Which View On Marriage, Divorce and Remarriage do you take ?

Status
Not open for further replies.
BlackCalvinist

BlackCalvinist

Puritan Board Senior
I just ran into a pastor this past weekend who holds to the view that all marriages are permanent (until death) and that 'we' are misinterpreting Jesus' words as well as Paul in 1 Cor. 7 in regard to divorce and possible remarriage.

He's reformed.

My position on the matter, after much research, was published on my site in 98 here, with a bit of tweaking over the years (speaking of which, I need to re-read and see if I need to tweak it again....).

In a nutshell, I believe that the only LEGAL cases for divorce with the freedom to re-marry in scripture are adultery (where the spouse is unrepentant of the affair) and abandonment by an unbeliever.

In the case of domestic abuse, I believe the offended person is to remain unmarried or reconcile to their spouse.

I think that covers everything.

Thoughts ? (I hope I put this in the right forum....)
 
Divorce is permitted for the cause of adultery.

Divorce is permitted if your unbelieving spouse abandons you.


Remarriage to another person is NEVER permitted, under any circumstances.
 
Originally posted by biblelighthouse
Divorce is permitted for the cause of adultery.

Divorce is permitted if your unbelieving spouse abandons you.

Remarriage to another person is NEVER permitted, under any circumstances.
Click to expand...

That is neither the Confessions view, nor that of the Reformed Church.

WCF 24.5 Adultery or fornication committed after a contract, being detected before marriage, giveth just occasion to the innocent party to dissolve that contract. In the 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.

We have discussed this before, and I don't really feel the need to rehash it, except to say that I believe, Joseph, that you will find it exceedingly difficult to be ordained in a Reformed Presbyterian Church (PCA, OPC, etc) with your view. That is not a reason to change your view, but you should be aware of it as you continue your studies, for your own good and planning.

[Edited on 9/21/2005 by fredtgreco]
 
Originally posted by biblelighthouse
Divorce is permitted for the cause of adultery.

Divorce is permitted if your unbelieving spouse abandons you.


Remarriage to another person is NEVER permitted, under any circumstances.
Click to expand...

1 Corthinans 7:15-16

If a believer marry's an unbeliever they are sanctified, and if they wish to stay married great, but if the unbeliver chooses to leave a believer is free to let them leave, and they don't have to be reconciled to that spouse, and are free to re-marry. Because who is to say the unbelieving spouse will ever come to believe?

And if a person commits adultry and they refuse to repent are they not supposed to be treated as a non-believer? (Matthew 18:15-17)
 
Matthew 19:6-12;16-18 -- Jesus is the final authority on the matter above all-- including our uninspired confessional creeds.

6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?

8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.

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

10 His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry.

11 But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given.

12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.

16 And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?

17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.

18 He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, ...
Click to expand...
 
Originally posted by OS_X
I just ran into a pastor this past weekend who holds to the view that all marriages are permanent (until death) and that 'we' are misinterpreting Jesus' words as well as Paul in 1 Cor. 7 in regard to divorce and possible remarriage.

He's reformed.

My position on the matter, after much research, was published on my site in 98 here, with a bit of tweaking over the years (speaking of which, I need to re-read and see if I need to tweak it again....).

In a nutshell, I believe that the only LEGAL cases for divorce with the freedom to re-marry in scripture are adultery (where the spouse is unrepentant of the affair) and abandonment by an unbeliever.

In the case of domestic abuse, I believe the offended person is to remain unmarried or reconcile to their spouse.

I think that covers everything.

Thoughts ? (I hope I put this in the right forum....)
Click to expand...

Kerry,

The late Dr. Greg Bahnsen makes a good case for why domestic abuse obliterates the "cleaving to your spouse" element of marriage. It is available for reading here:

http://www.cmfnow.com/articles/pe058.htm

While Dr. Bahnsen does not speak of remarriage in these treatise, he does speak of such in a Q&A period on one of his "Law in the Life of the Christian" lectures. If I can get permission from Covenant Media (i.e. Randy Booth), I'll transcribe it and post it here.
 
Puritanhead,

We need to look at the deeper level of this, as with all sins, they start in the heart. If a husband or wife in anyway turn their affections away from their spouse to something or to someone else, would it not be considered adultry on some level?

I mean even God considered the sin's of Isreal and putting other god's before HIM adultry. So should we only look at adultry as being a 'sexual' sin?

Something to think about....




Matthew 19:6-12;16-18 -- Jesus is the final authority on the matter above all-- including our uninspired confessional creeds.

6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?

8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.

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

10 His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry.

11 But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given.

12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.

16 And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?

17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.

18 He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, ...
Click to expand...
[/quote]
 
... as mentioned above:

Italics and Bold indicate intensity in Dr. Bahnsen's delivery:


Questions and Answers on Divorce & Remarriage from The Place of God's Law by Dr Greg Bahnsen (c) Covenant Media Foundation Used by Permission

Question (Related from the audience from Randy Booth to Dr. Bahnsen):

"Ok this is a rather broad question so go ahead if you like and narrow it to address the particular concern - What does the Bible say about Divorce and is Remarriage lawful?"

Answer by Bahnsen:

This is another one like the Sabbath [a previously addressed question] commandment, although maybe not a difficult or complex as the Sabbath one - but there is a lot of dispute and disagreement within the Christian community on this ... and I just want to honor my Christian brothers and tell you that you should read what they have to say and consider it; and judge everything, including what I'm telling you by the Word of God.

My own conviction about divorce (and I have a paper, a long position paper that I've written on this that you can get from Covenant Media (referring to http://www.cmfnow.com/articles/pe058.htm), if you want to look at it more. My own position is that marriage is a covenant, in terms of which husband and wife publicly vow that they will leave father and mother, which is to say form a new social unit - not desert each other. Secondly, cleave to each other and therefore do that which is in the best interest of one another, living self-sacrificially for each other. Paul puts it this way "the wife is to live for her husband; the husband is to be willing to die for the wife". Thirdly, that they are to become one flesh, and express fidelity in their sexual relations toward each other.

Since that is what marriage is, the grounds for divorce will be only the violation of the marriage covenant. When the covenant has been broken, it no longer holds. And they in which people can violate the covenant then is either by sexual immorality (starting at the third point) - becoming one flesh is violated when there is adultery, homosexuality, bestiality, OR this may surprise you, when there is a refusal of sexual relations between husband and wife. That defrauds the marriage Paul says in 1 Corinthians 7.

So sexual infidelity, either of the overt sort, where you are having sex with somebody, or something that you should not - OR of the other sort where you are not having sex with the one you promised regular relations with. That would be grounds for divorce.

Secondly, there would be grounds for divorce if there is desertion between the parties, leaving father and mother means that you are now loyal to each other and form a new [family] unit. When someone deserts, they don't always "run back to moma" I realize, but that is in a sense the same category - deserting the marriage. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 7 that when the unbeliever (knocks on the pulpit) deserts, the believer is no longer bound.

So when this happens within the Christian Church, between a couple where the couple are professing believers, it is important that Church discipline be applied first that in the eyes of the Church, the deserting believer is considered an unbeliever now. Sometimes people desert marriages and think that they still are Christians, but that's not the issue. When the Church declares that they are unrepentant (knocks on the pulpit) in their sin, what the Church has bound or loosed on earth is bound or loosed in Heaven. And so the deserting party being excommunicated, is therefore legally treated as an unbeliever - may be divorced by the party that is faithful and remaining.

Thirdly, and not everyone will agree with this, but I [Bahnsen] think the Law of God teaches it, with the respect of cleaving to each other and seeking each other's good, if there is physical spousal abuse of the sort that we would consider life threatening, and persistent, I believe that is grounds for divorce. It's a violation of the covenant made.

The Old Testament Law says that a slave wife [Exodus 21:10-11] - even a slave wife, if she is deprived by her husband of her food, clothing, or conjugal rights, has the right to go out free from that husband. That is not a husband who abuses her in the positive way, but abuses her negatively, refuses those things that are necessary to her and so 'A Fortiori' - to the greater case, how much more would a wife who is beat by her husband ( sometimes it's the other way around, I know you find that hard to believe but it does happen), when the spouse is beat by the other spouse in a life-threatening way, or threatened in that way, I believe that that's grounds for divorce. NOT, (taps the pulpit) everyone would agree with that, but that's something that has to be studied out.

At this point Randy Booth interjects to restate the second part of the originally question:

... and remarriage?

Answer by Bahnsen:

Remarriage, the thing that has confused Christians about remarriage - I think Jay Adams is right about this. We get all messed up with this because we use this expression "married in the eyes of God, though not married in the eyes of men". There's no such thing in the Bible as married in the eyes of God, though unmarried in the eyes of men. I know that sounds, you know, strong, but it's true. There is NO such concept in the Bible. Now there is in the Bible, however, a concept, well it's not just a concept, it's the definite teaching, that sometimes divorces are immoral.

And so, when someone pursues a divorce, which is not sanctioned by the Bible, then that divorce is displeasing to God. See, we should not say, you are still married in the eyes of God, even though you're divorced in the eyes of men. We oughta say YOU ARE DIVORCED IN THE EYES OF GOD, AND THAT IS WHY (pounds the pulpit) HE IS ANGRY WITH YOU. What happens when people pursue an unBiblical divorce? There obligation is to repent and do the works meet for repentance. And what would the works appropriate to repentance mean? It means you remarry [the spouse you have divorced].

That's why Paul says in 1 Corinthians 7 that the wife is not to desert her husband, and the husband is not to desert the wife. But if she does so, it says (taps the pulpit) let her remain unmarried. She does not have the right to go and form another marriage union, because it is an immoral divorce for which she is to repent and get back to her husband. And the Law of God says after someone's divorced, if they do remarry, the cannot remarry the first part ever again [see Deut 24:1-4].

Now, if you are the innocent party in a divorce, the Bible says "you are no longer bound". You are not sinfully divorced, because you did not pursue that divorce - and the party that is innocent in a divorce is truly divorced, and as such free to remarry.

[Edited on 9-21-2005 by BrianBowman]
 
A question and a comment.

First, does anyone agree that the lines tend to go along presbyterian vs. baptist views on this issue, with Presbyterian's agreeing with divorce and remarriage while baptist some form of limitation on either divorce or remarriage? (Not saying everyone fits but it seems that when this dispute comes up those tend to be the lines)

Comment: I was reading another thread on this issue, and had a thought. Why do people write as if they have some magic scripture that easily ends the debate that has been ongoing for hundreds of years among brethen? I am not saying that we cannot know what is correct and what is error, but somethings written are quite flippent.
 
Good point. Though Presbyterian for the most part now, I do come from a baptisitic background. Also, I got booted from a reformed women's list simply for holding this view (even though they could have just asked me to keep it to myself).
 
Originally posted by doulosChristou
The Westminster Divines understood the Scriptures exactly right on this issue.
Click to expand...

Sure . . . by ignoring the first 1500 years of the NT church, and by instead siding with Erasmus, a Roman Catholic . . . :um:
 
Originally posted by ChristianTrader
A question and a comment.

First, does anyone agree that the lines tend to go along presbyterian vs. baptist views on this issue, with Presbyterian's agreeing with divorce and remarriage while baptist some form of limitation on either divorce or remarriage? (Not saying everyone fits but it seems that when this dispute comes up those tend to be the lines)

Comment: I was reading another thread on this issue, and had a thought. Why do people write as if they have some magic scripture that easily ends the debate that has been ongoing for hundreds of years among brethen? I am not saying that we cannot know what is correct and what is error, but somethings written are quite flippent.
Click to expand...

:amen:

Cleary there are many, many good men and women on *both* sides of this debate. As one who experienced pretty much the "maximum pain" that divorce can inflict (both as a child and an adult) it is my sincere conviction that the differences that cause us to take these sides are primarily within us.

I deeply respect and love Joesph and Colleen as beloved fellow members of God's redeemed household. I will even say that *if* more of us had the opportunity to be nutured up in true convenant famillies, or at the very least mentored/discipled for several years (before marriage) in a Church like Joesph's (thinking about what he has described concerning future sons-in-laws, "local-church covered" marriages, etc. on other threads), then there *might* be less need for these discussions because it's very likely there would be much less divorce.

Those who are unbelievers or apostates will always choose to live "according to their own ways". However, those of us who are in the household of faith have a solemn obligation to choose the fear of the Lord and grow in sanctification. At the end of the day, this is the only true way to ensure that our marriages will be built on the correct foundation - one that remains.

Matthew 7:24-27 ¶ "œEveryone then who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man who built his house on the rock. 25 And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house, but it did not fall, because it had been founded on the rock. 26 And everyone who hears these words of mine and does not do them will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand. 27 And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell, and great was the fall of it."
 
Originally posted by biblelighthouse
Originally posted by doulosChristou
The Westminster Divines understood the Scriptures exactly right on this issue.
Click to expand...

Sure . . . by ignoring the first 1500 years of the NT church, and by instead siding with Erasmus, a Roman Catholic . . . :um:
Click to expand...

Joseph,

Here is a quote from The PCA Position Paper "HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE ON DIVORCE AND REMARRIAGE"

It is by no means certain that Heth and Wenham adequately represent the teaching of the early church. According to Jesuit scholar Theodore Mackin in his massive Divorce and Remarriage, "Christian writers on the subject of adultery, divorce and remarriage, beginning in the middle of the second century and continuing at least until Augustine ... never call the following persons adulterers: (1) A husband who remarries after dismissing an adulterous wife. (2) A husband who remarries after being abandoned by his wife. (3) A woman who marries a man in either of these two cases."
 
Originally posted by ChristianTrader
A question and a comment.

First, does anyone agree that the lines tend to go along presbyterian vs. baptist views on this issue, with Presbyterian's agreeing with divorce and remarriage while baptist some form of limitation on either divorce or remarriage? (Not saying everyone fits but it seems that when this dispute comes up those tend to be the lines)
Click to expand...

I would disagree with this. Most of the Baptists I know agree with what the Westminster says. I hadn't heard the extreme view that remarriage is only possible if death is involved until I had read Joe and Colleen. Maybe I live a sheltered life.
 
Originally posted by puritancovenanter
Originally posted by ChristianTrader
A question and a comment.

First, does anyone agree that the lines tend to go along presbyterian vs. baptist views on this issue, with Presbyterian's agreeing with divorce and remarriage while baptist some form of limitation on either divorce or remarriage? (Not saying everyone fits but it seems that when this dispute comes up those tend to be the lines)
Click to expand...

I would disagree with this. Most of the Baptists I know agree with what the Westminster says. I hadn't heard the extreme view that remarriage is only possible if death is involved until I had read Joe and Colleen. Maybe I live a sheltered life.
Click to expand...

I also do not think it is an ecclesiastical affinity issue. Actually the place where I have seen the restrictive view propogated most is in Family Radio circles. Harold Camping was a Presbyterian (at last not baptist) I believe, and he is a huge proponent of the view.
 
Originally posted by Romans922
What about divorce and/or remarriage, with an elder/pastor?
Click to expand...

It says the Husband of one wife. If you are divorced and remarried you still only have one wife. I know of two Remarried Baptist Pastors. Both of them had wives that left them.
 
And I've never heard of Harold Camping or Family Radio. I must sheltered also. I know the view is most held by the very conservative and family-oriented. I don't know if anyone thinks it's a reaction to the previous generations' looseness pertaining to the issue...I do know that I haven't found any direct statement scripturally permitting remarriage. I do see where we are to still consider the second marriage and so forth as a legitimate marriage...but nowhere where it promotes or states that it is okay to remarry in the first place. In fact, the only passage I can find states that to do such IS to commit adultery.
 
Originally posted by puritancovenanter
Originally posted by Romans922
What about divorce and/or remarriage, with an elder/pastor?
Click to expand...

It says the Husband of one wife. If you are divorced and remarried you still only have one wife. I know of two Remarried Baptist Pastors. Both of them had wives that left them.
Click to expand...

I believe throughout church history, even amoung those that agreed with D&R, that those men were required to step down.
 
Originally posted by LadyFlynt
Originally posted by puritancovenanter
Originally posted by Romans922
What about divorce and/or remarriage, with an elder/pastor?
Click to expand...

It says the Husband of one wife. If you are divorced and remarried you still only have one wife. I know of two Remarried Baptist Pastors. Both of them had wives that left them.
Click to expand...

I believe throughout church history, even amoung those that agreed with D&R, that those men were required to step down.
Click to expand...

One did step down. The other wasn't a Pastor when his ex wife left him. One reentered the ministry as a single man. He remarried quite a few years later. The one who was divorced before ministry was remarried after he was ordained.
 
My point was...they would have had to step down at the point of remarriage. (btw, I know one of the men you are referring to, not personally)
 
Can we all agree that the marriage covenant is a conditional covenant? If we agree on that, what could a party to the covenant do to break the covenant?

1. Abandonment
2. Adultery
3. Death

So once the covenant is broken, by what logic would we hold the hold the injured party to the terms of the covenant once the stipulations of the covenant have been violated? It seems to me that to deny the right of the innocent spouse to remarry after the covenant has been broken would require a view that sees the marriage covenant as unconditional.
 
correct...I don't see it as a conditional covenant. I see it simply as a covenant. If our covenant with God is to be compared to marriage, and if you believe marriage to be a conditional covenant, then I think you would have to side with the arminians that our covenant with God is conditional, yes? God never "remarried". Instead time and time again He perservered even when his bride (those covenanted to Him throughout time) was unfaithful. Hosea is a good representation of this. Also, I was listening to the Bible on CD this afternoon and it started with Jeremiah 3, which dealt directly with this comparison.

Also, I believe it would be inconsistent to say that the "innocent" party is free to remarry and the "offending" party is not. From having dealt with couples in crisis, I've learned that rarely is there a truely wholly innocent party...there is generally ALOT more to the story. However, even in cases of there being a truely innocent party, I would still see this as inconsistent.

(btw, I'm not stating that I have it all down pat...this is just where I stand.)

[Edited on 9-22-2005 by LadyFlynt]
 
Originally posted by LadyFlynt
My point was...they would have had to step down at the point of remarriage. (btw, I know one of the men you are referring to, not personally)
Click to expand...

Why would they have to step down? Please don't tell me because of the one wife verse. It won't fly.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

shelly
  • Locked
How do you know which denomination?
Replies
13
Views
3K
beej6
B
SRoper
  • Locked
Why do pastors solemnize marriage?
Replies
10
Views
4K
Grymir
Grymir
Reformed Covenanter
John Jewel on forbidding marriage as a doctrine of demons
Replies
0
Views
669
Reformed Covenanter
Reformed Covenanter
Romans922
  • Locked
What is your churches View on the officials of your church?
Replies
6
Views
2K
non dignus
N
Kaalvenist
  • Locked
What is your view on offices in Reformed/Presbyterian polity?
Replies
19
Views
4K
Archlute
Archlute
Back
Top