# 1 Cor 7:15 "But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bonda



## Dan....

I was reading from Douglas Wilson's "Reforming Marriage", page 136, where he writes:



> ...if he [the unbeliever] decides to desert his spouse, the Christian is not bound. What is more, the Christian is forbidden to fight the divorce. This means that the Christian is free - *free to remarry*, free to stay single, and free to reconcile with his partner (as long as there has not been another marriage between -Deut 24:1-4). Not bound means _not bound_.
> 
> [bold emphasys mine, italic emphasys in original]



I have some questions:

1. If the deserting, unbelieving spouse deserts without filing for a divorce, is the Christian hereby allowed to file for a divorce?

2. Is the believing spouse, as says Wilson, "free to remarry"?

Why, or why not?

In relation to question 1, the WCF says:



> Chap XXIV, sec. 6:
> Although the corruption of man be such as is apt to study arguments unduly to put asunder those whom God hath joined together in marriage: yet, *nothing but adultery, or such willful desertion as can no way be remedied by the church, or civil magistrate, is cause sufficient of dissolving the bond of marriage* :[13] wherein, a public and orderly course of proceeding is to be observed; and the persons concerned in it not left to their own wills, and discretion, in their own case.[14]
> 
> 13. Matt. 19:8-9; I Cor. 7:15; Matt. 19:6
> 14. Deut. 24:1-4



Must the phrase, "dissolving the bond of marriage" be necessarily interpreted as an allowance for the believer to file for divorce?



I hope my questions make sense. At this point I'm having a hard time finding this passage as allowing for the believer to file for divorce, nor allowing the believer to remarry, but am wondering if Wilson's position is common in the reformed community and why.


Thanks.


----------



## pastorway

if the believer is to let the unbeliever go, and the unbeliever does indeed abandon the believer, then I see no reason that the believer cannot initiate the actual divorce as a legal proceeding, since the unbeliever has already sought to dissolve the marriage by his actions. This should not be done quickly or without seeking counsel and help from the church. Reconciliation is the goal, and only when that becomes impossible should divorce be sought.

Therefore, in this case, or any other case, where the marriage has been _dissolved_, then there is nothing to prohibit remarriage in the Lord. A marriage is dissolved by death, or by a legitimate divorce for the cause of adultery or abandonment by an unbeliever.

Phillip


----------



## LadyFlynt

however there are those who hold to a more conservative view...

it says free....free meaning from something...not free to do something.

Instead of free to remarry there are those that hold to "free from the duties of marriage"...ie you don't have to take care of them, have conjugal relations with them, or support them.

We had another thread on this not long ago...in fact someone recently just brought the thread to the surface again...you might want to do a search on divorce and remarriage, that'll bring it up.


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by Dan...._
> I was reading from Douglas Wilson's "Reforming Marriage", page 136, where he writes:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...if he [the unbeliever] decides to desert his spouse, the Christian is not bound. What is more, the Christian is forbidden to fight the divorce. This means that the Christian is free - *free to remarry*, free to stay single, and free to reconcile with his partner (as long as there has not been another marriage between -Deut 24:1-4). Not bound means _not bound_.
> 
> [bold emphasys mine, italic emphasys in original]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have some questions:
> 
> 1. If the deserting, unbelieving spouse deserts without filing for a divorce, is the Christian hereby allowed to file for a divorce?
> 
> 2. Is the believing spouse, as says Wilson, "free to remarry"?
> 
> Why, or why not?
> 
> In relation to question 1, the WCF says:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chap XXIV, sec. 6:
> Although the corruption of man be such as is apt to study arguments unduly to put asunder those whom God hath joined together in marriage: yet, *nothing but adultery, or such willful desertion as can no way be remedied by the church, or civil magistrate, is cause sufficient of dissolving the bond of marriage* :[13] wherein, a public and orderly course of proceeding is to be observed; and the persons concerned in it not left to their own wills, and discretion, in their own case.[14]
> 
> 13. Matt. 19:8-9; I Cor. 7:15; Matt. 19:6
> 14. Deut. 24:1-4
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Must the phrase, "dissolving the bond of marriage" be necessarily interpreted as an allowance for the believer to file for divorce?
> 
> 
> 
> I hope my questions make sense. At this point I'm having a hard time finding this passage as allowing for the believer to file for divorce, nor allowing the believer to remarry, but am wondering if Wilson's position is common in the reformed community and why.
> 
> 
> Thanks.
Click to expand...




> 1. If the deserting, unbelieving spouse deserts without filing for a divorce, is the Christian hereby allowed to file for a divorce?



I would say yes. _Desertion_ implies that the deserter has no intention of coming back; Our legal system warrants that charges be filed for the sake of alimony as well as child support. If the desertee does not repeort it, no monetary relief can be hoped for.



> 2. Is the believing spouse, as says Wilson, "free to remarry"?



Again,I would say yes. Desertion amongst believers is adultery to Gods covenant.


----------



## biblelighthouse

I agree with Colleen. Scripture says nothing about being free to remarry.

[Edited on 7-7-2005 by biblelighthouse]


----------



## pastorway

The Bible uses the same language for widows who are "free" when their spouse dies, and they are EXPECTED to remarry. Why would we say that the same language means something different where there has been a Scripturally legitimate divorce? Divorce dissolves the marriage covenant, just as death does. 

A wife is bound by law as long as her husband lives; but if her husband dies, she is at liberty to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord.

Therefore I desire that the younger widows marry, bear children, manage the house, give no opportunity to the adversary to speak reproachfully. 

1 Cor 7:39; 1 Tim 5:14


----------



## wsw201

> _Originally posted by pastorway_
> The Bible uses the same language for widows who are "free" when their spouse dies, and they are EXPECTED to remarry. Why would we say that the same language means something different where there has been a Scripturally legitimate divorce? Divorce dissolves the marriage covenant, just as death does.
> 
> A wife is bound by law as long as her husband lives; but if her husband dies, she is at liberty to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord.
> 
> Therefore I desire that the younger widows marry, bear children, manage the house, give no opportunity to the adversary to speak reproachfully.
> 
> 1 Cor 7:39; 1 Tim 5:14


----------



## LadyFlynt

Because there is scripture that specifically comments on divorcees and scripture that separately comments on widows. Widows are to remarry...for divorcees to remarry or anyone to marry one is an act of adultery. 

Romans 7: 2-3
Matthew 5: 32
Mark 10:11
Luke 16:18
Jeremiah 3:1

Don't know why this is so difficult to understand...maybe due to the hardness of our hearts?

BTW, I have heard testimonies of ppl who were deserted by a spouse, stayed single, prayed for their spouse...and later, sometimes years later, the errant spouse returned...many times changed and to follow in the ways of the Lord.

Also, Pastor Way, you say "where there is scripturally legitimate divorce"...you know that there are two views on what is legit and what is not. Adultery and fornication...only for fornication is there legitimacy...an understanding of betrothal and marriage is neccessary to understand this. Also do a word study...you will note that in passages relating to this that fornication and adultery are used in the same passage to denote two different acts...therefore the usual rebuttal of fornication meaning adultery is debunk.


----------



## biblelighthouse

Also, I don't know why this passage doesn't get more noteriety:

". . . the wife should not separate from her husband, but if she does, *let her remain single or else be reconciled* to her husband. . . " (1 Cor. 7:10-11)


Even if a person does seperate from his/her spouse, _regardless of the reason_, that person has *only two options*, according to Scripture:

1) "remain single"

2) "be reconciled"


Notice that "remarry" is NOT one of the options.




[Edited on 7-7-2005 by biblelighthouse]


----------



## Scott Bushey

Mat 19:9 And I say to you, Whoever shall put away his wife, if not for fornication, and shall marry another, that one commits adultery. And the one who marries her who was put away commits adultery. 

One whom puts away his wife _except for fornication_ and remarry's, commits adultery. 

One whom does put his wife away _for fornication_ and remarry's, does not commit adultery.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

I've done my word study, especially in light of elders.

http://www.apuritansmind.com/Pastoral/McMahonElderAndDivorce.htm

1 Corinthians 7:10-11 Now to the married I command, yet not I but the Lord: A wife is not to depart from her husband. 11 But even if she does depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband. And a husband is not to divorce his wife.

There is no "regardless of the reason" stated here. Reasons come after. For Christian households this should remain true. For a Christian, a wife is not to depart. If she does depart (which she is not suppose to) she has to remain umarried, or be reconciled. (Note "she"). A husband is not to divorce his wife. Christian couple have no reason, whatsoever to divorce.

When we get into Christian and non-Christians, then problems arise. That is the rest of the Corinthian passage. That revolves around the stated means of adultery and/or dessertion.

In those cases, we are free. Free to stay single. Free to remarry. That would depend on whether God gifts us with the ability to be celibate. If we were already married, maybe we don't have that gift. Maybe God will give that to us later. Maybe not. Prudence ensues.

Jesus' exception is very poignant:

Matthew 19:9 "And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, *and marries another*, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery." 

The exception, as Paul continues in in dessertion, is based on remarriage. I'm not sure how that is being missed. Maybe its the hardness of our hearts? 

As for our word study: in this passage, both are complimentary, and betrothal has nothing to do with it.

moica,w moichao {moy-khah'-o} 
Meaning: 1) to have unlawful intercourse with another's wife, to commit adultery with 

pornei,a porneia {por-ni'-ah} 
Meaning: 1) illicit sexual intercourse 1a) adultery, fornication, homosexuality, lesbianism, intercourse with animals etc. 1b) sexual intercourse with close relatives; Lev. 18 1c) sexual intercourse with a divorced man or woman; Mk. 10:11,12 2) metaph. the worship of idols 2a) of the defilement of idolatry, as incurred by eating the sacrifices offered to idols 

That about covers it all. Therefore in these days the laws that were made against adulterers were not regarded: for they would have no need of divorce, if the marriage had been severed by punishment of death.



[Edited on 7-8-2005 by webmaster]


----------



## Dan....

Thanks for the input.

I find myself half way between the ends here...
When it comes to 1 Cor 7, Colleen and Joseph have a point. Nothing is said of remarriage.

When it comes to Matt 19, Scott, Matthew, Pastor Way & co. have a point, remarriage is not adultery if divorce is for fornication.





> Mat 19:9 And I say to you, Whoever shall put away his wife, if not for fornication, and shall marry another, that one commits adultery. And the one who marries her who was put away commits adultery.
> 
> One whom puts away his wife except for fornication and remarry's, commits adultery.
> 
> One whom does put his wife away for fornication and remarry's, does not commit adultery.



Let me add one more line to Scott Bushey's:

_One who puts away his wife *for desertion* and remarries, commits adultery. _

Desertion is not fornication; hence, per Matt 19:9, the believing spouse who divorces a deserter and marries again commits adultery. Jesus did not include desertion with fornication.



I have a question for Colleen: 
Are there any resources readily available that developes the distinction between betrothal and marriage in the 1st century culture?

[Edited on 7-8-2005 by Dan....]


----------



## LadyFlynt

Start with scripture and Jewish traditions.

The case with Mary and Joseph...they were betrothed...yet he would have had to divorce her to break that covenant. Betrothal was considered binding.


The point that Scott did not make and that I believe Matt pointed out only incompletely (sorry, Matt...really, I truely mean not disrespect...just in view of what others have said, yours doesn't answer a certain passage, which I will mention below).

What is "fornication"? If fornication includes adultery then why is there a passage of scripture that uses the terms fornication AND adultery within the same sentence. Webster's 1828 states that fornication as used in the KJV is sexual intercourse/immorality BEFORE marriage. This is in contrast to the term adultery which is sexual intercourse/immorality with someone other than your spouse. The verse in question does not state porneia and porneia I believe as this would be redundant....therefore the use of fornication is meant to mean something OTHER than adultery. To be consistent through scripture...would this not hold to the other verses...therefore FORNICATION as per the 1828 presumption, would be the ONLY reason for divorce (as per also Joseph's predictament)? Also, if dealing with history, et al...in MOST cases of adultery through the ages ppl were not divorced. However, fornication (immorality before marriage) was almost always a sure breaker. Were not the sheets checked for this reason? This was the one time the spouse could back out. If he CHOSE to stay in afterwards then he was stuck for life.

Matt, if you could confront that passage in another manner, I would be willing to listen. My experience so far from those who disagree with it has been that they talk around it.


----------



## LadyFlynt

I will admit...and I had a PCA pastor tell me that I was within the bounds of orthodoxy on this...that this is the one area that I disagree with what I believe is the reformers' stand on this (possibly because the RC had already caved on this issue?). Therefore, in all honesty...the only sources I would be able to give that I am aware of (there actually may be some out there--hey, I didn't even know that Whitfield was a Calvinist!) are armenian sources.

Sorry, Dan...I will admit to my failing of being only newly reformed within that past year and a half.


----------



## LadyFlynt

> _Originally posted by webmaster_
> Matthew 19:9 "And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, *and marries another*, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery."
> 
> The exception, as Paul continues in in dessertion, is based on remarriage. I'm not sure how that is being missed. Maybe its the hardness of our hearts?
> 
> [Edited on 7-8-2005 by webmaster]



I think I'm missing something here also, Matt. Where is desertion mentioned here making it permissable to remarry? It states that the spouse remarries...but nothing of the spouse that he left. Should we not go back to the passage where the spouse is left and should either remain single or reconciled (in this case not reconciled as due to impossibilty given the remarriage on his part...but this still leaves the other option...singleness)?


----------



## wsw201

> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by webmaster_
> Matthew 19:9 "And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, *and marries another*, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery."
> 
> The exception, as Paul continues in in dessertion, is based on remarriage. I'm not sure how that is being missed. Maybe its the hardness of our hearts?
> 
> [Edited on 7-8-2005 by webmaster]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think I'm missing something here also, Matt. Where is desertion mentioned here making it permissable to remarry? It states that the spouse remarries...but nothing of the spouse that he left. Should we not go back to the passage where the spouse is left and should either remain single or reconciled (in this case not reconciled as due to impossibilty given the remarriage on his part...but this still leaves the other option...singleness)?
Click to expand...


Colleen,

You are missing something here. What we are attempting to convey is the principals surrounding biblical divorce and remarriage. In looking at the passages that you mentioned in a previous post, it appears you are taking them out of context. For instance the Rom 7 verses need to be read within the context of Paul's discourse on freedom from the power of the law. This is not a discourse on marriage and divorce. No one is arguing that one can leave their spouse and marry some one else. Scripture is quite clear on this point as has been noted with the reference to 1 Cor 7:10-11. 

But the issue concerns abandonment or dissertion by an *unbelieving spouse*. 1 Cor 7:12-16 specifically deals with this issue. If the unbeliever wishes to leave the marriage they can. As Paul notes in verse 15 the believing spouse is not "under bondage" regarding the marriage. Therefore, they have biblical grounds for a divorce. Now the Christian spouse can either attempt reconciliation or remain single, but they are not obligated to. As Paul notes in verse 9 it is better to marry than to burn so remarriage is also an option.

But a more interesting twist to the issue of dissertion is when it happens in a marriage between two Christians (and this does happen more often than not considering the divorce rate within the Church compared to the secular world). For example, a spouse is fed up and wants to leave their spouse and in fact moves out. The offended spouse takes the issue to the Church. The spouse that has left refuses to repent and be reconciled to their spouse. 

Because of the person's unrepentance, the Church is forced to excommunicate the offending spouse. Per Matthew 18:17, the excommunicated person is to be to the Church as an unbeliever. Since the offending person is now considered an unbeliever, does the offended spouse have the biblical grounds, based on dissertion, to get a divorce?


----------



## LadyFlynt

Pesonally...just my thoughts here...no. To me, marriage is marriage...whether a spouse is a believer or unbeliever. Here's why (due to all the excuses I've heard over the years).

"Well, I was qualified...he was a christian!"
okay, I can marry whomever until I decide to really remain married, then I'll marry a christian (I know this all sounds hokey...but you have to get ridiculous when others get ridiculous)
or maybe two unbelievers get married and it's okay now to remarry becaus you became a christian and he supposedly didn't....the list could go on.

The reason it's ridiculous to qualifiy it differently for the believer than the unbeliever is that one person cannot honestly state that the other person ISN'T elect. In fact, in many cases I've questioned the salvation of the one stating it. Now, I know this doesn't have anything to do with the desetion part...but more on the differing between persons. 

Since I don't believe it's one rule of marraige for believers and another rule for unbelievers...I don't believe it qualifies remarriage.

Could you go more into the "context" because I wasn't aware that I was taking anything out of context and honestly don't see how it would change that particular statement....


The testamonies I've heard...of those that have done what you have called "the christian thing to do" is that their spouses have come back because they 1)won them by their chaste conduct 2)prayed

A good book of these testamonies is Daughters of Sarah.


----------



## biblelighthouse

> _Originally posted by webmaster_
> 
> Jesus' exception is very poignant:
> 
> Matthew 19:9 "And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, *and marries another*, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery."
> 
> The exception, as Paul continues in in dessertion, is based on remarriage. I'm not sure how that is being missed. Maybe its the hardness of our hearts?



I think the *placement* of the exception clause is critically important here. The phrase "except for sexual immorality" does not occur after the phrase about remarriage, but before it. If it was meant to modify both the divorce phrase and the remarriage phrase, it could have been placed after both. It was placed *only* after the divorce phrase, because that is the only phrase it modifies.

It is also important to note the next phrase, "whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery". Notice that there is *no exception* given here. This reinforces what I said above . . . the exception only applies to the divorce, not to the remarriage.

If I marry a divorced woman, _regardless_ of why she was divorced, then I am guilty of committing adultery.


I admit my argument above is only brief . . . but for more exegetical detail on the subject, have you read the book on divorce by Wenham and Heth? I recommend it.


----------



## wsw201

> Pesonally...just my thoughts here...no. To me, marriage is marriage...whether a spouse is a believer or unbeliever. Here's why (due to all the excuses I've heard over the years).
> 
> "Well, I was qualified...he was a christian!"
> okay, I can marry whomever until I decide to really remain married, then I'll marry a christian (I know this all sounds hokey...but you have to get ridiculous when others get ridiculous)
> or maybe two unbelievers get married and it's okay now to remarry becaus you became a christian and he supposedly didn't....the list could go on.
> 
> The reason it's ridiculous to qualifiy it differently for the believer than the unbeliever is that one person cannot honestly state that the other person ISN'T elect. In fact, in many cases I've questioned the salvation of the one stating it. Now, I know this doesn't have anything to do with the desetion part...but more on the differing between persons.



I don't think anyone would disagree that "marriage is marriage" no matter who is getting married. And the fact that folks can come up with excuses to justify what they do is nothing new. Consider Rom 1:18-32. But rather than considering the rationalization of sinners, each Christian and the Church should be asking "what does Scripture say". Scripture outlines the grounds for a divorce and rationalizations as you have mentioned are not in the ball park.

But there are differences regarding marriage for believers and unbelievers. For instance Christians are not to be "unequally yoked" to an unbeliever (2 Cor 6). This prohibition would not apply to unbelievers who marry other unbelievers.




> Could you go more into the "context" because I wasn't aware that I was taking anything out of context and honestly don't see how it would change that particular statement....



In the passage in Rom 7 (you really need to start in Rom 6) Paul is using the analogy of marriage to point out that just as a spouse is released from the power of the law if the other spouse dies, so we are released from the power of the law through the body of Christ (Rom 7:4-7). His point in using marriage goes to the issue of the binding nature of marriage per the law and the binding nature of the law to all men who are outside of Christ. For all men outside of Christ are subject to the law and will be judged accordingly. If you were to look at Rom 7:1-3 by itself you could easily come to the conclusion that divorce is not allowed at all and a couple are bound together until one of them dies. But we know that is not the case.




> The testamonies I've heard...of those that have done what you have called "the christian thing to do" is that their spouses have come back because they 1)won them by their chaste conduct 2)prayed



It is certainly preferrable that when problems arise in a marriage that there be reconciliation, however it comes about. But the question is, is a spouse "obligated" to remain single or stay married if there are biblical grounds for divorce? Scripture says no.


----------



## Dan....

Joseph,

I am having a hard time following you.

Are you saying that the one who divorces for fornication in his/her spouse cannot remarry?

The statement is a "both and" statement. Both must be "yes" for the statement to be true. 

I.e.:

Divorces his wife (without fornication) = yes
marries another = yes
Then commits adultery =true.

In the case in which there was fornication:
Divorces his wife (without fornication) = no
marries another = yes
Then commits adultery = false.

Certainly the exception clause " except for fornication" modifies the first condition only. Who is saying that it modifies more than the first condition?


[Edited on 7-8-2005 by Dan....]


----------



## biblelighthouse

> _Originally posted by Dan...._
> Are you saying that the one who divorces for fornication in his/her spouse cannot remarry?



Yes, that is what I believe Scripture is saying.



> _Originally posted by Dan...._
> Certainly the exception clause " except for fornication" modifies the first condition only. Who is saying that it modifies more than the first condition?



Anyone who tries to use this passage to support remarriage has to use the exception to modify both conditions. But if it only modifies the first condition, then it has no bearing on the question of remarriage.


----------



## kevin.carroll

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> I agree with Colleen. Scripture says nothing about being free to remarry.
> 
> [Edited on 7-7-2005 by biblelighthouse]



I think you guys are ignoring the plain meaning of the passage and the Standard's treatment of it, referenced above (24.5-6). If the bond of marriage is dissolved, as if the offending pary were dead, then the believer is free to remarry.

I appreciate your high view of the sanctity of marriage, but one must also acknowledge that the Bible allows for remarriage.


----------



## kevin.carroll

> _Originally posted by Dan...._
> Thanks for the input.
> 
> I find myself half way between the ends here...
> When it comes to 1 Cor 7, Colleen and Joseph have a point. Nothing is said of remarriage.
> 
> When it comes to Matt 19, Scott, Matthew, Pastor Way & co. have a point, remarriage is not adultery if divorce is for fornication.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mat 19:9 And I say to you, Whoever shall put away his wife, if not for fornication, and shall marry another, that one commits adultery. And the one who marries her who was put away commits adultery.
> 
> One whom puts away his wife except for fornication and remarry's, commits adultery.
> 
> One whom does put his wife away for fornication and remarry's, does not commit adultery.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me add one more line to Scott Bushey's:
> 
> _One who puts away his wife *for desertion* and remarries, commits adultery. _
> 
> Desertion is not fornication; hence, per Matt 19:9, the believing spouse who divorces a deserter and marries again commits adultery. Jesus did not include desertion with fornication.
> 
> 
> 
> I have a question for Colleen:
> Are there any resources readily available that developes the distinction between betrothal and marriage in the 1st century culture?
> 
> [Edited on 7-8-2005 by Dan....]
Click to expand...


So, is it your position that Paul was wrong? I have certain theological problems with that. Or is it your position that Divines were wrong? Just curious.


----------



## biblelighthouse

> _Originally posted by kevin.carroll_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> I agree with Colleen. Scripture says nothing about being free to remarry.
> 
> [Edited on 7-7-2005 by biblelighthouse]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you guys are ignoring the plain meaning of the passage and the Standard's treatment of it, referenced above (24.5-6). If the bond of marriage is dissolved, as if the offending pary were dead, then the believer is free to remarry.
> 
> I appreciate your high view of the sanctity of marriage, but one must also acknowledge that the Bible allows for remarriage.
Click to expand...



I don't agree that is the "plain" meaning of the passage. 

Who gets to decide which passages are "plain" and which ones aren't? Who gets to decide what the "plain meaning" of any given passage is?

I do not acknowledge that the Bible allows for remarriage. I believe the Bible prohibits it. Scripture says that if I marry a divorced woman, then I am guilty of adultery. Period. 

There is no passage that says, "but it's not adultery if she's divorced for the right reason". . .


----------



## kevin.carroll

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by kevin.carroll_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> I agree with Colleen. Scripture says nothing about being free to remarry.
> 
> [Edited on 7-7-2005 by biblelighthouse]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you guys are ignoring the plain meaning of the passage and the Standard's treatment of it, referenced above (24.5-6). If the bond of marriage is dissolved, as if the offending pary were dead, then the believer is free to remarry.
> 
> I appreciate your high view of the sanctity of marriage, but one must also acknowledge that the Bible allows for remarriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I don't agree that is the "plain" meaning of the passage.
> 
> Who gets to decide which passages are "plain" and which ones aren't? Who gets to decide what the "plain meaning" of any given passage is?
> 
> I do not acknowledge that the Bible allows for remarriage. I believe the Bible prohibits it. Scripture says that if I marry a divorced woman, then I am guilty of adultery. Period.
> 
> There is no passage that says, "but it's not adultery if she's divorced for the right reason". . .
Click to expand...


That's because your presupposition is coloring your exegesis. You've already decided that Jesus' exception in Mat. 19 is no exception, so you ignore it by trying grammatical acrobatics to explain it away.

Again, I appreciate your high view of marriage...but you are simply wrong.


----------



## Scott Bushey

http://www.the-highway.com/divorce_Murray.html


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

I agree with the Westminster Confession, Chap. 24:



> V. Adultery or fornication committed after a contract, being detected before marriage, giveth just occasion to the innocent party to dissolve that contract.(l) In the case of adultery after marriage, it is lawful for the innocent party to sue out a divorce: (m) and, after the divorce, to marry another, as if the offending party were dead.(n)
> 
> (l) Matt. 1:18, 19, 20.
> (m) Matt. 5:31, 32.
> (n) Matt. 19:9; Rom. 7:2, 3.


----------



## biblelighthouse

It's one thing for a person to study a view, consider it, and then to disagree with it.

But it appears to me that all of you are dismissing my arguments out of hand, and I think that is irresponsible.

Have any of you even taken the time to read books that disagree with you? . . . like the one by Wenham and Heth, for instance?

Or is the issue not important enough to you to consider all scholarly Christian viewpoints before making a decision?

I believe my view has been the majority view throughout church history prior to the reformation . . . especially consider the early church fathers!

The idea that remarriage is OK is a very new teaching, only about 500 years old, as far as I know. That alone should make us pause to think.

[Edited on 7-8-2005 by biblelighthouse]


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> http://www.the-highway.com/divorce_Murray.html


----------



## Dan....

> _Originally posted by kevin.carroll_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Dan...._
> Thanks for the input.
> 
> I find myself half way between the ends here...
> When it comes to 1 Cor 7, Colleen and Joseph have a point. Nothing is said of remarriage.
> 
> When it comes to Matt 19, Scott, Matthew, Pastor Way & co. have a point, remarriage is not adultery if divorce is for fornication.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mat 19:9 And I say to you, Whoever shall put away his wife, if not for fornication, and shall marry another, that one commits adultery. And the one who marries her who was put away commits adultery.
> 
> One whom puts away his wife except for fornication and remarry's, commits adultery.
> 
> One whom does put his wife away for fornication and remarry's, does not commit adultery.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me add one more line to Scott Bushey's:
> 
> _One who puts away his wife *for desertion* and remarries, commits adultery. _
> 
> Desertion is not fornication; hence, per Matt 19:9, the believing spouse who divorces a deserter and marries again commits adultery. Jesus did not include desertion with fornication.
> 
> 
> 
> I have a question for Colleen:
> Are there any resources readily available that developes the distinction between betrothal and marriage in the 1st century culture?
> 
> [Edited on 7-8-2005 by Dan....]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, is it your position that Paul was wrong? I have certain theological problems with that. Or is it your position that Divines were wrong? Just curious.
Click to expand...


What kind of a question is that? Is this some attempt to just ruffle feathers? Do you think any Christian is going to claim that Paul was wrong??? I can as easily invert the question on you:

_So, is it your position that Jesus Christ was wrong? I have certain theological problems with that._

Show me where the apostle says that it is okay for the believer who is deserted to remarry. I missed that verse.


----------



## biblelighthouse

> _Originally posted by Dan...._
> 
> What kind of a question is that? Is this some attempt to just ruffle feathers? Do you think any Christian is going to claim that Paul was wrong??? I can as easily invert the question on you:
> 
> _So, is it your position that Jesus Christ was wrong? I have certain theological problems with that._
> 
> Show me where the apostle says that it is okay for the believer who is deserted to remarry. I missed that verse.


----------



## Dan....

> Anyone who tries to use this passage to support remarriage has to use the exception to modify both conditions. But if it only modifies the first condition, then it has no bearing on the question of remarriage.



I must be missing something.

First, if the exception clause did modify the second condition, then the second condition would be, "and shall marry another [except the remarriage be for fornication]".... how can the remarriage be for fornication?

Second, what is wrong with this logic:

Divorces his wife (without fornication) = yes
*and*
marries another = yes
Then commits adultery =true.

In the case in which there was fornication:
Divorces his wife (without fornication) = no
*and*
marries another = yes
Then commits adultery = false.

Notice that the exception clause modifies only the first condition only.

The only way I can see your position is if the conditions were either/or rather than "and".

Am I making sense?


[Edited on 7-8-2005 by Dan....]


----------



## wsw201

> Show me where the apostle says that it is okay for the believer who is deserted to remarry. I missed that verse.



Its right next to the one that says you can baptize babies. 

If you are looking for chapter and verse, you are not going to find it. Take another look at 1 Cor 7 again. Paul makes it crystal clear that marriage is better than burning. Since desertion is biblical grounds for divorce just like adultery and remarriage is allowed for adultery it follows that remarriage is allowed for desertion.


----------



## street preacher

> _Originally posted by wsw201_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Could you go more into the "context" because I wasn't aware that I was taking anything out of context and honestly don't see how it would change that particular statement....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the passage in Rom 7 (you really need to start in Rom 6) Paul is using the analogy of marriage to point out that just as a spouse is released from the power of the law if the other spouse dies, so we are released from the power of the law through the body of Christ (Rom 7:4-7). His point in using marriage goes to the issue of the binding nature of marriage per the law and the binding nature of the law to all men who are outside of Christ. For all men outside of Christ are subject to the law and will be judged accordingly. If you were to look at Rom 7:1-3 by itself you could easily come to the conclusion that divorce is not allowed at all and a couple are bound together until one of them dies. But we know that is not the case.
Click to expand...


no wonder you thought it was out of context....we're discussing 1 Cor. not Romans.


> The testamonies I've heard...of those that have done what you have called "the christian thing to do" is that their spouses have come back because they 1)won them by their chaste conduct 2)prayed
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is certainly preferrable that when problems arise in a marriage that there be reconciliation, however it comes about. But the question is, is a spouse "obligated" to remain single or stay married if there are biblical grounds for divorce? Scripture says no.
Click to expand...


sorry, don't see it. I see that we are free from the bondage (duties) of marriage as I stated above...but given all the other verses and examples, yes one should stay single until and if reconciled.

OOOPS! (this is colleen...didn't realize hubby was still logged in...hazzards of sharing a computer!)

[Edited on 7-8-2005 by street preacher]


----------



## LadyFlynt

> _Originally posted by kevin.carroll_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> I agree with Colleen. Scripture says nothing about being free to remarry.
> 
> [Edited on 7-7-2005 by biblelighthouse]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you guys are ignoring the plain meaning of the passage and the Standard's treatment of it, referenced above (24.5-6). If the bond of marriage is dissolved, as if the offending pary were dead, then the believer is free to remarry.
> 
> I appreciate your high view of the sanctity of marriage, but one must also acknowledge that the Bible allows for remarriage.
Click to expand...


Guess it comes down to your last statement being the question...
You say it does...I say it doesn't
No where does it say that being release from bondage equates to being widowed.


----------



## LadyFlynt

> _Originally posted by wsw201_
> 
> 
> 
> Show me where the apostle says that it is okay for the believer who is deserted to remarry. I missed that verse.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its right next to the one that says you can baptize babies.
> 
> If you are looking for chapter and verse, you are not going to find it. Take another look at 1 Cor 7 again. Paul makes it crystal clear that marriage is better than burning. Since desertion is biblical grounds for divorce just like adultery and remarriage is allowed for adultery it follows that remarriage is allowed for desertion.
Click to expand...


1) household baptism IS mentioned

2) you are really stretching to take the "rether than burn passage" meant for a single person...not a divorced one...and turn it into an exception clause for remarriage. Maybe in your logic it IS better to remarry than to burn...but that still does not make the remarriage right.


----------



## LadyFlynt

okay, I think I've caught up now...


----------



## biblelighthouse

> _Originally posted by wsw201_
> 
> Paul makes it crystal clear that marriage is better than burning.




In context, I believe that statement is only directed to widowers and widows, not the single or divorced.


----------



## wsw201

> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by wsw201_
> 
> 
> 
> Show me where the apostle says that it is okay for the believer who is deserted to remarry. I missed that verse.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its right next to the one that says you can baptize babies.
> 
> If you are looking for chapter and verse, you are not going to find it. Take another look at 1 Cor 7 again. Paul makes it crystal clear that marriage is better than burning. Since desertion is biblical grounds for divorce just like adultery and remarriage is allowed for adultery it follows that remarriage is allowed for desertion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1) household baptism IS mentioned
> 
> 2) you are really stretching to take the "rether than burn passage" meant for a single person...not a divorced one...and turn it into an exception clause for remarriage. Maybe in your logic it IS better to remarry than to burn...but that still does not make the remarriage right.
Click to expand...


Colleen,

You missed the point. There is no specific chapter and verse for baptizing babies just as there is no specific chapter and verse on re-marriage. Regarding the "household Baptisms" we "assume" that if infants were apart of the household they were also baptized. There is no direct statement in Scripture saying that infants were actually apart of the household.

A divorced person is single! They are now *unmarried*. The marriage is dissolved by adultery or desertion. And its not just my logic its Pauls!

Take a hard look at 1 Cor 7:1-16:




> 1 Now concerning the things of which you wrote to me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. 2 Nevertheless, because of sexual immorality, let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband. 3 Let the husband render to his wife the affection due her, and likewise also the wife to her husband. 4 The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. And likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. 5 Do not deprive one another except with consent for a time, that you may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again so that Satan does not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. 6 But I say this as a concession, not as a commandment. 7 For I wish that all men were even as I myself. But each one has his own gift from God, one in this manner and another in that. *8 But I say to the unmarried and to the widows: It is good for them if they remain even as I am; 9 but if they cannot exercise self-control, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion. *
> 10 Now to the married I command, yet not I but the Lord: A wife is not to depart from her husband. 11 But even if she does depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband. And a husband is not to divorce his wife. 12 But to the rest I, not the Lord, say: If any brother has a wife who does not believe, and she is willing to live with him, let him not divorce her. 13 And a woman who has a husband who does not believe, if he is willing to live with her, let her not divorce him. 14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband; otherwise your children would be unclean, but now they are holy. 15 But if the unbeliever departs, let him depart; a brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases. But God has called us to peace. 16 For how do you know, O wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, O husband, whether you will save your wife?



Also, the issue of context has to do with the verses you sited back on page 1.

[Edited on 7/8/2005 by wsw201]


----------



## biblelighthouse

Wayne, 

You are the one completely missing the point, and failing to do your exegesis.

The word "unmarried" in this passage is a term for "widowers" . . . men whose wives had *died*. 

The term "unmarried" is used because there was no Greek term for "widower". But the parallellism is unmistakable; that's why Paul speaks of the "unmarried" (men) and "widows" (women) in this verse.

If this were not the case, then Paul simply could have said "unmarried", which according to *your* usage, would include the widows. If "unmarried" simply means "not married", then the addition of the word "widows" was redundant and unncessesary.

Paul is ONLY talking about widowers and widows here.





. . . by the way, this also means that the "it is better to marry than to burn" passage was not written to young single adults who have never been married. A 19 year old has no business hurrying to get married because "it is better to marry than to burn".

But that is another discussion for another thread. . . .



[Edited on 7-8-2005 by biblelighthouse]


----------



## LadyFlynt

Household-anyone within the relational structure of the home...regardless of age...therefore if there were children and infants, they would be baptized (yes, Pastor Way, I've joined my hubby on the paedo side)
Therefore you can see by the logic of the terminology that infants ARE included.

I've noticed in scripture that when one is divorced that scripture callsl them such...not single or widowed...therefore it is a presumption that single includes the divorced.

[Edited on 7-8-2005 by LadyFlynt]


----------



## kevin.carroll

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> It's one thing for a person to study a view, consider it, and then to disagree with it.
> 
> But it appears to me that all of you are dismissing my arguments out of hand, and I think that is irresponsible.
> 
> Have any of you even taken the time to read books that disagree with you? . . . like the one by Wenham and Heth, for instance?
> 
> Or is the issue not important enough to you to consider all scholarly Christian viewpoints before making a decision?
> 
> I believe my view has been the majority view throughout church history prior to the reformation . . . especially consider the early church fathers!
> 
> The idea that remarriage is OK is a very new teaching, only about 500 years old, as far as I know. That alone should make us pause to think.
> 
> [Edited on 7-8-2005 by biblelighthouse]



Guilty as charged. I was dismissive, not because I do not value your remarks, but because I was short on time. I should have waited until I had more (I have no idea when THAT will ever be!) before I dove in.

I do think, however, your rejoinder was a little condescending. Of course I and others have read on the subject. But again, I should have waited until I could write more.


----------



## kevin.carroll

> _Originally posted by Dan....[/i
> 
> What kind of a question is that? Is this some attempt to just ruffle feathers? Do you think any Christian is going to claim that Paul was wrong??? I can as easily invert the question on you:
> 
> So, is it your position that Jesus Christ was wrong? I have certain theological problems with that.
> 
> Show me where the apostle says that it is okay for the believer who is deserted to remarry. I missed that verse. _


_

Of course not. But the inversion of my question misses the point. Paul pointedly says that his commands in 1 Cor. 6 and 7 are complementary to the Lord's. It seems that some are arguing as if Paul never spoke on the subject.

It also appears to me that the disagreement centers on what Paul meant when he said that the abandoned believer was "free." Colleen's position doesn't hold water. The apostle would not need to make a pronouncement that the abandoned believer no longer needed to care for or have conjugal relations. That is obvious, since one cannot do those things with someone who is no longer there. WCF 24.5 clearly states that adultery outside of marriage leaves the offended party free to remarry (citing Matt. 19:6). 24.6 acknowledges that the bond of marriage is dissolved in dessertion too. If the bond no longer exists, then remarriage is permitted. The thing that makes adultery, adultery is that the marriage bond is violated. Such is not the case. So as I see it, the burden of proof lies with you to:

1. Come up with a valid reason to dismiss the exception clause in Mat. 19.

2. Come up with a valid reason to dismiss Paul on the subject.

3. Come up with a valid reason to dismiss the Standards on the subject.

Again, my apologies if my previous remarks came across poorly. I have a comission coming from presbytery tonight and I am highly distracted._


----------



## LadyFlynt

thought ya'll might be interested...this comes from the statement on the issue from Bethlehem Baptist Church where John Piper pastors.
You can read the whole of it here: http://www.desiringgod.org/library/topics/divorce_remarriage/div_rem_bbc.html

This contemporary lack of agreement among evangelical Christians also reflects historic positions that have been taken for centuries. The historic protestant position that John Murray was defending was enshrined in the Westminster Confession of 1647. The pertinent part reads like this:

In case of adultery after marriage, it is lawful for the innocent party to sue out a divorce, and after the divorce to marry another, as if the offending party were dead. (Article 24, paragraph 5) [2]

Interestingly, when the Baptists of England adapted the Westminster Confession to their own use in the Second London Confession of 1689 this paragraph permitting divorce and remarriage was deleted from the section on marriage. [3]

Even more startling and convicting is the following fact: "In the first five centuries (among Christians) all Greek writers and all Latin writers except one agree that remarriage following divorce for any reason is adulterous. The marriage bond was seen to unite both parties until the death of one of them." [4]

This is all the more startling in view of the fact that both the Jewish and Roman culture of the time allowed divorce with remarriage. The followers of Jesus stood over against this culture with their radical prohibition of remarriage. In spite of this extraordinarily high, counter-cultural standard the church grew like wildfire for 400 years.

Many of those in leadership at Bethlehem share this early Christian consensus that remarriage after divorce is wrong while the spouses are still living. Pastor Piper's efforts to understand the Biblical teaching on divorce and remarriage led him to this conclusion some years ago. [5] While he does not count this view the normative one for the staff, deacons or church, it is the guideline for his own counsel, preaching and performance of weddings. The same freedom of conscience applies to each of the other pastors as well.


Sorry, but I'm going with the baptists on this one.


----------



## LadyFlynt

Some more:

3. Divorce may be permitted when a spouse deserts the relationship, commits adultery, or is dangerously abusive (1 Cor. 7:15; Matthew 19:9; 1 Cor. 7:11). [7] We are not here dealing with remarriage (see #4 and #5). We simply acknowledge that there are times when the Bible permits separation.

Some of us want to stress that "divorce" in this statement should not imply a decisive and permanent end to the relationship while the spouses are alive and not remarried. Even after long periods of separation and alienation reconciliation can happen, as when the people of God return to the Lord after periods of waywardness (Hosea 2:14-23). Others of us want to stress that decisive divorce in certain cases is permitted, and that this leaves the deserted, or abused spouse free to remarry (see #5).

We all want to emphasize that the phrase "may be permitted" holds out the possibility that inquiry may reveal that the deserted partner engaged in a wrong behavior that drove the other away, so that a change is called for at home rather than divorce.

In addition we all want to stress that forgiveness and reconciliation between sinning spouses is preferable to separation or divorce even where adultery has occurred. This is implied in Matthew 18:21-22, "Then Peter came and said to Jesus, 'Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him?" Jesus said to him, 'I do not say to you seven times, but seventy times seven.'" (See Luke 17:3-4)


----------



## LadyFlynt

I really recommend the reading of the whole...as it is very good...they do note that the leaders are not wholly united on it and leave the decision to marry a couple in which one or both have been divorced up to each individual minister. Thereby, any minister who believes remarriage is not permissiable under any circumstances does not have to marry the couple.


----------



## LadyFlynt

Another good paper....

Divorce and Remarriage: A Position Paper by John Piper

http://www.desiringgod.org/library/topics/divorce_remarriage/div_rem_paper.html


Our friend, Pete, who lurks on the PB is gonna get a kick out of this websites url!

http://www.belmonthouse.co.uk/biblical_teaching_on_divorce.htm

[Edited on 7-8-2005 by LadyFlynt]


----------



## Dan....

Pastor Carroll,



> 1. Come up with a valid reason to dismiss the exception clause in Mat. 19.
> 
> 2. Come up with a valid reason to dismiss Paul on the subject.
> 
> 3. Come up with a valid reason to dismiss the Standards on the subject.



1. I have not dismissed the exception clause of Matt 19. I think you may be mixing me up with Joseph (biblelighthouse).
2. You have not demonstrated that the apostle necessarily meant "free to remarry" by "not under bondage".
3. I fail to see where the Westminster Standards say that the one being deserted is free to remarry.


----------



## doulosChristou

> _Originally posted by webmaster_
> 
> http://www.apuritansmind.com/Pastoral/McMahonElderAndDivorce.htm



Excellent work.


----------



## BrianBowman

Friends,

Clearly there are very many strongly held convictions/opinions regarding this issue and most of them are grounded in the hermeneutical presuppositions of various traditions - and some in obvious peronal bias. I've commented on this volatile subject here: http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=5053. My bio expresses some of degrees in which this topic has impacted my life. It goes much deeper than the bio, and most things are simply too personal to share here on the Internet. However, I will say that several 100 hours of my life have been spent in the deepest despair over different aspects of "D&R".

I for one cannot get "on board" with John Piper's view, but that does not mean I don't respect him as a Christian leader. I could not, however, be a member of his Church because he commands all divorced and remarried persons in his assembly to repent for being adulterers in their remarriage. I don't see how true repentance is possible without disolving the (re)marriage. Therefore, I resigned myself to disagree with John Piper, but to realized that he too has presuppostions (e.g. his EXCELLENT Christian upbringing in a whole family followed on by approx 40 years of happy marriage).

Finally, I've quickly grown to appreciate and love each one you - even those of you who believe that my remarriage was(is?) immoral. However, I have not seen a truly comprehensive, Scripturally, cultural/historically, and exgegetically compelling arugment made yet in these posts. Again, there are many traditions and points of view and most folk believe it is THEIR VIEWPOINT (and whatever authoratative sources they use to support it) that is correct. D&R is by no means the only "Christian issue" where this abounds. Think about Baptism. The Churches of Christ can point out several seemingly "iron clad" proof-texts that conclusively suppport their view of the necessity of water Baptism for salvation and regeneration. How many of us here agree with them?

Now, tomorrow is my 45th birthday, my wife has made a cake, and it's time to go enjoy some evening fellowship 




[Edited on 7-9-2005 by BrianBowman]


----------



## Scott Bushey

> commands all divorced and remarried persons in his assembly to repent for being adulterers in their remarriage. I don't see how true repentance is possible without disolving the (re)marriage.



If Piper is correct (and I don't believe he is), adultery is a forgivable sin. All of us break the 1st commandment chronically; Daily we repent. In the same way, if you are bound by conscience about your remarriage, repent, seek forgiveness, for it is there at the cross. 1 John 1:9 Disolution of marriage is not needed.


----------



## LadyFlynt

Happy Birthday, Brian. And thank you for bearing with us through this discussion, I know it is a sensitive topic. Honestly, I mean no offense, merely a study of scripture in this matter. As I've stated before, many of us have been affected by this issue in one way or another. And I'll admit that maybe for Piper, his view is easy for him...but as you know, and I being one of them, there are those who hold to his view even though it scrapes the scabs of our own lives. So it's not just those with "picture-perfect" lives that hold to that view. And there are stricter views...per your mentioning above...the mennonites and amish hold in their camps that remarrieds must separate, but cannot divorce. I don't hold to that view, though I do understand how they come to that conclusion...if you listen to HOW they go about it though, it comes to, what I believe, be an unbiblical conclusion. But that could go into another discussion altogether...and I think I'm drained on this one as it is.

By the way...the baptism horse gets beat to death on a regular basis around here. We have fun doing it though!


----------



## BrianBowman

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> 
> commands all divorced and remarried persons in his assembly to repent for being adulterers in their remarriage. I don't see how true repentance is possible without disolving the (re)marriage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If Piper is correct (and I don't believe he is), adultery is a forgivable sin. All of us break the 1st commandment chronically; Daily we repent. In the same way, if you are bound by conscience about your remarriage, repent, seek forgiveness, for it is there at the cross. 1 John 1:9 Disolution of marriage is not needed.
Click to expand...


Thanks Scott. No bondage in the conscience over the remarriage - been going strong for 10 days shy of 8 years now!! ... and boy did God bless me with "the best"! The vast majority of my personal pain is the impact of "holocaust proportions" that divorce has on the spiritual and emotional lives of indiviudals (myself included) - made in God's image.

My arguments and convictions (which I'll post *slowly* and prayfully with great love) deal primarily with expressing God's heart and provision toward those coming out of failed marriages, who more often than not lacked the most basic "foudation for life" to prepare them for marriage.

In a "nutshell" I've both experienced and observed that most families, and certainly the "Chruch at Large" provides inadequate preparation for the holiness, sanctity, and permenance of marriage. Commonly, too little discrination and sanction is used by both parents and the Church to determine if two people should marry for the first time. We have lost our love and respect for this kind of authority - which is designed to protect us from our own sinfulness.

... then "when it all falls down" (i.e. divorce), some Christians are too quick to excoriate the divorcee with a diatribe of proof texts and baleful admonishments. This futhers the wounds and drives many away from the Church.


----------



## wsw201

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> Wayne,
> 
> You are the one completely missing the point, and failing to do your exegesis.
> 
> The word "unmarried" in this passage is a term for "widowers" . . . men whose wives had *died*.
> 
> The term "unmarried" is used because there was no Greek term for "widower". But the parallellism is unmistakable; that's why Paul speaks of the "unmarried" (men) and "widows" (women) in this verse.
> 
> If this were not the case, then Paul simply could have said "unmarried", which according to *your* usage, would include the widows. If "unmarried" simply means "not married", then the addition of the word "widows" was redundant and unncessesary.
> 
> Paul is ONLY talking about widowers and widows here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . . . by the way, this also means that the "it is better to marry than to burn" passage was not written to young single adults who have never been married. A 19 year old has no business hurrying to get married because "it is better to marry than to burn".
> 
> But that is another discussion for another thread. . . .
> 
> 
> 
> [Edited on 7-8-2005 by biblelighthouse]



Joesph,

I suggest you re-examine your own exegesis. Plus tone down the rhetoric. Unmarried in this verse actually means a person who is not married (per Calvin, Brown-Fausset, Henry), or someone who has never been married. The word is agamos meaning single, unwedded, *UNMARRIED.*. To come up with the idea that it only means widower is simple minded. Unmarried means simply unmarried. Look at the usage of the same word in 1 Cor 7:11. Here Paul is saying that a divorced women should remain *UNMARRIED.*. So a person who is divorced is *UNMARRIED.*. 

You also don't seem to appreciate the force of Paul's comments regarding celibacy. Paul is telling the Corinthians the same thing Christ said (Matt 19:11-12). Celibacy as Paul has stated very clearly is a gift and not a gift that everyone has. To say that one should not remarry even though their divorce was biblical is to force someone to tempt God. Requiring some one to display a gift that they do not have. This would be sinful for the Church to make some one do such a thing.


----------



## LadyFlynt

to tempt God? I don't get that one...to tempt Him to do what?

Fruit of the Spirit...self-control


----------



## wsw201

> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> to tempt God? I don't get that one...to tempt Him to do what?
> 
> Fruit of the Spirit...self-control



Read Calvin's commentary on 1 Cor 7. You'll find the answer there.


----------



## LadyFlynt

And I am to find his commentary where?


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> And I am to find his commentary where?



Calvin's Commentary on 1 Cor. 7.9 (from which one can navigate through the rest of the chapter) can be found here.


----------



## just_grace

*How God see\'s...*

You mind find this controversial or even offending, but I think that marriage and divorce in the eyes of God have nothing to do with civil ceremony, paper or any worded vows but is a physical union and a physical break of Love. Love never ends, God hates divorce.


----------



## biblelighthouse

*Divorce & Remarriage in Church History*

The early church fathers (with the exception of Ambrosiaster), unanimously prohibited remarriage after divorce, regardless of circumstances.

Hermas, Justyn Martyr, Athenagoras, Theophilus of Antioch, Iraneus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Tertullian, Basil of Ancyra, Basil of Caesarea, Gregory Nazianzus, Apollinaris of Laodicea, Theodore of Mopsuestia, John Crysostom, Theodoret, Epiphanius, Ambrose, Innocent I, Jerome, Leo the Great, and Augustine * all agreed that there should be no remarriage after divorce, regardless of the circumstances.*

Even Ambrosiaster, the lone dissenter, would not be popular in todays churches. He taught that a man could remarry, but only if his wife had committed adultery. And he taught that a woman could not remarry under any circumstances whatsoever. So even Ambrosiaster could hardly be called a "remarriage proponent", according to modern terms.

For 1500 years, the historical "no remarriage" view remained the standard view of the church.

Then, in the 16th century, Erasmus suggested a different view.

Why, oh why, did protestants so readily ignore the virtually-unanimous practice of the church, which had stood for 15 centuries? The protestants didn't merely throw away the practice of Rome . . . they threw away the practice of the early church, too. Instead, they chose to hold to the new view of remarriage created by Erasmus, a Roman Catholic who never joined the protestant reformation.

Martin Luther was wise to learn about God's Sovereignty from Augustine.

Luther should have listened to Augustine regarding marriage, as well.



How can you justify holding to a view of remarriage which the church never held until the 16th century? You say you have "obvious" Scripture passages to rely on . . . well, then why weren't they so "obvious" for 1500 years in the church?


_"You show me a doctrine that's only been around for 500 years, and I'll show you an unbiblical doctrine."_






[Edited on 7-11-2005 by biblelighthouse]


----------



## Contra_Mundum

What saith the Scriptures?

Did the modern epidemic of plainly sinful divorce and remarriage occur because of Reformation doctrine on this issue? Of course not. The proof is found in the fact that well up into the 20th century divorce still carried an appropriate stigma. The effort in the 16th century to bring church doctrine and practice in this area into closer conformity to Scripture than it had been (perhaps since the 3rd century) did not result in looser morality, but stricter. The Roman church, with all its formal doctrinal strictures, has long been notorious for its winking at sin, the creation of extra-biblical annulments (to make the Law of God to none effect), and other such practices. It was precisely these kind of abuses that forced the Protestants back to the Bible to clarify the biblcal rules on the issue.


----------



## BrianBowman

Joseph, 

Your signature indicates that you are student at one of the premier Reformed seminaries in the world. From your training, I'm sure you are aware of the linguistic and hermeneutical complexities involved in getting beyond "proof text sorties" into a bonafide understanding of doctrine.

Please study "Divorce & Remarriage in the Bible - A Cultural and Literary Context" by Dr David Instone-Brewer. For one, this luminary conservative work explains exactly what led the 2nd Century Church Fathers to some of their incorrect conclusions regarding D&R - that is the virtual decimation of the pre-AD 70 Rabbinical Hermeneutical Traditions due to the destruction of Jerusalem and Empire-wide persecution.

Here a couple of help links to get this resource:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...102-6374984-6212931?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

... and some free stuff at: http://www.instone-brewer.com/

For what it's worth, Instone-Brewer is a fine Hebraist as well as being one of the foremost scholars in the world on pre-AD 70 Rabbinical traditions.

Also, Bahnsen's excellent treatise at: http://www.cmfnow.com/articles/pe058.htm







[Edited on 7-11-2005 by BrianBowman]


----------



## LadyFlynt

Then you have to define love....too many say that they "no longer love" their spouse. They rely on feelings. Sorry, but love is a commitment...something you do whether you feel like it or not. So I don't buy the "physical break of love". You can refuse to "love" your wife...that doesn't make her no longer your wife.


----------



## LadyFlynt

> _Originally posted by wsw201_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> to tempt God? I don't get that one...to tempt Him to do what?
> 
> Fruit of the Spirit...self-control
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Read Calvin's commentary on 1 Cor 7. You'll find the answer there.
Click to expand...


Okay...all it says is "tempts God" just as you said. Doesn't explain what he means by that and neither did you explain what you meant by that phrase. I do not believe that we are CAPABLE of tempting God...if God is sovereign then how do we tempt Him?

Again...self-control...we are not incapable of it and in fact it is commanded. What do you do with teenage sons...do you marry them off at 16 because they are suffering hormones or do you teach them self control? Don't give me the "gift of singleness" junk either...because I believe that is overused as an excuse. What if a spouse becomes incompacitated for the remainder of their years? You aren't "gifted with singleness"...yet in THAT sense you are as a single person. Oops, back to selfcontrol...because adultery is out and you aren't going to divorce your spouse when you should be taking care of them. Therefore it debunks the "marriage is THE remedy" (ever hear of prayer? or God letting you keep a thorn in your side?)

[Edited on 7-11-2005 by LadyFlynt]


----------



## wsw201

> Okay...all it says is "tempts God" just as you said. Doesn't explain what he means by that and neither did you explain what you meant by that phrase. *I do not believe that we are CAPABLE of tempting God...if God is sovereign then how do we tempt Him?*



How about these passages:

De 6:16 - You shall not tempt the Lord your God *as you tempted Him * in Massah. 

Matt 4:5-7 - Then the devil took Him up into the holy city, set Him on the pinnacle of the temple, and said to Him, "If You are the Son of God, throw Yourself down. For it is written: 'He shall give His angels charge over you,' and, 'In their hands they shall bear you up, Lest you dash your foot against a stone.' " Jesus said to him, "It is written again, *'You shall not tempt the Lord your God.'*

The "name it and claim it" crowd tempt God almost all the time. 



> Again...self-control...we are not incapable of it and in fact it is commanded. What do you do with teenage sons...do you marry them off at 16 because they are suffering hormones or do you teach them self control? Don't give me the "gift of singleness" junk either...because I believe that is overused as an excuse. What if a spouse becomes incompacitated for the remainder of their years? You aren't "gifted with singleness"...yet in THAT sense you are as a single person. Oops, back to selfcontrol...because adultery is out and you aren't going to divorce your spouse when you should be taking care of them. Therefore it debunks the "marriage is THE remedy" (ever hear of prayer? or God letting you keep a thorn in your side?)




Colleen, I am not arguing that one has to re-marry if they have had a biblical divorce. I fact it appears from your tone, this is really getting to you. So I think we better end this discussion.


----------



## LadyFlynt

Touche on the tempting passages...I stand corrected. Thank you, and I will read on this tonight.

I apologize for my tone...I didn't mean it to come out in the manner that it did. I just believe that we tend to set aside items of importance and aim for the easiest answer at times.

Josh, I know you are going through a tough time right now. None of this is aimed at anyone on a personal level (and I'm sure you're thinking "well, it IS personal"). Again, I reiterate that, feelings aside, WHAT is Scripture and what has the church historically taught (and I mean before Calvin and Luther as well...the LBC left out the D&R portion when adopting off of the WCF). I am, honestly not being "uncharitable". Most of my friends have been D&R, my parents are D&R, my father was a bigamist for a time, my husband's parents were divorced...his father remarried, his mother did not. His mother was run from church to church early on, because all divorcees were "suspect" of trying to steal other women's husbands (gag!). I know there is hurt and pain. I believe we were trying to discern whether or not one was free to remarry given the "free from bondage passage". What does that phrase mean? You say one thing, I say another. No one has countered my statement on it meaning from the "duties of" marriage. Instead we've dragged in subjective treatments to passage of difficulties we might encounter.

If you want to drop this for a time, I'm okay with that. I jumped in, because I don't avoid the sacred cows as the church has recently expected us to. But neither do I just go up to someone and say "you're wrong and here's why". I figured the question had been asked and this was a safe place to hash it out.

Again, I'm sorry if I offended anyone personally.


----------



## LadyFlynt

I'm glad. I hate the thought of wounding any a friend. And we are pretty passionate ppl on this board, aren't we? Some debates just take on a life of their own...lol! I will study some tonight. Could someone please drag what Joeseph wrote on the early church fathers holding to a different view over to this thread and comment on that please? I'd be interested. Someone stated they were in error due to certain events (in error for 1300yrs?). I'm afraid that I do not have access to the book they were discussing so if they would post the arguement, I'm curious (I always like to hear both sides...sometimes it crumbles a weak foundation and other times it just strengthens a strong one).


----------



## BrianBowman

Must reads on this subject:

"Divorce & Remarriage in the Bible - A Cultural and Literary Context" by Dr David Instone-Brewer. For one, this luminary conservative work explains exactly what led the 2nd Century Church Fathers to some of their incorrect conclusions regarding D&R - that is the virtual decimation of the pre-AD 70 Rabbinical Hermeneutical Traditions due to the destruction of Jerusalem and Empire-wide persecution.

Here a couple of help links to get this resource:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...ref=pd_bbs_ur_1/102-6374984-6212931?v=glance& s=books&n=507846

... and some free stuff at: http://www.instone-brewer.com/

For what it's worth, Instone-Brewer is a fine Hebraist as well as being one of the foremost scholars in the world on pre-AD 70 Rabbinical traditions.

Also, Bahnsen's excellent treatise presented to his OPC Presbytery in 1984 at: http://www.cmfnow.com/articles/pe058.htm


----------



## LadyFlynt

Thanks, Josh...I know I could have copied and pasted but laundry was calling my name at the time.

I'm hoping to get Gordon and William's (first names) book on the subject (seems I hold to their view) in the future. Right now, the only things I'll be ordering in the next couple of weeks is curriculum for the kids.

So, Brian, would you be willing to post "what led the 2nd Century Church Fathers to some of their (presumed) incorrect conclusions regarding D&R" for discussion?

The "free stuff" site does not permit you to read ANY of his writings. The Papers that he lists after his books just link you right back to the same page of links. And several other links take you to blank pages  . Unfortunately, I wasn't too impressed by his bio, an "evanjelly bapticostal" (though, I will admit that one of the sources that led me to my thoughts on the issue was by a holiness minister  ). Also he keeps alluding to "rabbinical teachings". I believe many of the rabbinical teachings were based on tradition not actual scripture, correct? The Talmud, for example, would in no way equal the Tanach. So we are to take a known faulty system to hold as a standard against ppl that were the teachers of the early church?

I also have to admit, in his statement that I was able to bring up...I disagree with his definitions of certain terms used, such is the topic of this thread, and I disagree with his second grounds of divorce as he is making a severe stretch for it.
[Edited on 7-12-2005 by LadyFlynt]

[Edited on 7-12-2005 by LadyFlynt]


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Can I ask an exegetical question here? 



> Mat 19:9 And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery."



In this passage remarriage is mentioned, with a qualifier 'except for sexual immorality'. It seems it is calling remarriage adultery only if sexual immorality is not involved and a divorce took place.

Antithetically if divorce was because of sexual immorality remarriage is not adultery and not sin.

Just wondering?


----------



## BrianBowman

> The "free stuff" site does not permit you to read ANY of his writings. The Papers that he lists after his books just link you right back to the same page of links. And several other links take you to blank pages . Unfortunately, I wasn't too impressed by his bio, an "evanjelly bapticostal" (though, I will admit that one of the sources that led me to my thoughts on the issue was by a holiness minister ). Also he keeps alluding to "rabbinical teachings". I believe many of the rabbinical teachings were based on tradition not actual scripture, correct? The Talmud, for example, would in no way equal the Tanach. So we are to take a known faulty system to hold as a standard against ppl that were the teachers of the early church?



Collen, What browser are you using? I have no trouble reading any of the "free stuff". For what it's worth, I would draw no conclusions regarding Instone-Brewer's scholarship based on the background expressed in his bio. He is a conservative scholar of exceeding renown, yet a very humble man. Apparently, from reading his bio, you conclude that he is an "evanjelly bapticostal" because he grew up in a "small independent Baptist church with pentecostal leanings". Can you verify that this is what he is today? Why engage in this kind of name-calling anyway? If you question Instone-Brewer's credibility, why don't you EMAIL him with your questions. Also, his bio also states that he has been a member of Anglican churches - many of which are Reformed.

The bottom line here is what you are willing to accept as a hermeneutical authority. The best conservative scholarly traditions seek to understand the Scriptures in light of the language, culture, and historical background in which they are written. This is _especially_ true in Reformed circles. This is what Instone-Brewer is doing in his work. While I believe that the Church Fathers gave us many wonderful things, the fact is that their writings are not inspired. However, we must thoroughly understand the Langauge, Culture, History, etc. of Old Testment and the itertestamental period if we are going to get to the heart of Jesus Christ's teachings (especially in the Synoptics).

[Edited on 7-12-2005 by BrianBowman]


----------



## LadyFlynt

Okay, "ebp" was a joke (we know ppl that actually call themselves bapticostals for fun or baptisterians or presbytists or presbycostal). No, I wasn't concerned about what he grew up in...as we all come from somewhere and some of us have explored a little bit of everywhere before coming to a correct understanding. I believe the bio stated that he is currently part of an evangelical baptist church with pentacostal leanings. What he currently is was what I was going with.

I'm using Firefox. I'll try it in IE.

Also, I don't question the man's education. Wenham and Heth I believe are also highly educated men and yet obviously they've drawn different conclusions. Also, he did not appear to me to be very conservative, but I guess that depends on where you draw your line of conservatism at. Something in the reasoning behind his interest in the topic led me to believe that he was looking for a reason to permit remarriage. I'd really like to read him and then hold up his reasoning against others and compare. So you see that I'm not just dismissing the man out of hand.


----------



## LadyFlynt

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> Can I ask an exegetical question here?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mat 19:9 And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In this passage remarriage is mentioned, with a qualifier 'except for sexual immorality'. It seems it is calling remarriage adultery only if sexual immorality is not involved and a divorce took place.
> 
> Antithetically if divorce was because of sexual immorality remarriage is not adultery and not sin.
> 
> Just wondering?
Click to expand...


Actually it reads "except for fornication". This is another debate. There are a few of us that hold that fornication and adultery are two different offenses.


----------



## Scott Bushey

Fornication that happens in the context of marriage IS adultery!


----------



## LadyFlynt

That is adultery...fornication is before marriage...adultery is during the marriage.


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> Can I ask an exegetical question here?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mat 19:9 And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In this passage remarriage is mentioned, with a qualifier 'except for sexual immorality'. It seems it is calling remarriage adultery only if sexual immorality is not involved and a divorce took place.
> 
> Antithetically if divorce was because of sexual immorality remarriage is not adultery and not sin.
> 
> Just wondering?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually it reads "except for fornication". This is another debate. There are a few of us that hold that fornication and adultery are two different offenses.
Click to expand...


Can you prove this; it seems to me that the Greek and Hebrew render it as adultery also.


----------



## kevin.carroll

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_]
> 
> Can you prove this; it seems to me that the Greek and Hebrew render it as adultery also.



The Greek word in Matthew, porneia, is pretty generic and is used of all sorts of sexual sins. The KJV muddies the waters a little in this instance, I fear.


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by kevin.carroll_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_]
> 
> Can you prove this; it seems to me that the Greek and Hebrew render it as adultery also.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Greek word in Matthew, porneia, is pretty generic and is used of all sorts of sexual sins. The KJV muddies the waters a little in this instance, I fear.
Click to expand...


My point is, a sexual sin in the state of marriage IS adulterous. Is it not? When the bible speaks of _sexual sins_, what is the context? Well, it doesn't speak of self abuse or looking at photo's. The implication is something that is commited against one's spouse with another person of the opposite sex.

[Edited on 7-12-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## BrianBowman

Ongoing defrauding of the marriage bed is also adultery. It is not only an offense against the other spouse, but it is breaking the covenant of marriage. Every negative commandment (i.e. "you shall not commit adultery") also has a positive prescription (i.e. "the two shall become one flesh"). Both Jesus and Paul made it clear that the marriage bed is essential to the coventant of marriage. Many sexual sins, issues with past abuse, etc. CAN be worked through. However, if in the final analysis, continual defrauding becomes normative, then the offending spouse is guilty of adultery, the covenant is broken.

Of course, showing special tenderness and patience with a spouse who is truly physically ill or handicapped is a different matter. This is mandated by God in both Old and New Testaments.

[Edited on 7-12-2005 by BrianBowman]


----------



## biblelighthouse

> _Originally posted by BrianBowman_
> Ongoing defrauding of the marriage bed is also adultery. It is not only an offense against the other spouse, but it is breaking the covenant of marriage. Every negative commandment (i.e. "you shall not commit adultery") also has a positive prescription (i.e. "the two shall become one flesh"). Both Jesus and Paul made it clear that the marriage bed is essential to the coventant of marriage. Many sexual sins, issues with past abuse, etc. CAN be worked through. However, if in the final analysis, continual defrauding becomes normative, then the offending spouse is guilty of adultery, the covenant is broken.
> 
> Of course, showing special tenderness and patience with a spouse who is truly physically ill or handicapped is a different matter. This is mandated by God in both Old and New Testaments.
> 
> [Edited on 7-12-2005 by BrianBowman]




Brian,

I completely disagree with you here. But I would be very interested to see your Scriptural backing for this assertion.

Don't misunderstand me. I certainly think the marriage bed should be vigorous. And there is no question that defrauding one's partner is a sin.

But where does the Bible _ever_ say that not giving enough sex is adultery, and/or that not getting enough sex is grounds for divorce? I think that is an *enormous* assertion without Biblical support.

Now, in Matthew 5, we do learn that lust is considered adultery. But that does not mean that a divorce is permissible on the grounds that a partner lusted . . . such a leap is unwarranted. (Otherwise, every woman on the planet would have grounds for divorce at one time or another.) ---- But regarding defrauding one's partner from sex, we don't even have a verse in Scripture _linking_ it to adultery. So I think your assertion is even more stretched than the stretch made by those who want to divorce over lust-sins.

So, please give more detail about the Biblical support for your position.


----------



## BrianBowman

Joesph,


You know from our private correspondence that I hate divorce. It is blight of holocaust proportions on our families and churches. However, you and I seem to differ fundamentally over what constitutes the covenant of marriage. I ask you read the late Dr. Greg Bahnsen's treatise at http://www.cmfnow.com/articles/pe058.htm and also Instone-Brewer's work. These comprehensive expositions of Scripture are where I stand. My assertion is and continues to be that the covenant of marriage must be defined upon _all_ grounds presented in Scripture - not simply the lexical analysis of Matthew 5, 19, etc. so popular with modern scholars on this subject.

Here again, I quote Bahnsen:



> 8. Therefore, in order to understand properly the teaching of Scripture on the grounds for divorce, we will of necessity need to engage in more than lexical studies. What will be needed is a broader, theological understanding of the nature of marriage and the rationale which lies behind whatever grounds for divorce are set forth. We need to approach the question in such a way that we can account for (a) the narrowness of grounds for divorce, (b) the harmony of Paul and Jesus in giving grounds for divorce, (c) the full Biblical evidence on the subject of divorce, and (d) the reason why certain offenses are legitimate grounds for divorce, while others are not. A simple appeal to the word "fornication" cannot accomplish these ends.



Here are few texts:

Exodus 21:7-11 Â¶ "œWhen a man lsells his daughter as a slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do. 8 If she does not please her master, who has designated her* for himself, then he shall let her be redeemed. He shall have no right to sell her to a foreign people, since he has broken faith with her. 9 If he designates her for his son, he shall deal with her as with a daughter. 10 * If he takes another wife to himself, he shall not diminish her food, her clothing, or her marital rights. 11 And if he does not do these three things for her, she shall go out for nothing, without payment of money*

Matthew 19:4-5 He answered, "œHave you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, 5 and said, "˜Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh´?

1Corinthians 7:3-5 uThe husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4 For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. 5 vDo not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, wso that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.

Note, I'm not suggesting that a difference in sex drive between husband and wife denotes grounds for divorce. I am saying that ongoing, repeated, year-after-year of defrauding where the marriage becomes sexless IS adultery. The offending spouse is not fullfiling the conditions of the covenant of marriage. It becomes impossible under this condition for the offended spouse to fulfill God's clear purpose of becoming "one flesh" with their spouse. The defrauding spouse are by all Biblical senses comitting adultery when they refuse to fulfill their most basic marital obligation. Bahnsen says:



> 3. Refusal of sexual relations is contrary to one of the very purposes for marriage, then, and illegally subjects the marriage partner to fornication - having a marriage, not in substance, but only in name.



Jesus Christ is THE INSPIRED AUTHOR of EVERY Word of God, including the Law, which unless specifically abbrogated by the New Testament (e.g. the Levitical sacrifices) is just as essential for our understanding, and binding as any other portion of Scripture. Jesus Christ IS the central figure of both Testaments. 

As you can see, I have Theomomic leanings. I simply refuse to accept that marriage is an unconditional covenant that can only be terminated by physical death. I believe that the Bible teaches that congugal love, material provision, and physical protection are all essential elements of the marriage covenant. The ongoing pattern and practice of breaking one of more of these three elements makes divorce (and remarriage) possible under "normative" circumstances where both spouses are able to live under the same roof and are free to earn income, be part of a community, etc. Of course there are extreme conditions, (e.g persecution) where a husband or wife may not be able to render these conditions for a prolonged period of time. These are exceptions that the New Testament clearly addresses (1 Cor 7; Hebrews, 1 Peter, etc.)

Under the authority of the church, or cvil magistrate that obeys divine mandate, divorce should NEVER be even considered except according to the following (to Quote Westminster): "nothing but adultery, or such wilful desertion as can no way be remedied by the Church, or civil magistrate, is cause sufficient of dissolving the bond of marriage: wherein, a public and orderly course of proceeding is to be observed; and the persons concerned in it not left to their own wills, and discretion, in their own case."

[Edited on 7-13-2005 by BrianBowman]


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> Can I ask an exegetical question here?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mat 19:9 And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In this passage remarriage is mentioned, with a qualifier 'except for sexual immorality'. It seems it is calling remarriage adultery only if sexual immorality is not involved and a divorce took place.
> 
> Antithetically if divorce was because of sexual immorality remarriage is not adultery and not sin.
> 
> Just wondering?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually it reads "except for fornication". This is another debate. There are a few of us that hold that fornication and adultery are two different offenses.
Click to expand...


Colleen. This situation is set in the context of marriage. And adultery is a form of fornication. I have researched this because after 20 some years of discipleship and ministering to many people one does come up against this problem often. In fact Jesus said looking upon another person, whether you are married or not, with lust in your heart is adultery also. The word pornia is a general term. It doesn't only refer to being unclean before the espousal of someone. As I mentioned before, even Jesus called that adultery also.

So except for sexual immorality, fornication, or adultery. Remarriage seems to be okay with the Lord in that situation.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

(Mal 2:13-16) And this second thing you do. You cover the LORD's altar with tears, with weeping and groaning because he no longer regards the offering or accepts it with favor from your hand.
But you say, "Why does he not?" Because the LORD was witness between you and the wife of your youth, to whom you have been faithless, though she is your companion and your wife by covenant.
Did he not make them one, with a portion of the Spirit in their union? And what was the one God seeking? Godly offspring. So guard yourselves in your spirit, and let none of you be faithless to the wife of your youth.
"For the man who hates and divorces, says the LORD, the God of Israel, covers his garment with violence, says the LORD of hosts. So guard yourselves in your spirit, and do not be faithless."

I am not justifying divorce. I wish more people would understand the violence of divorce. A person who divorces covers his garment with violence. There is such a violent ripping apart of what God made one that the pain of it is the worse pain I have ever experienced. And I have a broken body. I have a crushed left leg. And the pain of that is minimal to what I experienced in being divorced. It has taken me 4 years to just get my footing back somewhat. No one should ever enter into this situation without the Church making the decision. To much is at stake.

In fact if you examine the Westminster Confession of Faith you will see that a divorce should never be entered upon without the church making the decision.

*The Westminster chapter 24 section 5 & 6*

V. Adultery or fornication committed after a contract, being detected before marriage, giveth just occasion to the innocent party to dissolve that contract.[10] In the case of adultery after marriage, it is lawful for the innocent party to sue out a divorce:[11] and, after the divorce, to marry another, as if the offending party were dead.[12]

10. Matt. 1:18-20; see Deut. 22:23-24
11. Matt. 5:31-32
12. Matt. 19:9; Rom. 7:2-3

VI. Although the corruption of man be such as is apt to study arguments unduly to put asunder those whom God hath joined together in marriage: yet, nothing but adultery, or such willful desertion as can no way be remedied by the church, or civil magistrate, is cause sufficient of dissolving the bond of marriage:[13] wherein, a public and orderly course of proceeding is to be observed; and the persons concerned in it not left to their own wills, and discretion, in their own case.[14]

13. Matt. 19:8-9; I Cor. 7:15; Matt. 19:6
14. Deut. 24:1-4

[Edited on 7-13-2005 by puritancovenanter]


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Do you subscribe to the Westminster Confession of Faith?

Examine Chaper 24 Section V.

*V. Adultery or fornication committed after a contract, being detected before marriage, giveth just occasion to the innocent party to dissolve that contract.[10] In the case of adultery after marriage, it is lawful for the innocent party to sue out a divorce:[11] and, after the divorce, to marryanother, as if the offending party were dead.[12]*

10. Matt. 1:18-20; see Deut. 22:23-24
11. Matt. 5:31-32
12. Matt. 19:9; Rom. 7:2-3


----------



## LadyFlynt

I readily subscribe (personally, not speaking for my husband) to the LBC other than I have come to agreement with my husband on covenantal baptism. I am still learning the WCF which, thus far, I have agreed with except on this one area...in which it has been noted that the formers of the LBC, when using the WCF, intentionally left out this part of the WCF from the LBC. I've mention this twice I think and no one has taken the bait on discussing this particular difference in the two confessions. I have been told by persons holding to the WCF that I am in the realm of orthodoxy, however. Otherwise, I could say that I hold to the WCF inasfar as I am familiar with the document.

I have heard the "porneia" arguement before, including in this thread. No one has responded to the verse that use "fornication" and "adultery" in a list within a particular verse together. Thus, the term fornication being used to state a specific act instead of as a general term of a group of possiblities. Otherwise, simply "fornication" would have been enough in that particular verse.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Colleen,

Please pardon me for exposing another area of fornication which has not been discussed. It would not necessarily be considered adultery but gross sexual immorality. The Old Testament mentions other areas of sexual sin that were punishable by death also. For such a sin adultery would not be a correct word. I would hope that one could be divorced for other sexual sins. I believe fornication is a broad general term that can apply to the Matthew text. Please forgive me for mentioning such a horrible thing.

As one who holds to the LBCF. I believe it is deficient in it's lack of mentioning what the WCF has in chapter 24. My cradle Church included it in their local contemporary confession.

The Hampton Roads Confession of Faith
Reformed Baptist Church of Virginia Beach

E - Grounds for Divorce - Indisputably, it is the will of God for those who marry to remain married until death separates them. Furthermore, nearly all agree that a believer can be divorced apart from his or her will. That makes them an innocent party in the divorce. Remarriage is permissible for the innocent, divorced party, but only "in the Lord" (to a believer). The most disputed issue has to do with whether or not a believer may ever have grounds for initiating a divorce. Having carefully weighed the arguments of both ancient and modern writers against the Word of God, our final authority, we conclude that there are two grounds for a believer initiating a divorce: adultery and willful desertion. We do not say that the believer must or ought to initiate a divorce. Perhaps patience and forgiveness would lead to the repentance of the offender. We are saying that the believer may initiate a divorce under such circumstances, if the Lord so leads. Furthermore, we conclude that the believer who has been so abused may remarry (only another believer), without guilt. It is as if the offending party was dead. The believer considering divorce should not be left to his or her own will or discretion, neither should he sue for divorce in a court of law "before unbelievers" before first submitting his case to the judgment of the Church. 
1 Corinthians 7:39 1 Corinthians 7:15 Matthew 19:9 
Hosea 2:14-16 Romans 2:4 1 Corinthians 6:1-8 

[Edited on 7-13-2005 by puritancovenanter]


----------



## BrianBowman

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> I am not justifying divorce. I wish more people would understand the violence of divorce. A person who divorces covers his garment with violence. There is such a violent ripping apart of what God made one that the pain of it is the worse pain I have ever experienced. And I have a broken body. I have a crushed left leg. And the pain of that is minimal to what I experienced in being divorced. It has taken me 4 years to just get my footing back somewhat. No one should ever enter into this situation without the Church making the decision. To much is at stake.



puritancovenater - what you describe in "the violence of divorce" was my experience "to the T". First of all, the pain of my parents divorce when I was 13 was excruciating. I won't go into details publicly, but from that moment on "eveything" changed with regard to me being able to trust, to belong, etc. By college, I could not even date girls from healthy families for any length of time, because I could not relate to their experience or they to mine.

Then some 17 years later, my own divorce. The sense of displacement was overwhelming. I departed completely from God for nearly 5 years and lived in a cosmic sense of failure. Today, after over 10 years of healing, I often get stomach cramps over discussing D&R issues because of the seriousness of God's divine estate of marriage. Although I hold the same convictions as you regarding D&R, I do not and cannot take these matters lightly. Marital fidelity is second only to our being faithful to Jesus Christ, and in fact is a principal demostration of it!

In 1997, God blessed me with the most wonderful Godly wife. I live in holy fear of the sancity of marriage. The mercy of Jesus Christ has expressed redemption toward me in such a complete way!

[Edited on 7-13-2005 by BrianBowman]


----------



## kevin.carroll

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> The early church fathers (with the exception of Ambrosiaster), unanimously prohibited remarriage after divorce, regardless of circumstances.
> 
> Hermas, Justyn Martyr, Athenagoras, Theophilus of Antioch, Iraneus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Tertullian, Basil of Ancyra, Basil of Caesarea, Gregory Nazianzus, Apollinaris of Laodicea, Theodore of Mopsuestia, John Crysostom, Theodoret, Epiphanius, Ambrose, Innocent I, Jerome, Leo the Great, and Augustine * all agreed that there should be no remarriage after divorce, regardless of the circumstances.*
> 
> Even Ambrosiaster, the lone dissenter, would not be popular in todays churches. He taught that a man could remarry, but only if his wife had committed adultery. And he taught that a woman could not remarry under any circumstances whatsoever. So even Ambrosiaster could hardly be called a "remarriage proponent", according to modern terms.
> 
> For 1500 years, the historical "no remarriage" view remained the standard view of the church.
> 
> Then, in the 16th century, Erasmus suggested a different view.
> 
> Why, oh why, did protestants so readily ignore the virtually-unanimous practice of the church, which had stood for 15 centuries? The protestants didn't merely throw away the practice of Rome . . . they threw away the practice of the early church, too. Instead, they chose to hold to the new view of remarriage created by Erasmus, a Roman Catholic who never joined the protestant reformation.
> 
> Martin Luther was wise to learn about God's Sovereignty from Augustine.
> 
> Luther should have listened to Augustine regarding marriage, as well.
> 
> 
> 
> How can you justify holding to a view of remarriage which the church never held until the 16th century? You say you have "obvious" Scripture passages to rely on . . . well, then why weren't they so "obvious" for 1500 years in the church?
> 
> 
> _"You show me a doctrine that's only been around for 500 years, and I'll show you an unbiblical doctrine."_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [Edited on 7-11-2005 by biblelighthouse]



I appreciate your reference to the Fathers. Church history can be compelling at times. I'm not sure the patristic evidence is in this case, though. If you read through the Fathers you find that there is a high degree of moralism in them (bordering on legalism) that represents a sharp turn away from the grace that Paul preached. It isn't entirely surprising, though. That WAS a very immoral culture. Just my


----------



## LadyFlynt

So now that church fathers were legalists? Or were they perhaps holding to an honorable standard that we've set aside?


----------



## kevin.carroll

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by kevin.carroll_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_]
> 
> Can you prove this; it seems to me that the Greek and Hebrew render it as adultery also.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Greek word in Matthew, porneia, is pretty generic and is used of all sorts of sexual sins. The KJV muddies the waters a little in this instance, I fear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My point is, a sexual sin in the state of marriage IS adulterous. Is it not? When the bible speaks of _sexual sins_, what is the context? Well, it doesn't speak of self abuse or looking at photo's. The implication is something that is commited against one's spouse with another person of the opposite sex.
> 
> [Edited on 7-12-2005 by Scott Bushey]
Click to expand...


My point was just the semantic range of the word. I think the point is the breaking of the "one flesh" principle. I am fairly certain that an addiction to self-pleasuring or p0rnography could qualify. I doubt seriously if a wife would by the argument, "Honey, it's just p0rn! It's not like I'm running around on you."


----------



## kevin.carroll

> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> So now that church fathers were legalists? Or were they perhaps holding to an honorable standard that we've set aside?



They headed that direction in an awful hurry. Read them.  I'm not discounting them, just pointing out a matter of historical fact.


----------



## kevin.carroll

Hmmmm I wonder why a non-offensive word that is a given title for naughty pictures was censored. Ah well...


----------



## biblelighthouse

> _Originally posted by kevin.carroll_
> I am fairly certain that an addiction to self-pleasuring or p0rnography could qualify. I doubt seriously if a wife would by the argument, "Honey, it's just <b>[Censored]</b>! It's not like I'm running around on you."



It would certainly qualify as a sexual sin, but it certainly would *not* be grounds for divorce, would it? (I hope that was not the implicit intention of your statement.)

After all, if divorce were permissible on the grounds of lust, then what wife _wouldn't_ have grounds for divorce? What husband has not had to wrestle with lust at some point or another?

If a person seeks a divorce because of "adultery", but his/her spouse did not engage in sexual relations with another person (or animal), then I think that person is seeking an unbiblical divorce. Raising the sins of lust and/or frigidity to the level of divorce-permission is a huge stretch and cop-out. It is nothing more than an example of a person LOOKING for ANY reason to get out of his/her marriage. Only actual physical infidelity involving another person qualifies as "adultery" in regards to grounds for divorce.

Would you agree, Kevin? Or do you think that every woman whose husband has looked at something inappropriate on the internet has grounds for divorcing her husband?


----------



## LadyFlynt

> _Originally posted by kevin.carroll_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> So now that church fathers were legalists? Or were they perhaps holding to an honorable standard that we've set aside?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They headed that direction in an awful hurry. Read them.  I'm not discounting them, just pointing out a matter of historical fact.
Click to expand...


Question for you...personally, what makes one a legalist?


----------



## kevin.carroll

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by kevin.carroll_
> I am fairly certain that an addiction to self-pleasuring or p0rnography could qualify. I doubt seriously if a wife would by the argument, "Honey, it's just <b>[Censored]</b>! It's not like I'm running around on you."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It would certainly qualify as a sexual sin, but it certainly would *not* be grounds for divorce, would it? (I hope that was not the implicit intention of your statement.)
> 
> After all, if divorce were permissible on the grounds of lust, then what wife _wouldn't_ have grounds for divorce? What husband has not had to wrestle with lust at some point or another?
> 
> If a person seeks a divorce because of "adultery", but his/her spouse did not engage in sexual relations with another person (or animal), then I think that person is seeking an unbiblical divorce. Raising the sins of lust and/or frigidity to the level of divorce-permission is a huge stretch and cop-out. It is nothing more than an example of a person LOOKING for ANY reason to get out of his/her marriage. Only actual physical infidelity involving another person qualifies as "adultery" in regards to grounds for divorce.
> 
> Would you agree, Kevin? Or do you think that every woman whose husband has looked at something inappropriate on the internet has grounds for divorcing her husband?
Click to expand...


Yes, I agree with you. As I said, I was only pointing out the semantic range of the Greek word, porneia. That is not to say, however, that adultery was the only sexual sin that Jesus was referring to. As you point out, what man has not lusted in his heart? That's a far cry, however from certain forms of deviance that can truly wreck a marriage.


----------



## kevin.carroll

> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by kevin.carroll_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> So now that church fathers were legalists? Or were they perhaps holding to an honorable standard that we've set aside?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They headed that direction in an awful hurry. Read them.  I'm not discounting them, just pointing out a matter of historical fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Question for you...personally, what makes one a legalist?
Click to expand...


Adding anything to grace as a pre-requisite for salvation. The traditional use of the word. And, as I said, the Fathers veered that direction very quickly. Again, that is not to discount everything they have to say, but it should cause one to view their remarks with a theological grain of salt at times.


----------



## LadyFlynt

So you are saying that their view on D&R made or broke one's salvation in their eyes?


----------



## kevin.carroll

> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> So you are saying that their view on D&R made or broke one's salvation in their eyes?



I'm not sure I understand the words you are trying to put in my mouth!


----------



## biblelighthouse

> _Originally posted by kevin.carroll_
> the Fathers veered that direction very quickly. Again, that is not to discount everything they have to say, but it should cause one to view their remarks with a theological grain of salt at times.



At times, yes, but certainly not in regard to their views on D&R . . .

Do you really want to argue that ALL the early church fathers were legalists, and that NONE of them really understood "grace"? Nonsense. The church did not disappear for centuries. If there was no real consensus on divorce and remarriage in the early church, then you might have a point to dismiss the ones you disagree with. But there was SO MUCH error in the early church, that it is truly STAGGERING to see such unanimity among them on this subject!

But let some Arminian tell you that no one believed in Calvinism until John Calvin, and watch you run to quote Augustine! 

We can't just pick up the early church fathers when we happen to like them, and then discard them when they rub us the wrong way. Should we take some of their sayings with a grain of salt? Of course . . . especially since there was disagreement over things then, just as there is now. 

But whenever they had virtual unanimity on a particular subject, that should really get our attention!!!


----------



## biblelighthouse

> _Originally posted by kevin.carroll_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> So you are saying that their view on D&R made or broke one's salvation in their eyes?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure I understand the words you are trying to put in my mouth!
Click to expand...


You already put the words there . . . she's just spooning them in for you 

First, you said that we might not want to listen to the Fathers' beliefs about D&R, because they were "legalistic".

Then she asked you to define "legalistic", and you said that it is "Adding anything to grace as a pre-requisite for salvation".

So her last question was merely a logical question based on your previous comments.


----------



## kevin.carroll

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by kevin.carroll_
> the Fathers veered that direction very quickly. Again, that is not to discount everything they have to say, but it should cause one to view their remarks with a theological grain of salt at times.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At times, yes, but certainly not in regard to their views on D&R . . .
> 
> Do you really want to argue that ALL the early church fathers were legalists, and that NONE of them really understood "grace"? Nonsense. The church did not disappear for centuries. If there was no real consensus on divorce and remarriage in the early church, then you might have a point to dismiss the ones you disagree with. But there was SO MUCH error in the early church, that it is truly STAGGERING to see such unanimity among them on this subject!
> 
> But let some Arminian tell you that no one believed in Calvinism until John Calvin, and watch you run to quote Augustine!
> 
> We can't just pick up the early church fathers when we happen to like them, and then discard them when they rub us the wrong way. Should we take some of their sayings with a grain of salt? Of course . . . especially since there was disagreement over things then, just as there is now.
> 
> But whenever they had virtual unanimity on a particular subject, that should really get our attention!!!
Click to expand...


Ad populum. They also were in virtual agreement that sins committed after baptism were unforgivable.

I'm not discounting the Fathers...just advising caution in their use. That's all.


----------



## kevin.carroll

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by kevin.carroll_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> So you are saying that their view on D&R made or broke one's salvation in their eyes?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure I understand the words you are trying to put in my mouth!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You already put the words there . . . she's just spooning them in for you
> 
> First, you said that we might not want to listen to the Fathers' beliefs about D&R, because they were "legalistic".
> 
> Then she asked you to define "legalistic", and you said that it is "Adding anything to grace as a pre-requisite for salvation".
> 
> So her last question was merely a logical question based on your previous comments.
Click to expand...


No I didn't. I merely, correctly, observed that they headed in that direction very quickly. Moralism (leading to full blown legalism) replaced grace very early in church history. My ONLY point is that we need to take that into consideration before using the Fathers as the crucial proof of this particular discussion.


----------



## biblelighthouse

> _Originally posted by kevin.carroll_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> But whenever they had virtual unanimity on a particular subject, that should really get our attention!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ad populum. They also were in virtual agreement that sins committed after baptism were unforgivable.
Click to expand...


Ad nonsensicum.  Are you seriously suggesting that you couldn't come up with a list of several fathers who _did not_ believe that? 

There was *nowhere near* the unanimity regarding that doctrine as there was on the impropriety of D&R.

So, your logic here seems faulty to me.

Here is just a sampling of early church quotes to consider:

"God gives forgiveness of past sins. However, as to future sins, each one procures this for himself. He does this by repenting, by condemning past deeds, and by begging the father to blot them out." (Clement of Alexandria, A.D. 195)

"He who sins after baptism, unless he forsakes his sins, will be condemned to Gehenna." (Apostolic Constitutions, A.D. 390)

"No one can boast of being so free from sin as to not even have an evil thought." (Methodius, A.D. 290)

"No one can be so prudent and so cautious as not at sometime to slip." (Lactaintius, A.D. 304)

I'm sure I can drill up more examples if you need them. The early church fathers were FAR from unanimous regarding the unforgivability of post-baptismal sins.



> _Originally posted by kevin.carroll_
> I'm not discounting the Fathers...just advising caution in their use. That's all.



I agree we should be cautious with them, and that is exactly what I'm doing. I am being cautious not to rely on them for "solid evidence" except where I see virtual unanimity . . . and that is exactly what we have here!

You say you are "not discounting the Fathers", but I disagree. If you don't "count" them when they are virtually unanimous, then when will you "count" them? Sounds to me like you have no use for them except for where they already happen to agree with you. If you want to approach them that way, at least admit it. There are some people who openly do just that.

[Edited on 7-13-2005 by biblelighthouse]


----------



## Contra_Mundum

These threads were merged, so I will avail myself of my earlier comment:


> _Originally posted by Contra_Mundum_
> What saith the Scriptures?
> 
> Did the modern epidemic of plainly sinful divorce and remarriage occur because of Reformation doctrine on this issue? Of course not. The proof is found in the fact that well up into the 20th century divorce still carried an appropriate stigma. The effort in the 16th century to bring church doctrine and practice in this area into closer conformity to Scripture than it had been (perhaps since the 3rd century) did not result in looser morality, but stricter. The Roman church, with all its formal doctrinal strictures, has long been notorious for its winking at sin, the creation of extra-biblical annulments (to make the Law of God to none effect), and other such practices. It was precisely these kind of abuses that forced the Protestants back to the Bible to clarify the biblcal rules on the issue.


I don't think anyone here is advocating trotting out one church father, or 101 when it suits their case to do so. Were their biblical doctrines that were essentially lost, "misplaced", or misapplied within two or three centuries of the apostles? Yes, there were. Does near unanimity (at least as far as the father's _we know of)_ speak strongly toward extra-careful consideration being given to their position? Yes, it should and it does. However, even _total_ unanimity does not guarantee that a doctrine is _in fact_ biblical. That must be determined by exegiesis.

There may be no way to prove this scientifically, but I do know this: that when God's ways are not followed, the result is not less sin, but more. It sounds really good that we can be "more spiritual" if we forsake all worldy attachments, and go live in monastaries and convents. Or if we become priests/bishops and have no wives. But did this attitude, bolstered by misunderstanding God's ways, result in less sin or more? The same is true of Marriage & Divorce itself. It may have taken centuries to get to the point of the medieval corruptions, but the corruptions were there, all over the place. And the Reformers had to address that. How? By appealing to the errors of the Fathers? No. By an appeal to Scripture. If the Fathers (who, as the Reformers liked to point out, were always contradicting themsleves) could be enlisted on the side of the Reformers, great. The issue was to deny Rome the leverage of "what in all times and in every place has been believed by all."

The argument of those here who believe God's way (according to our biblical interpretation) allows for certain cases of divorce and remarriage, is this: more sin, more kinds of sin, more wounds and misery occur if evil situations are not resolved God's way. This too is the argument of the other side. But no appeal to experience or history is going to change most people's minds one way or the other.

What saith the Scriptures, is the only question worth addressing.


----------



## kevin.carroll

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by kevin.carroll_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> But whenever they had virtual unanimity on a particular subject, that should really get our attention!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ad populum. They also were in virtual agreement that sins committed after baptism were unforgivable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ad nonsensicum.  Are you seriously suggesting that you couldn't come up with a list of several fathers who _did not_ believe that?
> 
> There was *nowhere near* the unanimity regarding that doctrine as there was on the impropriety of D&R.
> 
> So, your logic here seems faulty to me.
> 
> Here is just a sampling of early church quotes to consider:
> 
> "God gives forgiveness of past sins. However, as to future sins, each one procures this for himself. He does this by repenting, by condemning past deeds, and by begging the father to blot them out." (Clement of Alexandria, A.D. 195)
> 
> "He who sins after baptism, unless he forsakes his sins, will be condemned to Gehenna." (Apostolic Constitutions, A.D. 390)
> 
> "No one can boast of being so free from sin as to not even have an evil thought." (Methodius, A.D. 290)
> 
> "No one can be so prudent and so cautious as not at sometime to slip." (Lactaintius, A.D. 304)
> 
> I'm sure I can drill up more examples if you need them. The early church fathers were FAR from unanimous regarding the unforgivability of post-baptismal sins.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by kevin.carroll_
> I'm not discounting the Fathers...just advising caution in their use. That's all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree we should be cautious with them, and that is exactly what I'm doing. I am being cautious not to rely on them for "solid evidence" except where I see virtual unanimity . . . and that is exactly what we have here!
> 
> You say you are "not discounting the Fathers", but I disagree. If you don't "count" them when they are virtually unanimous, then when will you "count" them? Sounds to me like you have no use for them except for where they already happen to agree with you. If you want to approach them that way, at least admit it. There are some people who openly do just that.
> 
> [Edited on 7-13-2005 by biblelighthouse]
Click to expand...


You and I are both a little given to inflammatory rhetoric, aren't we?


----------



## biblelighthouse

> _Originally posted by kevin.carroll_
> You and I are both a little given to inflammatory rhetoric, aren't we?



 Yes, that appears to be the case. :bigsmile:


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

> _Originally posted by Contra_Mundum_
> These threads were merged, so I will avail myself of my earlier comment:
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Contra_Mundum_
> What saith the Scriptures?
> 
> Did the modern epidemic of plainly sinful divorce and remarriage occur because of Reformation doctrine on this issue? Of course not. The proof is found in the fact that well up into the 20th century divorce still carried an appropriate stigma. The effort in the 16th century to bring church doctrine and practice in this area into closer conformity to Scripture than it had been (perhaps since the 3rd century) did not result in looser morality, but stricter. The Roman church, with all its formal doctrinal strictures, has long been notorious for its winking at sin, the creation of extra-biblical annulments (to make the Law of God to none effect), and other such practices. It was precisely these kind of abuses that forced the Protestants back to the Bible to clarify the biblcal rules on the issue.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think anyone here is advocating trotting out one church father, or 101 when it suits their case to do so. Were their biblical doctrines that were essentially lost, "misplaced", or misapplied within two or three centuries of the apostles? Yes, there were. Does near unanimity (at least as far as the father's _we know of)_ speak strongly toward extra-careful consideration being given to their position? Yes, it should and it does. However, even _total_ unanimity does not guarantee that a doctrine is _in fact_ biblical. That must be determined by exegiesis.
> 
> There may be no way to prove this scientifically, but I do know this: that when God's ways are not followed, the result is not less sin, but more. It sounds really good that we can be "more spiritual" if we forsake all worldy attachments, and go live in monastaries and convents. Or if we become priests/bishops and have no wives. But did this attitude, bolstered by misunderstanding God's ways, result in less sin or more? The same is true of Marriage & Divorce itself. It may have taken centuries to get to the point of the medieval corruptions, but the corruptions were there, all over the place. And the Reformers had to address that. How? By appealing to the errors of the Fathers? No. By an appeal to Scripture. If the Fathers (who, as the Reformers liked to point out, were always contradicting themsleves) could be enlisted on the side of the Reformers, great. The issue was to deny Rome the leverage of "what in all times and in every place has been believed by all."
> 
> The argument of those here who believe God's way (according to our biblical interpretation) allows for certain cases of divorce and remarriage, is this: more sin, more kinds of sin, more wounds and misery occur if evil situations are not resolved God's way. This too is the argument of the other side. But no appeal to experience or history is going to change most people's minds one way or the other.
> 
> What saith the Scriptures, is the only question worth addressing.
Click to expand...


----------



## LadyFlynt

Well, at least we can all be honest with eachother.

back to legalism...you never actually answered the question led by logical conclusion.

Moralism does not neccessarily lead to legalism. If anything, I would be quicker to believe that intentional avoidance of moralism leads to liberalism. By your theory that it was their moralistic ideals that was the beginning of legalism, then all persons holding to moralistic standards are legalists. (basically, I'm just waiting for you to call me a legalist  ) One can hold to certain standards based upon scriptural principles and not believe that it adds to grace...but instead is caused because of grace.

One thing I've noticed (and I know you've heard me say this before)...I think we need to be careful going in either direction. There's a ditch on either side of the path that we walk...one called legalism and one called liberalism...sometimes we run so hard and so fast from one that we fall blindly into the other.

[Edited on 7-13-2005 by LadyFlynt]


----------



## biblelighthouse

Sounds like you guys don't believe in the perspicuity of Scripture. You guys believe the Holy Spirit keeps certain important doctrines a *secret* from everybody between the apostles and the Reformers. For 1500 years nobody in the entire church knew what the Scriptures were really saying.

The dispensationalists use the same argument. They don't flinch a bit when you show them that dispensationalism is less than 200 years old. They just say the truth was restored by Darby and his crew. 

The credobaptists do the same thing. Even though there could hardly be said to be a single credobaptist until the Petrobrussians of the 12th century, the credobaptists don't flinch at all, and just say that the true doctrine of Scripture was "lost" for a thousand years.

If you want to go way outside orthodoxy, it gets even more interesting. The Church of Christ was started in the 1800s by a guy who was determined to read the Bible every time as if he had never read it before, and he felt like he brought about a "restoration" of true Apostolic Chrsitianity which had been lost for nearly 2000 years. The same goes for the Mormons. The same goes for the Jehovah's Witnesses.

So, do you believe in the perspicuity of Scripture, or not? Did the Holy Spirit hide the truth from the ENTIRE church for one and a half THOUSAND years?






By the way, how is your argument for remarriage any different than the dispensationalist arguments? . . . Or are you suggesting that church history is an irrelevant topic when arguing against dispensationalism?

[Edited on 7-13-2005 by biblelighthouse]


----------



## LadyFlynt

Martin, earlier you answered a question I asked, but backwards. You stated that other sexual sins weren't covered under the term adultery. I'm aware of this. But adultery is being claimed as being covered under the term fornication in other passages...which leads back to the actual question asked. Why does not the verse that uses both terms in it not simply say fornication? Why does it say fornication AND adultery...thereby implying that fornication is not being used as a general term but rather something specifically different than adultery? It would also not make sense...not be consistent to use a general term AND a specific term in the same context if the general term covers the specific...therefore, I presume the general is actually a specific.


----------



## kevin.carroll

> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_back to legalism...you never actually answered the question led by logical conclusion.



It's because I'm not going anywhere with it. I'm simply making an historical observation.



> Moralism does not neccessarily lead to legalism.



Very true. But the fact that it did steadily in the history of the Church, beginning almost immediately after the disappearance of the Apostles is a matter of historical fact. The reason I don't want to pursue the discussion of you is twofold: first, while we have had our disagreements, I'm NOT calling you a legalist and second, this discussion is getting wildly off topic.



> By your theory that it was their moralistic ideals that was the beginning of legalism, then all persons holding to moralistic standards are legalists.



Your conslusion doesn't follow. Moralism tends towards legalism (because of the hardness of our hearts) but doesn't do so inexorably.




> One thing I've noticed (and I know you've heard me say this before)...I think we need to be careful going in either direction. There's a ditch on either side of the path that we walk...one called legalism and one called liberalism...sometimes we run so hard and so fast from one that we fall blindly into the other.



I couldn't agree more.


----------



## kevin.carroll

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> Sounds like you guys don't believe in the perspicuity of Scripture. You guys believe the Holy Spirit keeps certain important doctrines a *secret* from everybody between the apostles and the Reformers. For 1500 years nobody in the entire church knew what the Scriptures were really saying.
> 
> The dispensationalists use the same argument. They don't flinch a bit when you show them that dispensationalism is less than 200 years old. They just say the truth was restored by Darby and his crew.
> 
> The credobaptists do the same thing. Even though there could hardly be said to be a single credobaptist until the Petrobrussians of the 12th century, the credobaptists don't flinch at all, and just say that the true doctrine of Scripture was "lost" for a thousand years.
> 
> If you want to go way outside orthodoxy, it gets even more interesting. The Church of Christ was started in the 1800s by a guy who was determined to read the Bible every time as if he had never read it before, and he felt like he brought about a "restoration" of true Apostolic Chrsitianity which had been lost for nearly 2000 years. The same goes for the Mormons. The same goes for the Jehovah's Witnesses.
> 
> So, do you believe in the perspicuity of Scripture, or not? Did the Holy Spirit hide the truth from the ENTIRE church for one and a half THOUSAND years?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By the way, how is your argument for remarriage any different than the dispensationalist arguments? . . . Or are you suggesting that church history is an irrelevant topic when arguing against dispensationalism?
> 
> [Edited on 7-13-2005 by biblelighthouse]



I'm not sure who you are including among the "you guys," but it sounds to me like you are arguing for the perspicuity of the Fathers! 

I could just as easily point out that the Church from the time of the Apostolic Fathers to the Reformation was episcopate in government...where does that leave your position? There position is universal and unanimous. But I bet you a donut, you're a Presbyterian (and I'm glad)! Hehhehe.

This thread has gotten wildly off topic, hasn't it?


----------



## LadyFlynt

Moralism tends to legalism? I totally, 100%, disagree. Are we not to be moral ppl?

And yes, it has rabbit trailed...but I think this would be a worthwhile discussion. As I think it's sad that we would put aside moralism.

Also...the church as a whole may have fallen into legalism at later dates...but does the fault lie with the early church fathers? I was just coming to respect these men (I used to be so anti RCC that I threw the baby out with the bath water).


----------



## biblelighthouse

> _Originally posted by kevin.carroll_
> 
> I'm not sure who you are including among the "you guys," but it sounds to me like you are arguing for the perspicuity of the Fathers!



 --- I know you're giving me a cut-down, but for some reason it really cracks me up . . . sounds like the type of thing I would say to someone else in a different conversation. :bigsmile:




> _Originally posted by kevin.carroll_
> 
> I could just as easily point out that the Church from the time of the Apostolic Fathers to the Reformation was episcopate in government...where does that leave your position? There position is universal and unanimous.



I don't agree. But I have to admit I haven't done my homework yet on this topic. I thought Dr. McMahon argued that the early church fathers practiced a Presbyterian form of church government? 

You've got me curious now. I need to go do some research.



> _Originally posted by kevin.carroll_
> But I bet you a donut, you're a Presbyterian (and I'm glad)! Hehhehe.



Actually, I go to a semi-dispensational Bible church that is somewhat of the "Brethren" style . . . 

Nevertheless, yes, you are right . . . I am a Presbyterian at heart.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> Sounds like you guys don't believe in the perspicuity of Scripture. You guys believe the Holy Spirit keeps certain important doctrines a *secret* from everybody between the apostles and the Reformers. For 1500 years nobody in the entire church knew what the Scriptures were really saying.
> 
> The dispensationalists use the same argument. They don't flinch a bit when you show them that dispensationalism is less than 200 years old. They just say the truth was restored by Darby and his crew.
> 
> 
> 
> The credobaptists do the same thing. Even though there could hardly be said to be a single credobaptist until the Petrobrussians of the 12th century, the credobaptists don't flinch at all, and just say that the true doctrine of Scripture was "lost" for a thousand years.
> 
> If you want to go way outside orthodoxy, it gets even more interesting. The Church of Christ was started in the 1800s by a guy who was determined to read the Bible every time as if he had never read it before, and he felt like he brought about a "restoration" of true Apostolic Chrsitianity which had been lost for nearly 2000 years. The same goes for the Mormons. The same goes for the Jehovah's Witnesses.
> 
> So, do you believe in the perspicuity of Scripture, or not? Did the Holy Spirit hide the truth from the ENTIRE church for one and a half THOUSAND years?
> 
> By the way, how is your argument for remarriage any different than the dispensationalist arguments? . . . Or are you suggesting that church history is an irrelevant topic when arguing against dispensationalism?
> 
> [Edited on 7-13-2005 by biblelighthouse]



Come on Joe. So do you believe the WCF got it wrong Joe? 
Did you forget my comments with Jacob on the other thread concerning Augustine and other Church Fathers not being baptized until they were older, even though they had Christian parents. One of them being a Bishops son. I asked you a question about who is incorrect and you didn't answer. Maybe you didn't see my post since I posted later. I will look into your references but there are others who refute your claims. Also, do you deny the dark ages and how Catholicism basically took over? Sounds like straw men arguments to me. I don't believe Bruce is a dispensationalist nor a Credo. I hope you weren't addressing him along with me in your comments. Maybe you are only addressing KC.

Another thing, Darby introduced dispensational eschatology that isn't documented anywhere in the Church Fathers. I can show you some credo baptisms in the church fathers even though they were raised by parents in the faith. I am going to read what you recommended. I would also challenge you to read the book Baptism in the Early Church.

[Edited on 7-13-2005 by puritancovenanter]


----------



## BrianBowman

All,

I just want to express my love and gratitude in Christ for each one of you. D&R (including the related "rabbitt trails") is a really "charged" subject, namely because so much is at stake. I'm especially grateful to Joseph Gleason and to Colleen, who are wonderful, gracious people! I'm certain of this, that the love and investment in Christian character that they are imparting to their Covenant children will go a long way to ensure that the curse of divorce does not visit their future generations. 
Although I am childless, it will be worth all of the pain and woe that I've experienced if can help just one young person get the right foundation for life and marriage!


----------



## biblelighthouse

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> 
> Come on Joe. So do you believe the WCF got it wrong Joe?



absolutely!



> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> Did you forget my comments with Jacob on the other thread concerning Augustine and other Church Fathers not being baptized until they were older, even though they had Christian parents. One of them being a Bishops son.



You are making the fallacy of equating "baptism as an adult" with "credobaptism". The two simply are not the same. Lots of presbyterians baptize adults after professions of faith. Credobaptists are *anti-paedobaptists*. Furthermore, they generally believe that baptism should proceed soon after a profession of faith. NEITHER of these cases applied to the examples you give. Some of the early church fathers were baptized as adults, but not because they were against infant baptism. Rather, they had a faulty belief in baptismal regeneration, so they often thought it best to wait until just before death to be baptized. Or at the very least, as Tertullian suggested, they thought a person should wait until it's not so easy to be tempted by sin (like during puberty), and then to be baptized afterwards.

There were no credobaptists in the first 1000 years of the church, to my knowledge.



> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> 
> I will look into your references but there are others who refute your claims.



Great. You've already made up your mind that my references have been refuted. Sounds like your mind is truly open to change. (NOT!)




> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> 
> Also, do you deny the dark ages and how Catholicism basically took over? Sounds like straw men arguments to me. I don't believe Bruce is a dispensationalist nor a Credo. I hope you weren't addressing him along with me in your comments. Maybe you are only addressing KC.



I was merely comparing them, not equating them.



> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> 
> 
> Another thing, Darby introduced dispensational eschatology that isn't documented anywhere in the Church Fathers. I can show you some credo baptisms in the church fathers even though they were raised by parents in the faith.



I would be very interested to see even a single credobaptism in the early church, not to mention several of them.




> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> 
> I am going to read what you recommended. I would also challenge you to read the book Baptism in the Early Church.



I would be happy to read that book. But I need to finish my Beasley-Murray book first. (It is a *baptistic* book on the history of baptism.)


In Christ,
Joseph

[Edited on 7-13-2005 by biblelighthouse]


----------



## biblelighthouse

> _Originally posted by BrianBowman_
> All,
> 
> I just want to express my love and gratitude in Christ for each one of you. D&R (including the related "rabbitt trails") is a really "charged" subject, namely because so much is at stake. I'm especially grateful to Joseph Gleason and to Colleen, who are wonderful, gracious people! I'm certain of this, that the love and investment in Christian character that they are imparting to their Covenant children will go a long way to ensure that the curse of divorce does not visit their future generations.
> Although I am childless, it will be worth all of the pain and woe that I've experienced if can help just one young person get the right foundation for life and marriage!



 Amen, my brother!!!


----------



## BrianBowman

... and I pray that each of you will have such a special bond in Christ with each of your children that when the time comes for them to Biblically court and marry that they will trust your judgment as to whether or not a particular individual is right for them or not. The authority of parents and the Church body in helping young people to make correct decisions toward marriage is key to eradicating divorce in the Church for future generations.

I also want to pubicly repent to anyone who might construe any of my statements on this subject to appear that I don't want to uphold Christ's highest ideal for marriage.


----------



## LadyFlynt

I don't doubt your desire, Brian...even in disagreement on "where to draw a line" you've shown passion on trying to change the course of thinking. I know you will be a good testamony and have wisdom from your past experience to help others to avoid what you've been through. And who knows...one day the Lord might just bring a child into your life in one way or another...to bring up in the admonition of the Lord. (heavens, I was told that I couldn't have children...I've birthed 6!)


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

> . Some of the early church fathers were baptized as adults, but not because they were against infant baptism. Rather, they had a faulty belief in baptismal regeneration, so they often thought it best to wait until just before death to be baptized. Or at the very least, as Tertullian suggested, they thought a person should wait until it's not so easy to be tempted by sin (like during puberty), and then to be baptized afterwards.



Are you absolutely sure this fits all cases Joe? 
Do you truly think this was Monica's reason for not baptizing Augustine or why Gregory Nazianzen wasn't baptized as an infant by his father who was a bishop? Was that also the reason why Chrysostom wasn't baptized until he was 21 even though he was raised by Christian parents and educated by a Bishop Meletius? 

What happened to the idea of Federal theology and Covenant baptism for infants?

Plus, I will read the books you recommended. I love reading books pitted against each other. Do you remember the Lordship Controversey and how Zondervan pitted Hodges and Ryrie against MacArthur? It was fun. I loved picking Ryrie apart. He even took Calvin's Institutes out of context. He was reading some obsure translation of Calvin I hadn't heard of yet. I am not much of a B.S.er. I may get lost in my thoughts pretty easy, but I will do what I say.

[Edited on 7/14/2005 by fredtgreco]


----------



## biblelighthouse

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> Are you absolutely sure this fits all cases Joe?
> Do you truly think this was Monica's reason for not baptizing Augustine or why Gregory Nazianzen wasn't baptized as an infant by his father who was a bishop? Was that also the reason why Chrysostom wasn't baptized until he was 21 even though he was raised by Christian parents and educated by a Bishop Meletius?



I remember that Joachim Jeremias deals with these questions in his 2 books on paedobaptism in early church history. But I'll have to go back and re-read what he said about these particular cases.




> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> 
> What happened to the idea of Federal theology and Covenant baptism for infants?



Apparently it was drowned out by the heresy of baptismal regeneration.

But the ideas of Covenant continuity and the close connection between circumcision and baptism were definitely understood in the early church. There is no question about that.



> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> 
> Plus, I will read the books you recommended. I love reading books pitted against each other. Do you remember the Lordship Controversey and how Zondervan pitted Hodges and Ryrie against MacArthur? It was fun. I loved picking Ryrie apart. He even took Calvin's Institutes out of context. He was reading some obsure translation of Calvin I hadn't heard of yet. I am not much of a B.S.er. I may get lost in my thoughts pretty easy, but I will do what I say.



Thank you! I am thankful you are willing to read both sides. I am like you in that way! I have either read, or am reading, approximately 20 different books either for or against infant baptism. I have done (and am doing) my homework.

While you're at it, have you read Pierre Charles-Marcel's book on infant baptism? I highly recommend it. Check out this excerpt from the back cover of the book: 



> . . . The author's vindication of the doctrine of infant baptism is the more impressive because it does not rely upon archaeological or patristic evidence about the practice of the early Church - convincing as that evidence may be - but on the evidence of Scripture.



Pierre builds the Biblical case very soundly, starting with the general Biblical doctrine of sacraments, the Covenant of Grace, and the meaning of adult baptism. Only then, near the end of the book, does he talk about infant baptism. He presents a very solid case from the Scriptures alone, without even bringing Church history into the argument. 

Cheers in your reading endeavors!


----------



## kevin.carroll

> _Originally posted by Dan...._
> I was reading from Douglas Wilson's "Reforming Marriage", page 136, where he writes:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...if he [the unbeliever] decides to desert his spouse, the Christian is not bound. What is more, the Christian is forbidden to fight the divorce. This means that the Christian is free - *free to remarry*, free to stay single, and free to reconcile with his partner (as long as there has not been another marriage between -Deut 24:1-4). Not bound means _not bound_.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In an attempt to come back to topic, I would simply ask this: if "not bound" does not mean "free to remarry," then what does it mean? The only suggestion I saw was "free to not have conjugal relations with the deserted spouse," a thing that would not need an apostolic pronouncement. So what does it mean?
Click to expand...


----------



## BrianBowman

Have rogue unprintable characters been introduced onto this thread? I'm getting really ____WIDE____ pages here only. Can one of the ADMINS zap it?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

> I remember that Joachim Jeremias deals with these questions in his 2 books on paedobaptism in early church history. But I'll have to go back and re-read what he said about these particular cases.



I think I will read it along with Baptism in the Early Church. I am sure they can be pitted against each other. Someone aint right ya know.

I bought the Beasley-Murry book but loaned it out about 20 years ago and never got it back. Tell me what you think when you are done.


> While you're at it, have you read Pierre Charles-Marcel's book on infant baptism? I highly recommend it.



I am one that tries to post links to books. Please post me links to the books you recommend. It is very helpful.




> Pierre builds the Biblical case very soundly, starting with the general Biblical doctrine of sacraments, the Covenant of Grace, and the meaning of adult baptism. Only then, near the end of the book, does he talk about infant baptism. He presents a very solid case from the Scriptures alone, without even bringing Church history into the argument.



I believe Fred Malone did a pretty good job in Baptism for Disciples Alone even though many on this forum disagree.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Sorry we got so far off topic.......

I think moralism is good as long as it is Biblical Colleen. Baptismal regeneration is an example of how the early church fathers got off. Augustine also pushed for life long celebacy which I believe is quite exteme. I know St. Paul encouraged it. But he also saw that marriage was of God. Jesus himself addressed remarriage. Not reespousal. I think we need to stick as close to the Scriptures on this topic as we can. I believe the Westminster's and my cradle churches conclusions are biblical.

Be Encouraged, Randy


----------



## biblelighthouse

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> 
> I believe Fred Malone did a pretty good job in Baptism for Disciples Alone even though many on this forum disagree.



With all due respect, I think that book was _very poorly written_. There is so much that he doesn't even address in the first place, much less _soundly_ address. (For example, he doesn't even bother to deal with the close tie between Acts 2 and Joel 2, and he thus wrongly assumes that Acts 2 says something about Gentiles . . . a clumsy mistake that wrecks some of his exegesis.)

Have you taken the time to read Dr. McMahon's book review of "Baptism for Disciples Alone"? Here is a link to it: http://www.apuritansmind.com/BookReviews/Sourpuss/MaloneFredBaptismDisciplesAlone.htm

Please let me know what you think of Malone's book, _after_ you have read Matt's critique of it.


In my opinion, the best available credobaptism book is "Infant Baptism and the Covenant of Grace" by Paul K. Jewett. He does a much better job than Malone, in my opinion. 

(Of course, I still end up disagreeing with Jewett at the end of the day. . . . but that Jewett book kept me a convinced credobaptist for quite a while, before I met Dr. McMahon and apuritansmind.com.)


----------



## fredtgreco

> _Originally posted by BrianBowman_
> Have rogue unprintable characters been introduced onto this thread? I'm getting really ____WIDE____ pages here only. Can one of the ADMINS zap it?



Done.


----------



## biblelighthouse

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> 
> 
> 
> While you're at it, have you read Pierre Charles-Marcel's book on infant baptism? I highly recommend it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am one that tries to post links to books. Please post me links to the books you recommend. It is very helpful.
Click to expand...


I will gladly do so.

Since we are so wildly off-topic, I posted links for recommended books over in this thread: http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=11895&page=2


[Edited on 7-14-2005 by biblelighthouse]


----------



## Steve Owen

Joseph wrote:-



> With all due respect, I think that book was very poorly written. There is so much that he doesn't even address in the first place, much less soundly address. (For example, he doesn't even bother to deal with the close tie between Acts 2 and Joel 2, and he thus wrongly assumes that Acts 2 says something about Gentiles . . . a clumsy mistake that wrecks some of his exegesis.)



First of all, Malone's book is written at the popular level. If you want to read more detailed stuff, you need the 'Reformed Baptist theological Review' www.rbtr.org There is a lot of more heavy-weight reading there, including articles by Malone.

Secondly, Acts 2 is about the Gentiles. '.....all who are afar off.' Compare with Eph 2:13, 17. But then Joel 2, being a prophecy of Pentecost, is also about the Gentiles. '....I will pour out My Spirit on all flesh.'



> Have you taken the time to read Dr. McMahon's book review of "Baptism for Disciples Alone"? Here is a link to it: http://www.apuritansmind.com/BookReviews/Sourpuss/MaloneFredBaptismDisciplesAlone.htm
> 
> Please let me know what you think of Malone's book, after you have read Matt's critique of it.



I have read it and still like Malone's book. It provides valuable help to the man in the pew. The critique is sour grapes from start to finish.

Grace & Peace,

Martin

[Edited on 7-14-2005 by Martin Marprelate]


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Thanks for the links Joe. 

As far as Matt's article. We could both sling the word straw man at each other. I believe some of his arguments are straw also. And they start early. His perception of Baptist's being dispensational clouds his eyes sometimes. As it was stated in another thread there is not one monolithic understanding of Covenant Theology. He starts off attacking Fred for teaching his children and praying like the OT commands. Is that also not in the NT. Shouldn't Presbyterian's also evangelize their children or am I missing something.


> First, Malone says they should "œevangelize their children."[3] That is good Baptistic language. For him to pray with his children, or teach his children to pray, would be a violation of this language because he would be adopting Old Testament covenant concepts about raising up his children in a certain light. It is good that Malone is consistent at least for now



I also believe evangelism is much more than sharing the gospel so someone can become saved. It is also for the saint after regeneration. Evangel is Good News. We all on this forum expect it to be much more than a simple plan of salvation. It also includes sanctification and glorification. These things are also Good News.


Sometimes Matt just slings mud. I think it is one of his downfalls. He could do things a bit more scholarly himself. But he is in good company. Especially if you put him next to Luther. He would just have to learn a few four letter words.

[Edited on 7-14-2005 by puritancovenanter]


----------



## biblelighthouse

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> Thanks for the links Joe.
> 
> As far as Matt's article. We could both sling the word straw man at each other. I believe some of his arguments are straw also. And they start early. His perception of Baptist's being dispensational clouds his eyes sometimes. As it was stated in another thread there is not one monolithic understanding of Covenant Theology. He starts off attacking Fred for teaching his children and praying like the OT commands. Is that also not in the NT. Shouldn't Presbyterian's also evangelize their children or am I missing something.




You are missing something. There is a huge difference between telling someone _about_ God, and going so far as to actually teach them to pray, call God "Father", etc. Presbyterians believe we should tell everyone about God, whether or not they are in covenant with Him. But we do not "evangelize" our children, per se. Rather, we raise up our children as covenant members from day one, teaching them to call God "Father" and to pray to Him . . . something we would never tell a pagan coworker to do prior to them giving a confession of faith.

Just look at the Old Testament. Israelite fathers were NEVER told to "evangelize" their children. Rather, they were told, "raise your child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not depart from it". There is a difference between that and "evangelism". Evangelism is for those who have no relation to God whatsoever, and need to be reconciled to Him. But our children are already in covenant with God. And we need to raise them to be covenant keepers.


----------



## biblelighthouse

> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> 
> Secondly, Acts 2 is about the Gentiles. '.....all who are afar off.' Compare with Eph 2:13, 17. But then Joel 2, being a prophecy of Pentecost, is also about the Gentiles. '....I will pour out My Spirit on all flesh.'



Wrong. 

Joel was talking about Israelites in the dispersion, not Gentiles. And Peter was just quoting from Joel. There is nothing in Acts 2 about Gentiles.

Furthermore, Peter had no idea about Gentile inclusion until Acts 10. To borrow Matt's comment, "Peter was no more thinking about Gentiles in Acts 2 than he was thinking of eating a pork sandwich."


----------



## Scott Bushey




----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Joe,
Is not the Evangel the way in which our children should go? Isn't there a door one must go through? Why would you not teach this to your children? Maybe that is why some crawl over the wall. I teach all to be reconciled to God. That Evangel involves much more than just the message of salvation though. It also has to do with Sanctification, and Glorification. They are also part of the Good News or Evangel. Even if someone is not regenerate, Baptist and Presbyterian's alike are charged with teaching the truth that is in Christ Jesus. I am not sure you totally understand Covenant Baptism and raising a child in the way they should go to the fullest. I teach my children to pray. In General God is Father of the Universe. He is the Creator. Everyman everywhere ought to learn to call upon His name.


----------



## AdamM

Sorry, content removed by me (AM) to stay on topic. 

[Edited on 7-15-2005 by AdamM]


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

We know. Scott and I were also discussing some things on this thread and Scott removed some posts already. 

Let me restate:
Sorry we got so far off topic.......

I think moralism is good as long as it is Biblical Colleen. Baptismal regeneration is an example of how the early church fathers got off. Augustine also pushed for life long celebacy which I believe is quite exteme. I know St. Paul encouraged it. But he also saw that marriage was of God. Jesus himself addressed remarriage. Not reespousal. I think we need to stick as close to the Scriptures on this topic as we can. I believe the Westminster's and my cradle churches conclusions are biblical.

Be Encouraged, Randy


----------



## AdamM

After reading the thread, I think the key to the whole debate is an understanding that marriage is covenantal, but that the marriage covenant is not unconditional. Adultery, desertion and death are all actions that according to scripture break the marriage covenant. Once the covenant is broken the "innocent" party is in no way obligated to remain in the marriage covenant, since the stipulations have been violated. To bind the conscience of the innocent party, where the Lord has granted them liberty is a grievous sin.


----------



## wsw201

> _Originally posted by AdamM_
> After reading the thread, I think the key to the whole debate is an understanding that marriage is covenantal, but that the marriage covenant is not unconditional. Adultery, desertion and death are all actions that according to scripture break the marriage covenant. Once the covenant is broken the "innocent" party is in no way obligated to remain in the marriage covenant, since the stipulations have been violated. To bind the conscience of the innocent party, where the Lord has granted them liberty is a grievous sin.


----------

