1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

DIvorce question...

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by C.R. Gordon, May 10, 2004.

  1. JeffM

    JeffM New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2004
    Messages:
    135
    Likes Received:
    0
    We wallow in sin. Our very nature as man is sinful. We can't escape sin, even if we try. We are sinners, no matter what we do. </font>[/QUOTE]What is your point, in reference to the discussion at hand?

    Are you saying it doesn't matter?
    </font>[/QUOTE]No, I am not saying it doesn't matter. I am just saying that Christian get divorced for reasons other than what is written in the Bible.

    A Christian friend of mine was recently divorced. His wife, though she considered herself a Christian was very self-centered and continually disrupted the family structure. She defied every decision he made as a father and husband to the point where he didn't want to be home anymore. They went through counselling with their pastor, but she just wouldn't change. Now that they are divorced, she still makes his life miserable, especially when it comes to their daughter.

    I know I am not supposed to be judgemental towards another Christian, but I find it hard to think she considers herself a Christian.

    Now having said that, I don't think Christians should get divorced. I think they should try to work through their problems, even the most severe problems like adultery and rely on God to help them heal their marriage. But if they do end up getting divorced, God understands that we are just humans with a sinful nature and we just can't help ourselves, even when we try. This is why he sent his Son to die for our sins. We are hopeless sinners.

    It's conforting knowing God loves us anyway, even if we divorce.
     
  2. Hamtramck_Mike

    Hamtramck_Mike New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2004
    Messages:
    159
    Likes Received:
    0
    The entire 6th chapter of Romans is very relevant to this discussion I think; let us all prayerfully study this Scripture if we are to continue this thread.
     
  3. Lorelei

    Lorelei <img src ="http://www.amacominc.com/~lorelei/mgsm.

    Joined:
    May 25, 2001
    Messages:
    2,045
    Likes Received:
    0
    I know it sounds like I am being picky here, but the only obligation we have is to live in the Spirit. It is only through the Spirit's guidance that we will live a Godly life. To say we are "obligated" to live a Godly life makes it appear that we are able to do so without the help of the Spirit. There are many born-again Christians trying to live the Godly life outside of the Spirit's guidance. Until one learns how to walk in the Spirit they will never, no matter how hard they try, live a Godly life. That is why that is the only obligation we have. As the Scripture above says, if you live by the law you are "obligated" to obey it all.

    The letter of the law was to bring us to the knowledge of our need for Him. Now we must live by the Spirit and trust in His Word.

    When Jesus spoke about the laws concerning divorce, he was giving an example of a standard that one must keep if they were going to be justified by the law. Paul was inspired by the Spirit to give us guidance on how to deal with marriage and re-marriage after one is saved and no longer under the obligation of the law. The realities are that many of us will have already suffered from such situations even before we were saved. Some saved people were going to find themselves divorced whether or not they chose to. We cannot control what our partners do and we are not bound to live under obligation to a partnership when the other partner willingly neglects and leaves thier responsibility. Paul addressed these issues. He, nor I, have said that people can divorce or remarry at a whim. What I have pointed out is that Paul gave instructions for us to live by no matter what circumstance we found ourself in. Paul recommends staying married to an unsaved person, he suggests that the best thing to do is to stay married and try to reach them for Christ. But if that person wants no part of you, then let them go. You are no longer obligated to stay. If you do divorce, you can remarry. He says to remarry is not a sin.

    Instead of dogmatically telling Christians what they can and cannot do, we should be encouraging and teaching them how to walk in the Spirit. Show them the Scriptures that address their issues and encourage them to let the Spirit use His Word to guide them. That will teach them what they should do. Giving them a list of dos and donts gives a person a false sense of security. They think they are doing right when instead they are merely trying to live under the law again, only this time they call it the "moral" law, not the written one. Changing the name doesn't change the action.

    ~Lorelei
     
  4. Lorelei

    Lorelei <img src ="http://www.amacominc.com/~lorelei/mgsm.

    Joined:
    May 25, 2001
    Messages:
    2,045
    Likes Received:
    0
    The "early church" supposedly taught baptismal regeneration as well. I hope you do not support that doctrine too.

    I base my positions on the writings of the earliest church, the one in the NT. Their writings were inspired by God, I will trust in their teachings.

    I believe what Paul said in 1 Corinthians 7.

    ~Lorelei
     
  5. Johnv

    Johnv New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0

    That's a bit ambiguous. It can be said that if "not divorcing" allows sin to continue, such as the sins of adultery or marital desertion, then not divorcing is a sin as well.
    In that context I would agree with you. It seems we're too often sending the message that God forgives all sin, unless you're divorced, or gay, or alcoholic, etc. That simply ain't the case.
     
  6. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry <b>Moderator</b>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Divorce is not always sin. It is always the result of sin. It is never the best option or God's ultimate idea. But even God commanded divorce in the OT and gave clear examples of how to respond afterwards. The exception clause is clearly stated and can only be avoided by some strange hermeneutical tactics.
     
  7. JGrayhound

    JGrayhound New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2003
    Messages:
    319
    Likes Received:
    0
    God commanded divorce??? Or did God permit it to occur? Big difference.


    "The exception clause is clearly stated and can only be avoided by some strange hermeneutical tactics."

    Or if you go to Mark and Luke...who did not include it. Strange hermeneutic? Doubtful. Just trying to understand why one gospel gives an exception and the other two do not. Moreover...is it really an exception? (I don't know the answer to that...but there is quite a bit of debate over that.)
     
  8. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry <b>Moderator</b>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    God commanded it in the post exilic times in Ezra (Ezra 10:3ff.).

    Mark and Luke did not include the exception clause. That doesn't mean that Jesus didn't say it. And, yes, it is an exception; no, there is no legitimate debate about that. The legitimate debate centers on other things. One of the prime proponents of that position recently changed his position because of teh grammatical force of the passage. There is no legitimate way to avoid the exception clause. Mark and Luke did not include it because it was not necessary for their point. Each of the synoptics records different words. Yet the absence of words in one does not mean the presence of the words in another is meaningless. Jesus in fact gave the exception. What other evidence do we need?
     
  9. Daniel David

    Daniel David New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Messages:
    5,316
    Likes Received:
    0
    You don't have to avoid the exception clause at all. You just have to grasp what Christ was talking about. Since he did away with the Mosaic rule and introduced his own, the exception no longer applies.

    He was interpreting Moses people. Do you still live under Moses? Larry, you as a classic dispensationalist have no excuse to believing the Erasmus position.
     
  10. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry <b>Moderator</b>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Christ didn't do away with the Mosaic rule at that point. The exception is the new part that goes on and is still applicable today.
     
  11. Daniel David

    Daniel David New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Messages:
    5,316
    Likes Received:
    0
    That is why he said that Moses allowed it due to a hard heart? He specifically tied the exception clause to Moses, Larry.
     
  12. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry <b>Moderator</b>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    So are men's hearts no longer hard?? Isn't that a condition that continues to this day?
     
  13. Daniel David

    Daniel David New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Messages:
    5,316
    Likes Received:
    0
    That isn't the point and you know it. Are you as a christian allowed to have a hard heart? Is that now a defense for divorce? Come on Larry.

    The Mosaic law was to govern a society. That society was made up of lost people and redeemed people.

    The very fact that Christ mentioned Moses instead of the Garden proved that it was associated with the law, and therefore a temporary (1400 years) allowance.

    The law of Christ forbids such a thing.

    Further, the reason Matthew includes the exception and not Mark and Luke, is because Matthew is the only one who included the story of Joseph and Mary. I do not agree with the betrothal view, even though it is valid. Matthew called Joseph righteous for wanting to divorce Mary. Matthew would have been crazy to call him righteous and then condemned him. It was all about the allowance under the law.

    Lorelei, I believe Paul in 1 Cor. 7 also.
     
  14. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry <b>Moderator</b>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Daniel,

    Take it easy. The text says what it says and that is what I believe. Both Christ and Paul gave legitimate reasons for biblical divorce. You may feel free to believe otherwise. But you cannot blame it on Christ and Paul.

    Christ point is that divorce is the result of sin, the hardness of hearts. God did not intend it that say. Moses gave instruction regarding it. And Christ said, "And I say to you ..." That means Christ was giving instruction that was not within the Law. It seems to me that you need to adjust your views around that instruction. But hey ... in your future ministry, you will have to answer the questions for people who come to you. You will have to explain to them why Christ's words should be interpreted your way. I have never been able to find a satisfactory explanation for that view. Your view on Matthew including it because of Mary and Joseph has been suggested but suffers from a lack of biblical support. Joseph would have been well within the Law to seek a divorce from Mary. That would not have been the hardness of heart. Annd furthermore, the text makes no such statement about that purpose which would have been easy enough to include. I can't remember all the ins and outs of that view, but I remember being very unimpressed by it in light of the mountian of evidence against it.

    You still have the fact that God commanded divorce.

    As for 1 Cor 7, Paul very clearly gave grounds for legitimate divorce in which the party is not bound and clearly gave permission for remarriage with the explicit statement that the party who remarries has not sinned.

    This is a tough issue. The question is not whether or not divorce happens, but what do we do about it. I do not counsel people to seek divorce, although I can see some cases in which I might possibly. I think divorce is never the best option. It is always the result of sinfulness. Forgiveness is always the best option, but people's hearts are hard.

    Give an idea of the resources you have used to help form your opinion on this matter. I am curious as to the breadth and depth of your exposure and study.
     
  15. JGrayhound

    JGrayhound New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2003
    Messages:
    319
    Likes Received:
    0
    So, this is prescriptive for the church?
    How do you reconcile God commanding divorce with what Paul says about divorcing unbelievers in 1 Co 7:12? Or where he commands believers not to divorce (v11). There is clearly a larger issue at the heart of the matter in Ezra, and it is not God "commanding" divorce (which is, at best, a misrepresentation of the text).

    There is NOT clear evidence that someone can re-marry. "Not under bondage" does NOT mean free to re-marry. Could it mean that? Maybe. But it does not AUTOMATICALLY follow nor is it clear. In fact, in light of all the passages where remarriage is spoken of as adultery, and even the previous verses in 1 Cor 7 where remarriage is frowned upon.
    You ASSUME remarriage. But it is not the CLEAR teaching. It could mean (as I believe) that they are not tied to that person, meaning they don't have to chase after them and force them to stay. In fact, context favors that, IMO.
     
  16. Daniel David

    Daniel David New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Messages:
    5,316
    Likes Received:
    0
    Can you point out where the BIBLE says that God commanded the divorce?
     
  17. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry <b>Moderator</b>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes, I pointed it out in Ezra already: Ezra 10:11 11 "Now therefore, make confession to the LORD God of your fathers and do His will; and separate yourselves from the peoples of the land and from the foreign wives."

    The will of God for them in that matter was to put away their foreign wives. So it is not, in fact, a misrepresentation of the text. It is what the text says. There was a larger issue of the heart. I do not dispute that.

    As for 1 Cor 7, I am not using the Ezra passage as a refutation, but rather to answer the charge that divorce is always sin and God never approves of it. That is simply wrong, based on the biblical evidence.

    1 Corinthians 7:27 Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be released. Are you released from a wife? Do not seek a wife. 28 But if you marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned. Yet such will have trouble in this life, and I am trying to spare you.

    Let me point out several things. In v. 27, the first word for "release" is unanimously understood to be divorce. The second word for "release" is from the same word. Therefore, both words talk about divorce, in two opposite situations: Those who should not seek it and those who have already gone through with it. Here is the point: If you are married, do not seek a divorce; If you are divorced do not seek to marry.

    But look at v. 28: "If you marry, you have not sinned." Now, who is the "you"? It if the same person in v. 27. Therefore, the Bible plainly states that remarriage is not sin.

    There is some debate about that. I tend to think it does mean that. If they could not remarry, they would still be in bondage to the first marriage. But there is room for debate on that.

    I think that makes no sense in the context. I don't think anyone would have disputed that. In fact, Paul plainly says, "Let them go if they want to." So if he means what you say, then he has only repeated what he already said. That seems strange to me.
     
  18. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry <b>Moderator</b>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    BTW, DD, I am still interested in knowing what all you have read on this issue, to give me an idea of what has colored your view.
     
  19. Daniel David

    Daniel David New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Messages:
    5,316
    Likes Received:
    0
    Larry, is it not possible that Ezra assumed God's will on the matter? I mean, the Law doesn't command such a thing. I wonder what he was talking about.

    Second, I will gladly post on my 'resources', but let me say this, ALL of my school profs taught the view you hold to. I am not simply regurgitating their words.
     
  20. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry <b>Moderator</b>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    That is possible. What is interesting is that it is presented as 1) God's will; 2) something done for obedience and restoration; 3) something God did not condemn. I can't think of anything in Scripture that meets those three qualifications without actually being God's will. It seems that whenever "God's will" is appealed to in Scripture, it is his will. There may be one exception I can think of, but I would have to look it up when I have a moment and see what it actually says. But even there, the text specifies that it was disobedience, so the Scripture does not leave us hanging about the possibility that "God's will" was misused. (I am thinking of the prophet who was told to go straight home and stop nowhere and ran into someone for whom he stopped ...I can't remember all the details right now.)

    I did not mean to sound like I was accusing you of regurgitation. I was simply wondering what resources you have interated with and what you lean on most heavily. Just curious ... that's all ...

    Good men do differ on this issue because of the lack of clarity. I wish it were clearer. If someone holds a different position than I, I am fine with that. I may try to persuade them differently, but they don't answer to me for it ...
     
Loading...