven to be willful.


We KNOW Paul was NOT just prohibiting unlawful sex PREmarriage or during the betrothal year either

He was telling us to abstain from ALL sexual immorality

Jesus states 'wife'' or ''woman'' very clearly, not betrothed.
If he had meant betrothed all He needed to do was use the word "mnēsteuō".

There is not a single indication that Jesus ONLY meant premarital or betrothed in His exceptoin clause.
Not one.

And it does not fit the use of the word porneia at all without some qualifiers being added to His remark.

Like it or not, ignore it or not........there IS an exceptoin given by our Lord.
Theres really nothing anyone can do about that, is there?

This is the ONLY interpretation that brings consistancy to ALL the gospel verses that state the same thing.

wrong.
A wife is bound to the husband while he lives........EXCEPT for whoredom.
Just as it has always been.


next.........

 

[follower of Christ]

Again, the jews understood what was being said.

yeah they did.......NO MORE FRIVOLOUS DIVORCE !!!

If you take the betrothal exception to mean something else, how do you explain Mk 10:11-12, Lk, 16:18- that simply states- 'whosoever puts away his wife commits adultry...' Never is the 'except clause' included or implied.

I see you havent listened to a single thing that has been said.

How do YOU explain the differing accounts of the empty tomb?
Which one is right?

Matthew written to Jews, do the differences matter

Some state that because Matt. was written to Jews that the difference of the exception clause (Matthew 19:9 and 5:32...the part that says ‘’except for fornication†(porneia) applied only to the Jews because of their betrothal customs.
The assertion that because the exception clause is present in Matthew, yet not in Mark that it is only for Jews is absurdity.
Lets look at the example of the empty tomb and see the great differences there.

Mat 28:2-6 And behold, a great earthquake occurred; for an angel of the Lord, having come down out of heaven, came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat on it. (3) And His appearance was like lightning, and his clothing as white as snow. (4) And the guards were shaken for fear of him, and became like dead men. (5) But the angel answered and said to the women, "Do not be afraid, for I know that you seek Jesus who was crucified. (6) He is not here! For He is risen, just as He said. Come; see the place where the Lord was lying.

Luk 24:2-9 But they found the stone having been rolled away from the tomb. (3) And going in they did not find the body of the Lord Jesus. (4) And it happened, as they were greatly perplexed about this, that behold, two men stood by them in dazzling apparel. (5) Then, as they became afraid and bowed their faces to the ground, they said to them, "Why do you seek the living among the dead? (6) He is not here, but is risen! Remember how He spoke to you when He was still in Galilee, (7) saying, 'The Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and on the third day rise again.' " (8) And they remembered His words. (9) And returning from the tomb, they reported all these things to the eleven and to all the rest.

Mar 16:5-8 And entering into the tomb, they saw a young man sitting on the right clothed with a white robe, and they were alarmed. (6) But he said to them, "Do not be alarmed. You are seeking Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has arisen! He is not here! See the place where they put Him. (7) But go, say to His disciples, and Peter, that He is going before you into Galilee; there you shall see Him, just as He said to you." (8) And going out, they fled from the tomb, but trembling and amazement held them; and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid.

and in John, no one is mentioned at all.

Joh 20:1-2 On the first day of the week Mary Magdalene went to the tomb early, while it was still dark, and saw that the stone had been taken away from the tomb. (2) Therefore she ran and came to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple, whom Jesus loved, and said to them, "They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid Him."---


Three different descriptions given of who was there, and Johns account makes no mention at all of anyone.
Does that mean John taught there was no angel present at the tomb to his followers?

So WHICH is right.....Mark to the Gentile, Matthew to the Jews or John showing no one at all?

ALL of them are right, we take the TOGETHER in CONTEXT and find the HARMONY between them.

ITS THE SAME WITH THE EXCEPTION CLAUSE !!!!
Matthew being written to Jews has NO bearing on this matter.
Jesus didnt SAY it was only for Jews and their betrothal year (which is NOT a PREmarital state anyway, ‘’betrothed†was lawfully married. Otherwise Jesus was illegitimate at birth, Mary and Joe han not consummated at that point)

We know this, God gives His law to humanity. He wants all people everywhere to obey Him.
When God distinguishes that a rule is for one group and not the whole, He states it clearly (below about Levitical priests forbidden to take wives ''put away'').

Since Jesus did not specify that this only applied to Jews, there is no reason to think that it did.
Since Jesus also did not specify ''espoused wife'' but clearly the word for ''wife'' was used, He must have been upholding that, as it always has, the sexual sins of the guilty break the conditional covenant of marriage. Jesus states we can put away a wife for this reason alone.

So we know that when some proclaim that Matthew was written to Jews, that it was irrelevant, it was written for the followers of Jesus Christ.
The rules apply evenly to all, the Jews do not receive some special ability to protect themselves from a whoring spouse while the rest of His children are left open to abuse.

It's important to interpret lesser understood scripture by that which is clearly understood. Matthew 19:9 must be looked at this way.

Lesser understood?
By whom?
Do you understand what ''except'' means?
That means that the normal rules apply EXCEPT for.........(fill in the blank)

Moses had given a loose leash for divorce in Deut to protect women.
Jesus reversed that permission tellling the Jews that Moses had given that permission because their hard hearts.
They might even kill a wife to be rid of her....but of course, you know all this and have taken it all into account, Im sure.

Jesus said EXCEPT for whoredom, if you divorce and remarry you commit adultery against your spouse.


And it is important.
Which is why we look even further than you obviously have into the WHOLE BIBLE to see what the context of sexual sin within a marraige has always been.

But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel: Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.

If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel. I

f a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.
(Deu 22:20-24)

death in ALL cases......not "put away" for one and death for the other.

Jesus exception clause fits perfectly with the bible as a whole on sexual sin by a spouse.

The wording shoots holes in your theology as well.
Porneia is ALL inclusive of sexual sin by ANYONE, married or not.

And as I said, put your money where your mouth is, stop telling us the Jews understood what Jesus meatn and PROVE that He was only refering to the betrothal period with HIS words, not yours.

 

[follower of Christ]

It's important to interpret lesser understood scripture by that which is clearly understood.

You mean like your Romans 7:2-3 passage that blatantly defies the very law Deut 24:1-4 you all say binds a woman to her husband till death?

You guys use Romans as some foundation.......a wife is BOUND BY LAW as long as the husband lives.

But that very law has Deut 24.....a PROVISION FOR DIVORCE !!!

So we see that we have to understand your lesser understood Romans passage, along with 1 cor 7:39 with the law they seemingly quote that has Deut 24 which DIDNT require the mans death for him to divorce his wife.


Your passage says

The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord.
(1Co 7:39)

But the LAW says.

When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house. And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife. And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, which took her to be his wife;
(Deu 24:1-3)

Either Paul was a moron concerning the Law OR this isnt speaking of the LAW of Moses, but a ''law'' of the husband.


and Ill be darned, but what does Romans 7 actually state?

Rom 7:2 For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband.
Rom 7:3 So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.

There is not a single passage in the OT that STATES that a woman is bound to her husband till his death.

Paul is refering to a 'law of the husband'' as shown conclusively in Romans there.

This law can be ended if the husband puts her away for a whoredom, a breach of the marriage covenant.

THAT is why Jesus has EXCEPTED for whoredom.
The law of the husband is NOT effective if she is put away for breaking the covenant ! He ends it fully and finally just asa God ended HIS covenant with a whoring nation, spoken of in Zech 11.

So you are RIGHT delicate.
WE MUST take ALL the bible into account to see what your ''lesser'' scripture in Romans 7 and 1 Corin. 7 means so that WE can understand Jesus' exception clause.

 

[Klee shay]

I agree that Jesus has power to forgive sins, and He does. But to say we can go on in the same old sin after expressing remorse is to deny the power of God unto repentance.

Repentance unto what sin, after it is forgiven? What sin exists after our Lord says his blood is pure enough to clean us?

Agree, Jesus forgives. He also supplies power to overcome the sin- to repent. Repentance is defined as, a change of mind, of direction. Again, to go on in sin, is to deny the power of God to STOP the sin.

Again how does one go on in the sin which has been forgiven? The repentence you speak of is that of remaining true to your next marriage.

We are called to be overcomers, where is there any victory in continued sin?

We are living in continued sin as we speak and our Lord is still victorious because we believe he can, and will overcome. The battle is with Christ and the enemy - not us and the enemy.

Actually, we DENY the blood of the Lord, if we refuse His power to overcome sin. According to Hebrews, 'there remains no more sacrifice' .

You say the right things only apply it in the wrong area. There is no more need for sacrifice - it was Christ who was the final offering. We do not deny the blood of Jesus if we accept HIS power to overcome sin. No matter what we do, and Delicate you would have to agree with me that Jesus has pretty much forgiven you your whole run with him, has he not? What forgiveness has he withheld from you, other than what forgiveness you have not asked for?

We stuff up...we make mistakes...Jesus is the peace maker in the wrath we call ourselves. If he did not forgive us, it would not be worth waiting for hell - as our own conscience would doom us to it long before the pit of fire became a reality.

Jesus said, 'If you love me, you will keep my commandments'. We prove our love for the Lord BY OUR OBEDIENCE. Be careful on this one- it is absolute heresy to think we can go on in sin.

Delicate, don't you know that you're more precious than silver, gems and gold to God? Do you think disobedience will stand in His way. What *is* heresy but a word we like to keep other Christians in order with. Heresy doesn't mean diddly squat to the heathen - they're already lost right. So we use it to torment each other with fear of damnation.

See what's happening - the enemy has entered the camp of our Lord. We don't have confidence in his promises any more - we talk about obedience and heresy and salvation all the day long; and yet we forget the very second commandement our Lord gave us. Love eachother as I have loved you. Was it not Christ who walked with the heathen of this world? Was it not Christ who healed the mame (even the dead) and used it as testimony that he had the powers to forgive sins on earth.

The way Jesus loved us was not to give us a stone when we were asking for bread. He gave us the manna of his own flesh; and he asked us to pass it around to those who also needed nourishment. When a believer comes up to me and says - how do I obey Christ - do I give them a stone like the word "heresy" and tell them to find their own nourishment? No, I say here is Christ...read about him...he spoke of the law but he also spoke of forgiveness and turning the other cheek when we have been struck by another. We give our enemies the clothes of our backs if they ask it.

Jesus is not just about the law. Jesus was so much more. He was the law made righteous and fair; so that man would not have to sin any more.

I know I tend to go on, but Christ is such a life force capable of so much good in this world...but we often look to our own understanding of the law to find him. We will only find the law where the law stands. We will find Christ in our faith however, also in our giving, our forgiving and telling the world about his goodness.

 

[Klee shay]

FOC, I have seen and understood your concerns. I have no issue with your reasonings on marriage and divorce. This is an area my Lord has not skilled me in knowing yet. My only wish is to encourage you to use the Holy Spirit while measuring out discernment of these matters.

We all need reminding on occasion that the Holy Spirit is there to assist in unification where division stands. :D

 

[Delicate]

Hi Klee Shay,

Wow- we disagree majorly, me thinks. :wink:

Let me ask you if I may- how do you interpret scripture that teaches that we become slaves to that which we give ourselves to, to obey. If we sin, we are the slave of sin- SIN is our master. If we give ourselves to walk after the Spirit, in obedience- we are the servants of God- God is our master.

Would you really tell Jesus to His face, if He stood in front of you, that you don't need to obey His commands- His blood covers your willful disobedience?

I KNOW and believe with all my heart that God loves me. Of that I have no doubt. Because He has made a real impact on my life, I LOVE HIM-and can't even entertain the thought of willfull disobedience. And I'm the first to admit- I'm still a work in progress.

It's important to remember, though we have a sin nature, we are NEW creations, if we've come to believe in Jesus' redeeming work. Though the curse of death is over our physical bodies because of sin, our SPIRITS are ALIVE unto God. What we could not do before we believed, we CAN do now, as we allow HIM to live HIS life through our NOW ALIVE spirits. ( PTL!) :angel:

 

[Delicate]

Act 21:25 As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from
-things offered to idols,
-and from blood,
-and from strangled,
-and from fornication


Now, was Paul ONLY telling us to stay away from unlawful PREmaritial sex there?
Or was it only Illicit sex in the BETROTHAL year?

____________________________________________________________


To briefly touch on this:


Of course not, Follower! How absurd to twist this to mean that Paul was saying to stay away from illicit sex ONLY in the betrothal period- definately NOT what I'm saying, sir.

Wow- that's an incredibly weak argument there.

Matthew 19:9 again: ...'Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be
for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultry.

Follower, you yourself have stressed the point that the betrothed woman is called a 'wife'. So this seems to be a rather weak argument also.

IMHO

 

[Delicate]

There is not a single passage in the OT that STATES that a woman is bound to her husband till his death.

In light of the fact that JESUS set the standard of permancy of covenant marriage, this really is of no significance...

(Matt. 19:9, Mk 10:11-12, Lk. 16:18)

 

[Klee shay]

Wow- we disagree majorly, me thinks.

And that's okay...I know in Christ we are unified at least. :wink:

Let me ask you if I may- how do you interpret scripture that teaches that we become slaves to that which we give ourselves to, to obey. If we sin, we are the slave of sin- SIN is our master. If we give ourselves to walk after the Spirit, in obedience- we are the servants of God- God is our master.

We are the slave of sin every day of our lives. When we become the servant of our Lord however, we give ourselves over to him rather than the sin. It doesn't mean we stop sinning though. A man without God is a servant of evil, yet a man with God is the servant of our Lord. Does one man sin more than the next when God said that we are all unrighteous? No, even one sin of a saved man is equal to a thousand sins of the unsaved man.

So who are we kidding when we believe we are not a slave to sin? It was for this very reason that Christ had to come. Not to remove sin from this world, but to remove man from it's clutches. We are still capable of sinning but it is the new creation we are in Christ that gives us another choice - to obey Christ.

The problem with some interpretations of what Christ commanded however, is that we look for what we can do to obey. The sinful man, the child of wrath...what can we do to obey - even in our best clothes that we put on for Christ? But we are still born of sin nonetheless; nothing we can do will be righteous, even obedience unto our Lord. That is because the righteous *comes* from Christ. His *love* unifies us with God. Not our obedience or our love from the sinful man.

Would you really tell Jesus to His face, if He stood in front of you, that you don't need to obey His commands- His blood covers your willful disobedience?

Standing before my Lord, what could I hide from him? What could I say in my defence that he didn't already know? There is no escaping the sword of truth which will come from his mouth on the last day. Willful disobedience, what is that? To be disobedient I would have to acknowledge that I am a slave to sin would I not? God is my master even though I wear the clothes of sin - these flithy rags - on the last day Christ will remove them and dress me in new clothes. He will acknowedge my faith that *I knew* I needed a saviour and I acknowleded him.

I will never be righteous before my Lord, but he will be righteous before God his father; and it is his love which will speak on my behalf. The workers of inequity that he will condemn on the last day will be those who did not know him. But I know him and you know him...what wilful disobedience is there that will stop him from knowing us in return? Have we not accepted his sacrifice on the cross as the work of God and a free gift to mankind?

When we deny his sacrifice then we deny our salvation. I deny that I am a slave to sin in Christ but I do not deny that I can stop sinning. And what is a sin when Christ forgives us of it? Mankind will always spit on the covernant's God gave the Jews in one way or another. But it is the spit of Christ that will make the blind see again. We will no longer believe that the law is righteous but that Christ is righteous. He alone.

I KNOW and believe with all my heart that God loves me. Of that I have no doubt. Because He has made a real impact on my life, I LOVE HIM-and can't even entertain the thought of willfull disobedience.

I know you love him and he loves you - that is what is beautiful in the eyes of the Lord. Although you never willfully sin - you sin nonetheless.

Jesus has made a real impact on my life as well - but I guess mine was a different kind of life. I was born into pain. My family had a curse of abuse upon it so there was pain everywhere. I actually prayed to Jesus recently to forgive my mum of everything wrong she ever did in retaliation to the pain she was subjected to. For the one thing she did which should be counted as righteousness was lead me to Christ. Even though she was bruised and battered by the wrath she was born into, and subjected her family to that wrath as well (against her will) she still saw the light and still led her children towards it.

That is what Jesus wanted me to see. So when I see Christians talking about how they aren't showing their obedience to the Lord by obeying his commands today - I always look to their love. Are they loving the Lord? That is all that matters. Jesus didn't say, obey my commands so that you'll prove you love me. He said, if you love me you will obey my commands. There is no time limit on that either. Loving obedience is timeless and allows for sin - lest his sacrifice was wasted.

I do not see sin in loving another man when the first love died (figuratively). Jesus never stopped loving us despite our sin and that is the difference. We say that Jesus never whored around on the church. We say that he never broke his covernant either - therefore we must do the same. Yet it is precisely why Jesus did it right, that we are set free. We are no longer a slave to sin in the sense that we once were.

You will see Jesus telling the Jews how to conduct their maritial affairs according to God's will; but the forgiveness of Christ came after he died. It is the whole story not just the single sums. I do not see a sin in remarriage because that would *then* make us slaves to sin. A man was designed to love a woman, set up home and have a family. God said this was good for man to do. Now we are supposed to deny that good and great gift God gave mankind because we didn't appreciate marriage the first time around? Now we forfeit the goodness God gave man because of our own folly? Where is the forgiveness in that?

A man who made a mistake in his first marriage, repented to Christ for turning his back on what he had, would receive Christ's blessing in a second marriage. Why? Because then that man is *free* to love his second wife and to love Christ. If he is bound to abstain from a loving relationship a second time around - how long do you think that would last? For a woman - sure she might have the love for Christ to abstain for life...but a man? God gave him woman to enjoy his life. God saw Adam was lonely and thus created Eve. You can be sure that if a man felt forced to stray, he would also take his eyes off God to do so.

It is best for a man to love in the institution God created for him - marriage. Jesus instructing the Jews that you cannot just put your wife away to keep your next marriage right in the eyes of the Jewish law - except it be for fornication; was teaching them not to defile what was God's institution for man.

If Jesus denied man that institution - except a man put his wife away for no good reason - he would be spitting on his Father's creation. Man trying to abstain from an institution God built into him to enjoy from the word dot; is being a slave to sin. For a man cannot abstain from it; and when he strays he will sin away from God's institution. He will sleep around and it will not be in the confines of marriage.

Though the curse of death is over our physical bodies because of sin, our SPIRITS are ALIVE unto God. What we could not do before we believed, we CAN do now, as we allow HIM to live HIS life through our NOW ALIVE spirits.

I agree with this but it can go either way. If you believe in obedience to the law you will confine your spirit to only obey. If you believe in Jesus however you will find there is more to him than just obedience. We obey God by enjoying that which he gave man to enjoy - woman in a marriage. Jesus said it was wrong to enjoy a woman in marriage when your heart only lusted after her; and you put away your first love to do so.

Re-marriage isn't something we should all aspire to. A successful first marriage is the best one shuld aim for. When mankind falls from the mark however, which we will, we need redemption. It will not come by denying the gifts given in marriage by God, which he instructed man to enjoy. He did not instruct man to put away his wife however, unless it was for a good reason.

God put the Jews away remember; and he took them back...in the meantime however he remarried the Gentiles.

God had good reason to put the Jews away and remarry don't you think?