# Covenant Church on Divorce and Remarriage



## Igor (Dec 10, 2008)

Sorry if this has already been discussed, but I really would like to make it out. Recently I had a clash in one of the forums on the subject of divorce and remarriage with a man from the Covenant Protestant Reformed Church. I don't want to start a discussion here, I just want to make it out: I had always thought that there was a certain unity in the issue among both Reformed Christians and Baptists. Now I see I was wrong, was I?


----------



## TimV (Dec 10, 2008)

Igor, what is your question? They believe



> that marriage is a life-long, unbreakable bond (Gen. 2:24), the earthly symbol of the union of Christ and His church (Eph. 5:22-33), and that remarriage while one’s spouse is living is adultery (Matt. 5:32; Mark 10:11-12; Luke 16:18; Rom. 7:2-3; I Cor. 7:39).



Which I assume is at least one reason the Westminster Confession of Faith isn't included in their confessional statement.


----------



## Igor (Dec 10, 2008)

So they don't accept the Westminster Confession of Faith because of that... I see now. I will try to phrase my questions: 1) how do their believes differ from the Reformed theology in general? What kind of movement is this? 2) on the issue of divorce and remarriage in particular - what did the historical Puritan tradition teach?


----------



## Nate (Dec 10, 2008)

Covenant Protestant Reformed Church is a sister church to the Protestant Reformed Churches in America.
Here's some of this denomination's literature on this subject:

Marriage and Divorce
Until Death Do Us Part
The LORD'S Hatred of Divorce (Prof. David Engelsma)
The Family: Foundations are Shaking


----------



## fredtgreco (Dec 10, 2008)

The PCA position paper on Divorce and Remarriage can be found here:

PCA Historical Center: Index to the Position Papers of the Presbyterian Church in America

scroll down to "Divorce and Remarriage"


----------



## Igor (Dec 10, 2008)

Thanks a lot! It's clear now.
Any resources on the position of Nonconformists (or Dissidents)? I found none.


----------



## Galatians220 (Dec 11, 2008)

Igor said:


> Thanks a lot! It's clear now.
> Any resources on the position of Nonconformists (or Dissidents)? I found none.


 
Is this what you're thinking about?

Divorce & Remarriage: A Position Paper :: Desiring God Christian Resource Library

Margaret


----------



## Igor (Dec 11, 2008)

Galatians220 said:


> Is this what you're thinking about?
> 
> Divorce & Remarriage: A Position Paper :: Desiring God Christian Resource Library


Not quite that... I am mostly interested in the position of the 17th-century Nonconformists (whom John Bunyan belonged to).
But thanks anyway. Though I myself strongly disagree with John Piper, I do respect his way of putting it: 


> I do not claim to have seen or said the last word on this issue, nor am I above correction, should I prove to be wrong. I am aware that men more godly than I have taken different views.


and


> Those who are already remarried:
> Should not attempt to return to the first partner after entering a second union (see 8.2 above)
> Should not separate and live as single people thinking that this would result in less sin because all their sexual relations are acts of adultery. The Bible does not give prescriptions for this particular case, but it does treat second marriages as having significant standing in God's eyes. That is, there were promises made and there has been a union formed. It should not have been formed, but it was. It is not to be taken lightly. Promises are to be kept, and the union is to be sanctified to God. While not the ideal state, staying in a second marriage is God's will for a couple and their ongoing relations should not be looked on as adulterous.


----------



## Galatians220 (Dec 11, 2008)

Okay, I get it.   If you do find something on John Bunyan's position, I, too, would be tremendously interested in it. An ancestor of mine, Capt. Daniel Axtell, was a correspondent and colleague of Bunyan's, and I collect Bunyan writings... I am directly descended from Capt. Axtell's brother, Thomas.

BTW, Igor, I have not properly welcomed you here yet, and I apologize for that oversight. A hearty, Midwest American 

to you! Hope you enjoy yourself here on the Puritan Board and are richly blessed!

Margaret


----------



## Scott1 (Dec 11, 2008)

> Igor
> Puritanboard Freshman
> 
> Sorry if this has already been discussed, but I really would like to make it out. Recently I had a clash in one of the forums on the subject of divorce and remarriage with a man from the Covenant Protestant Reformed Church.



Can you clarify this for those following this thread (e.g. what you prefer to focus on here, explain the issue for us, etc.)?


----------



## Mayflower (Dec 11, 2008)

Elder Gilbert Beebe: Romans 7:2 On divorce and marriage. 

Romans 7:2


What the Bible Says about Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage by John Coblentz 

http://www.anabaptists.org/books/mdr/clause.html


----------



## TimV (Dec 11, 2008)

> The Bible does not give prescriptions for this particular case, but it does treat second marriages as having significant standing in God's eyes. That is, there were promises made and there has been a union formed. It should not have been formed, but it was.



Just another example of how the lack of continuity between the OT and the NT presents Baptists with all sorts of trouble. Just like my son Philip would never be allowed the rite of Baptism in many of the churches represented here on this board because he's not smart enough, Piper is forced to say an illegal oath (his view) is, well, OK, since you've done it anyway....I guess....kids don't try this at home....When if he took the WCF route and the OT teachings they are based on (in the way the NT expounds on them) he'd not have to clumsily defend maintaining a contract based on an illegal oath.


----------



## TsonMariytho (Dec 11, 2008)

TimV said:


> Igor, what is your question? They believe
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Tim, why do you imply that all Baptists believe that marriage is a lifelong, unbreakable bond? The Reformed Baptists I personally know and have discussed the issue with end up at pretty much the same place as John Piper, a Baptist of course; Jay Adams, who wrote the book I always recommend to people on this subject; and many other Protestants.

Adams characterized the view typified in your summary above as a Roman view. That some Baptists hold it is no more shocking than their semi-Arminianism.

Can you point to something in the 1689 LBC that supports this stereotype?

EDIT -- As Tim pointed out, he wasn't specifically referencing Baptists above, but a minority Presbyterian tradition.


----------



## TimV (Dec 11, 2008)

Andrew, the question of Baptists doesn't come up in my quote you've brought up. It was an answer to a question from Igor about a minority Presbyterian tradition.


----------



## TsonMariytho (Dec 11, 2008)

TimV said:


> > The Bible does not give prescriptions for this particular case, but it does treat second marriages as having significant standing in God's eyes. That is, there were promises made and there has been a union formed. It should not have been formed, but it was.
> 
> 
> 
> Just another example of how the lack of continuity between the OT and the NT presents Baptists with all sorts of trouble. Just like my son Philip would never be allowed the rite of Baptism in many of the churches represented here on this board because he's not smart enough, Piper is forced to say an illegal oath (his view) is, well, OK, since you've done it anyway....I guess....kids don't try this at home....When if he took the WCF route and the OT teachings they are based on (in the way the NT expounds on them) he'd not have to clumsily defend maintaining a contract based on an illegal oath.



In the course of interacting with Christian friends, I have read egregiously dispensational material on this subject. One book stands out, "Till Death Do Us Part", I believe by Joseph Webb. In it he argues that when Jesus said "Moses permitted...because your hearts were hard", that what in fact happened is that God tried to set up a perfect standard in the Law, but the people weren't up to it. Therefore, Moses stepped in and set up a lesser standard that tolerated sin. The author was determined not to make God permit divorce under any circumstances, in contradiction to the plain scripture in Deuteronomy.

So, yes, I understand where you're coming from, and I also deplore the grossly dispensational views that are floating around out there. *But please don't characterize all Baptists that way.*

Your characterization of Piper is unfair, because Jay Adams (who was more Presbyterian than you or I are) took the same stance as Piper -- that when divorcees who were Biblically restricted from marrying sinned by remarrying, they were not to add to their sin by divorcing yet again.

Do you take a different view?

-----Added 12/11/2008 at 01:33:50 EST-----



TimV said:


> Andrew, the question of Baptists doesn't come up in my quote you've brought up. It was an answer to a question from Igor about a minority Presbyterian tradition.



Ahhh, thanks, Tim. Read that too hastily. Take it as a reply to your later post, then.


----------



## TimV (Dec 11, 2008)

> So, yes, I understand where you're coming from, and I also deplore the grossly dispensational views that are floating around out there. But please don't characterize all Baptists that way.
> 
> Your characterization of Piper is unfair, because Jay Adams (who was more Presbyterian than you or I are) took the same stance as Piper -- that when divorcees who were Biblically restricted from marrying sinned by remarrying, they were not to add to their sin by divorcing yet again.



We must have posted at the same time. Please read my last post. The question was that of a minority Presbyterian view constrasted with the majority Presbyterian view. Baptists didn't come up in any way, shape or form, which you can see if you re-read the first posts.


----------



## TsonMariytho (Dec 11, 2008)

TimV said:


> Baptists didn't come up in any way, shape or form, which you can see if you re-read the first posts.



Hmmmmmmmmmmm!!!!!!

"Didn't come up in any way, shape, or form"?

You took a pot shot at us, man! :^)

Just kidding, if this is a Presbyterian thread, I'll cooperate and lay low[er].



> Just another example of how the lack of continuity between the OT and the NT presents *Baptists *with all sorts of *trouble*. Just like my son Philip would never be allowed the rite of *Baptism *in many of the *churches represented here on this board* because he's not smart enough, *Piper *is forced to say an illegal oath (his view) is, well, OK, since you've done it anyway....I guess....kids don't try this at home....When if he took the WCF route and the OT teachings they are based on (in the way the NT expounds on them) he'd not have to clumsily defend maintaining a contract based on an illegal oath.


----------



## TimV (Dec 11, 2008)

Again, posting at the same time, with the added problem of somebody messing with people's posts (not that a Moderator doesn't have the right to do this, we're in somebody else's house after all) which make things more confusing.

Andrew, please read the PCA position paper Pastor Greco posted carefully, then if you want we can start another commonly dealt with subject here. I suppose it won't be a total repeat if we focus on the oath part of what Piper says, which is what I was addressing. Then after you go through the PCA's position paper, go through this thread dealing with illegal marriage oaths:
http://www.puritanboard.com/f54/ethics-strange-question-concerning-marriage-38751/

That will save lots of time.
Best
Tim


----------



## N. Eshelman (Dec 11, 2008)

Being someone from West Michigan- the HUB of the Protestant Reformed Church: We all know too well their position on divorce and remarriage. It almost becomes a standard of orthodoxy whether someone believes it or not. That and their position on common grace. 

I have a number of good friends who are PRC, but when we focus on the distinctives as opposed to what joins us to the rest of the Reformed community- we are on the road to trouble, if you ask me (which nobody did, of course).


----------



## TsonMariytho (Dec 11, 2008)

TimV said:


> somebody messing with people's posts



I added the red text in my own post, out of contrition for misrepresenting your position.



TimV said:


> Andrew, please read the PCA position paper Pastor Greco posted carefully, then if you want we can start another commonly dealt with subject here. I suppose it won't be a total repeat if we focus on the oath part of what Piper says, which is what I was addressing. Then after you go through the PCA's position paper, go through this thread dealing with illegal marriage oaths:
> http://www.puritanboard.com/f54/ethics-strange-question-concerning-marriage-38751/
> 
> That will save lots of time.
> ...



Will do.


----------



## Igor (Dec 11, 2008)

Galatians220 said:


> If you do find something on John Bunyan's position, I, too, would be tremendously interested in it. An ancestor of mine, Capt. Daniel Axtell, was a correspondent and colleague of Bunyan's, and I collect Bunyan writings... I am directly descended from Capt. Axtell's brother, Thomas.


Wow, that's amazing! BTW, I am happy to possess the three-volume set of all (I believe) Bunyan's works - it seems to me from the Index in the end of the last volume that he never ststed his position on the subject.



> BTW, Igor, I have not properly welcomed you here yet, and I apologize for that oversight.
> Hope you enjoy yourself here on the Puritan Board and are richly blessed!


Thanks a lot, Margaret! In fact, it was my fault not to introduce myself properly and open a thread - I just did not notice.



Scott1 said:


> Can you clarify this for those following this thread (e.g. what you prefer to focus on here, explain the issue for us, etc.)?


I will try to. My Church and my denomination hold the traditional for the majority of Baptists (or so I believe) view that remarriage while the ex-spouse is still alive is permissible under certain circumstances - that is, adultery and desertion. And my belief had been that the Reformed tradition was just the same (I had a chance to familiarize myself with the Westminster Confession) - until I came across a member of the Covenant Reformed Church (and that is in Russia!). 
So, what I wanted to clarify was 1) the historical perspective: what did the Puritans and Nonconformists believe about the issue and 2) who believes what now in the Reformed Churches - this seems to have been answered. 
I deeply apologize, it is not that easy for me to express myself in such complicated matters .


----------



## lynnie (Dec 11, 2008)

Not to thread drift, but there is an interesting and somewhat humorous perspective at the end of a Doug Wilson book (No I am NOT FV!!). He thinks that anything that under the OT law a person would have been stoned to death for (such as witchcraft, cursing your parents, and of course adultery, homosexuality, etc) allows remarriage, I mean, the spouse would be dead. He made a decent case as I recall. It was a new one to me. But anyway, carry on.....


----------



## TimV (Dec 11, 2008)

> allows remarriage, I mean, the spouse would be dead. He made a decent case as I recall. It was a new one to me. But anyway, carry on.....


Rushdoony's son made the same case about 30 years ago in a very early Chalcedon Report, and I agree, it was really interesting. And like you, Rushdoony isn't FV, and says that if his dad were still alive, he would be "horrified" by the FV (ya gotta add that stuff ;-) )


----------

