The Reformed Consensus and WCF 24:5, 6

[A.J.]

Hello:

I am aware that the position of Herman Hoeksema’s denomination on divorce and remarriage is a minority among Reformed churches in North America and probably the entire world. But I feel the need to clarify some related issues.

Would it be historically accurate to say the position on divorce and remarriage stated and explained in Chapter 24 of the Westminster Confession of Faith is the Reformed consensus (i.e., embracing Reformed churches which hold to the Westminster Standards, and Reformed churches which hold to the Three Forms of Unity) on the subject?

Was this position universally accepted by Reformed churches which hold to the Three Forms of Unity in the past and the present with the exception of the PRCA?

What precedent then did the PRCA have for opposing the Westminster Standards’ position on divorce and remarriage?​

Notice that the questions are closely related. An answer to the first question may also provide the answer to the following questions.

Thank you.

Blessings!

-----Added 8/5/2009 at 12:28:06 EST-----

P.S. The PRCA denomination by the way has several churches in Singapore and the Philippines.

The Westminster Confession states,

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

a. Mat 1:18-20. • b. Mat 5:31-32. • c. Mat 19:9; Rom 7:2-3.

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 wilful desertion as can no way be remedied by the Church or civil magistrate, is cause sufficient of dissolving the bond of marriage;a 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.b

a. Mat 19:6, 8-9; 1 Cor 7:15. • b. Deut 24:1-

-----Added 8/5/2009 at 12:30:09 EST-----

Also, I am inclined to believe that the Westminster Confession's position on divorce and remarriage is the Biblical position.

-----Added 8/5/2009 at 12:32:36 EST-----

Though there is no divorce in my country (it's illegal), my denomination follows Westminster's position on the subject.

 

[A.J.]

Bump

 

[Mayflower]

Admin Note: Article deleted. The OP asked for Reformed Consensus on WCF 24:5,6 and not facile scholarship pulled off the web...

 

[TimV]

The two new revolutionary propositions were:

1. It should be permissible to dissolve certain marriages.

2. The ‘innocent party’ should be allowed to remarry.

These two views were considered heretical by the theologians of the day.

There was another revolutionary proposition. That minsters should be able to marry. But that was left out of the essay. I wonder why. Perhaps it was Erasmus' fault that Katie married Martin.

From this point on, we have our modern-day teaching that adultery (and now “desertion” and even “irreconcilable differences”) can break one-flesh and all parties are free to remarry. This teaching has destroyed the family as God designed and planned it to be.

From what point? The Church was good with the WCF definition (though improperly observed at times) from the time of Moses to Christ, which is just as long as 1650 years.

Can I guess that Carol Nendel is some sort of Baptist sectarian?

 

[jogri17]

to be fair thats why portions was revised before being adopted by various denominations.

 

[Scott1]

As I read this section of the Westminster Confession again, it appears to say divorce is permitted biblically for:

1) adultery (if sought by the innocent party)
2) a believer when abandoned by a nonbeliever, which cannot be remedied by church or magistrate

Divorce and remarriage is permitted if:

1) adultery (when sought by the innocent party)

There is no statement regarding remarriage in the abandonment in case#2



Can you clarify the PRCA or Mr. Hoeksema's view in contrast to this?

 

[toddpedlar]

The two new revolutionary propositions were:

1. It should be permissible to dissolve certain marriages.

2. The ‘innocent party’ should be allowed to remarry.

These two views were considered heretical by the theologians of the day.

There was another revolutionary proposition. That minsters should be able to marry. But that was left out of the essay. I wonder why. Perhaps it was Erasmus' fault that Katie married Martin.

From this point on, we have our modern-day teaching that adultery (and now “desertion” and even “irreconcilable differences”) can break one-flesh and all parties are free to remarry. This teaching has destroyed the family as God designed and planned it to be.

From what point? The Church was good with the WCF definition (though improperly observed at times) from the time of Moses to Christ, which is just as long as 1650 years.

Can I guess that Carol Nendel is some sort of Baptist sectarian?

It would seem she's SOME kind of sectarian, given that she said, of the WCF,

Westminister Confession: official Protestant Reformation statement of new doctrines.

If not sectarian, she surely shows a lack of proper perspective.

 

[A.J.]

Ralph, thanks for providing some historical background.

From what point? The Church was good with the WCF definition (though improperly observed at times) from the time of Moses to Christ, which is just as long as 1650 years.

This is precisely why I am inclined to believe that the Westminster's position is the Biblical position. It presupposes continuity between the teaching of the two testaments.

As I read this section of the Westminster Confession again, it appears to say divorce is permitted biblically for:

1) adultery (if sought by the innocent party)
2) a believer when abandoned by a nonbeliever, which cannot be remedied by church or magistrate

Divorce and remarriage is permitted if:

1) adultery (when sought by the innocent party)

There is no statement regarding remarriage in the abandonment in case#2

Scott, isn't true that remarriage is also allowed by the teaching of the Westminster in the case of desertion?

Can you clarify the PRCA or Mr. Hoeksema's view in contrast to this?

The PRCA's position is that neither adultery nor desertion dissolves the marriage bond. Therefore, remarriage while the spouse is still living is unlawful.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Here is Shaw's exposition of 24.4-6 (source; reformed.org).

Moses permitted the Jews, "because of the hardness of their hearts," to put away their wives, to prevent greater evils; but in the hew Testament a divorce is only permitted in case of adultery, or of wilful and obstinate desertion. There can be no question that adultery is a just ground for "the innocent party to sue out a divorce, and, after the divorce, to marry another, as if the offending party were dead;" for Christ has plainly decided this case (Matt. v. 32): "I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery; and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced, committeth adultery." But whether the wilful and obstinate desertion of one of the parties sets the other party at liberty to marry again, may admit of dispute. Many divines of great name have maintained the affirmative, and have thought the case to be expressly determined by the Apostle Paul (1 Cor. vii. 15): "If the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases." At verse 11, the apostle plainly declares, that the party who wilfully and obstinately deserted the other, was not at liberty to marry again during the other's life. But at verse 15, he appears to declare that the party who was deserted, after using due means for the return of the party deserting, was free to marry again. And the decision seems just; for by irreclaimable desertion the marriage bond is broken, and the ends for which marriage was appointed are effectually defeated; and it is not reasonable that the innocent party should be denied all relief. Our Confession, accordingly, teaches that not only adultery, but also "such wilful desertion as can no way be remedied by the Church or civil magistrate, is cause sufficient for dissolving the bond of marriage;" and the law of Scotland also allows of divorce in case of wilful and irreclaimable desertion. It ought to be observed, however, that even adultery does not, ipso facto, dissolve the bond of marriage, nor may it be dissolved by consent of parties. The violation of the marriage vow only invests the injured party with a right to demand the dissolution of it by the competent authority; and if he chooses to exercise that right, the divorce must be effected "by a public and orderly course of proceeding."​

 

[A.J.]

Chris, thanks for the quote. I agree with it. But I am curious as to whether the position of the PRCA was advocated by any other church or communion which holds to the Three Forms of Unity in the past and present.

Is the Westminster's teaching on divorce and remarriage universally accepted by churches in the continental Reformed tradition in the past and present (with the exception of the PRCA)?

 

[NaphtaliPress]

I don't know the answer to that A.J.

Chris, thanks for the quote. I agree with it. But I am curious as to whether the position of the PRCA was advocated by any other church or communion which holds to the Three Forms of Unity in the past and present.

Is the Westminster's teaching on divorce and remarriage universally accepted by churches in the continental Reformed tradition in the past and present (with the exception of the PRCA)?

 

[Scott1]

Westminster Confession of Faith

Chapter XXIV
Of Marriage and Divorce

I. Marriage is to be between one man and one woman: neither is it lawful for any man to have more than one wife, nor for any woman to have more than one husband, at the same time.[1]

II. Marriage was ordained for the mutual help of husband and wife,[2] for the increase of mankind with a legitimate issue, and of the Church with an holy seed;[3] and for preventing of uncleanness.[4]

III. It is lawful for all sorts of people to marry, who are able with judgment to give their consent.[5] Yet it is the duty of Christians to marry only in the Lord.[6] And therefore such as profess the true reformed religion should not marry with infidels, papists, or other idolaters: neither should such as are godly be unequally yoked, by marrying with such as are notoriously wicked in their life, or maintain damnable heresies.[7]

IV. Marriage ought not to be within the degrees of consanguinity or affinity forbidden by the Word.[8] Nor can such incestuous marriages ever be made lawful by any law of man or consent of parties, so as those persons may live together as man and wife.[9] The man may not marry any of his wife's kindred, nearer in blood then he may of his own: nor the woman of her husband's kindred, nearer in blood than of her own.[10]

V. Adultery or fornication committed after a contract, being detected before marriage, gives just occasion to the innocent party to dissolve that contract.[11] In the case of adultery after marriage, it is lawful for the innocent party to sue out a divorce and, after the divorce,[12] to marry another, as if the offending party were dead.[13]

VI. Although the corruption of man be such as is apt to study arguments unduly to put asunder those whom God has joined together in marriage: yet, 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:[14] 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.[15]

As I read the summary of the doctrine of Scripture here, it is clearly that an innocent, on grounds of adultery, may divorce and re-marry.

It does not say re-marry on the grounds of abandonment.

I have heard there is a divide of opinion on this latter point even withing Reformed Christianity.

 

[TimV]

It does not say re-marry on the grounds of abandonment.

I have heard there is a divide of opinion on this latter point even withing Reformed Christianity.

Scott, you should look at abandonment as a subset of adultery. A guy takes off, and his wife is deprived of her lawful rights. A woman wants to hurt her husband, and deprives him of his lawful rights. Abandonment is just another type of sexual immorality. It all fits together, and the Divines knew this stuff.

 

[Scott1]

It does not say re-marry on the grounds of abandonment.

I have heard there is a divide of opinion on this latter point even withing Reformed Christianity.

Scott, you should look at abandonment as a subset of adultery. A guy takes off, and his wife is deprived of her lawful rights. A woman wants to hurt her husband, and deprives him of his lawful rights. Abandonment is just another type of sexual immorality. It all fits together, and the Divines knew this stuff.

At this point, I'm not making a biblical case one way or another.

The question, and this brings up something important to those under vows, is does the Westminster Standards summarize the doctrine of Scripture to say a believer may divorce and remarry if they were irremediably abandoned by a nonbeliever?

V. Adultery or fornication committed after a contract, being detected before marriage, gives just occasion to the innocent party to dissolve that contract.[11] In the case of adultery after marriage, it is lawful for the innocent party to sue out a divorce and, after the divorce,[12] to marry another, as if the offending party were dead.[13]

VI. Although the corruption of man be such as is apt to study arguments unduly to put asunder those whom God has joined together in marriage: yet, 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:[14] 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.[15]

Paragraph 5 says divorce and remarriage is biblical for an innocent party in the case of adultery.

Paragraph 6 says divorce is permissible for adultery and irremediable abandonment of a believer. It does not say in the case of abandonment that it is or is not biblical to remarry.

This carefully and narrowly limits it in accordance with Scripture, summarizing the doctrine only on points that are clear.

-----Added 8/6/2009 at 10:35:53 EST-----

A.J.
Would it be historically accurate to say the position on divorce and remarriage stated and explained in Chapter 24 of the Westminster Confession of Faith is the Reformed consensus (i.e., embracing Reformed churches which hold to the Westminster Standards, and Reformed churches which hold to the Three Forms of Unity) on the subject?

Given that the summary of doctrine of Scripture at Chapter 24 in the Westminster Standards allows for divorce and re-marriage for adultery and for divorce for irremediable abandonment of a believer by a nonbeliever... no more, no less. I would say what it does say represents Reformed theology consensus, historically and currently.

The differences might occur on re-marriage for a believer irremediably abandoned by an unbeliever, whether and how physical cruelty might be grounds, etc.

Incidentally, I'm reading a PCA summary now where the committee majority did not believe a believer irremediably abandoned by an unbeliever can re-marry. But this is outside the scope of your question about consensus as I'm understanding it.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

In their debates on divorce the Westminster divines "Resolved upon the Q., "Wilful and obstinate desertion of one married party giveth just cause to the other, after all means used to reduce the offending person, to sue out a divorce and for liberty to marry another." See Mitchell and Struthers Minutes, 280.
When the chapter was reported out, they recommitted the portion on willful dissertion to a committee of divines who objected to it (the minutes are not clear why they objected) p. 299. The committee reported the next day.
The next day after that they proceded in debate about the clause and passed the whole chapter. p. 300.
Whatever the objection was, it does seem clear the majority of the Assembly held to the truth of the first resolution. No objection to that is noted nor is there any indication the Assembly changed their mind.
Without looking any deeper, I would take the original resolution as interpretive of the final chapters intent. Anyone know of any studies on the Assembly's work on chapter 24?

 

[Scott1]

London Baptist Confession of Faith

Chapter 25:

Of Marriage
1._____ Marriage is to be between one man and one woman; neither is it lawful for any man to have more than one wife, nor for any woman to have more than one husband at the same time.
( Genesis 2:24; Malachi 2:15; Matthew 19:5,6 )

2._____ Marriage was ordained for the mutual help of husband and wife, for the increase of mankind with a legitimate issue, and the preventing of uncleanness.
( Genesis 2:18; Genesis 1:28; 1 Corinthians 7:2, 9 )

3._____ It is lawful for all sorts of people to marry, who are able with judgment to give their consent; yet it is the duty of Christians to marry in the Lord; and therefore such as profess the true religion, should not marry with infidels, or idolaters; neither should such as are godly, be unequally yoked, by marrying with such as are wicked in their life, or maintain damnable heresy.
( Hebrews 13:4; 1 Timothy 4:3; 1 Corinthians 7:39; Nehemiah 13:25-27 )

4._____ Marriage ought not to be within the degrees of consanguinity or affinity, forbidden in the Word; nor can such incestuous marriages ever be made lawful, by any law of man or consent of parties, so as those persons may live together as man and wife.
( Leviticus 18; Mark 6:18; 1 Corinthians 5:1 )

This is the London Baptist Confession chapter on Marriage in its entirety. Notice it does not address re-marriage or divorce at all.

 

[A.J.]

Brethren, thank you very much for the posts.

Let me give you some background as to why I am asking these questions. Several months ago, Joel Beeke came to my country and held a conference through the invitation of one of his (Filipino) students in PRTS in Michigan. During one of the Q&A portions of the conference, a man asked whether there was any Reformed position on divorce. Dr. Beeke explained and defended WCF 24:5, 6.

He noted also that there is a small Reformed denomination which emerged in the first half of the 20th century and is now doing missionary work in the Philippines which opposes the view contained in WCF 24:5, 6. Dr. Beeke was referring to the PRCA. Apparently, he implied that the position of the PRCA was a novelty in the history of the Reformed churches since the time of the Reformation.

I did not think much of his answer until quite recently.

Is the PRCA all alone in its position on divorce and remarriage in the the history of the Reformed churches from the time of the Reformation? Is this what we can conclude from the historical facts?

Sadly, I'm not aware at all of the historical facts.

In using the word "consensus," I refer to what both Presbyterian churches and Reformed churches in the continental tradition agree upon. For example, both traditions agree on the doctrine of particular redemption and the practice of covenantal paedobaptism. There is a "consensus" among them that Christ died for the elect only and that infants of believers are to be baptized.

Any other thoughts? Thanks.