Is Divorce a Sin?

Greetings,

One more thought and it is not up for debate by me. When folks who believe differently than I do concerning salvation--I simply tell them to plug in what they believe when they see the word Baptism.

That is what I tell Baptists, Methodists, Prebyst. and the Pentecostal folks.

This issue of MDR is a dividing one and it divides whatever group one chooses to believe.

All of us derive our teachings frm the Roman Catholic Church. It has only been in the last twenty years or so that men have been able to get away from the Roman Catholic teaching and begin to put forth their own thinking on this subject.

For me an mine--this is very much misunderstood and even misapplied. Yet how many know that this teaching has its roots around 596-607 with the first wantabe Pope.

This issue of who can divorce and who can remarry--is based on power and authority. Since the Roman Catholic church believes it has the authority to change or amend the Word to suit--they do.

Who is in charge of all these pagan nations being brought under the rule of the Church? Does Civil authority have control{per Roman 13:1-7] or does the church have power and authority over all these people?

most of the teaching that I see in my group and among other groups is based on the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church concerning marriage, divorce and remarriage. The amount of money they have made off of this will more than likely never ever be known.

Yet because our teachers and their teachers had a lot of Roman Catholic folks teaching them--a lot of this gets carried over.

"IF" you find that you cannot adjust baptism to whatever one believes that one has to do to be saved in order to understand that those forgiven are totally forgiven--not partially forgiven--then I would urge you to stop and not read it at all.

Richard

 

*edited due to premature posting*

 

Richard -

While your input is appreciated, please be aware that you are posting in a "Baptist only" area. Please confine your posts to the "Baptists and all other Christian" forums of the board.

You are free to start a similar or identical topic in the appropriate forum.

Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.

Clint Kritzer
Moderator

 

If one really has a repentant heart, then it is up to that person to remaim chaste, even if they are remarried. It may be difficult to remain chaste, but it is what God desires. The greater temptation is due to sin, the sin of divorce and remarriage. The cross to bear, and the right thing to do, is to honor God, even in the tough situations in life.

The intense lifelong suffering was not uncommon to holy bibical people.


in the case of fornication---> she does not commit adultery, but it is still a sin.

(The only case in which true marriage is no longer binding is upon the death the one of the spouses.)

 

Daniel David writes:
>>It is horrible to say I have no desire to beat
>>someone up? What in the world are you talking
>>about?

Your choice of words.....

 

Ok Ernie, I am divorced and I am remarried. I am also a born again, blood bought child of God.

Would you vote to accept me as a member of your church or not? </font>[/QUOTE]Same here. I'm interested in hearing a reply.
We care what God's Word says, we just don't like to have our noses rubbed in our past, and told we don't care because we happen to not agree with your thinking.

 

==================================================
Ok Ernie, I am divorced and I am remarried. I am also a born again, blood bought child of God.

Would you vote to accept me as a member of your church or not? [/qb][/QUOTE]Same here. I'm interested in hearing a reply.
We care what God's Word says, we just don't like to have our noses rubbed in our past, and told we don't care because we happen to not agree with your thinking. [/QB][/QUOTE]
=================================================

If one was divorced and remarried prior to salvation, yes I would accept them as members; if as a saved church member one divorced and remarried, then discipline should be applied as it would be disobedience to the Word of God.

Not my thinking, it's the word. As for rubbing ones nose in it:
Galatians6:7 Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.
8 For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting.

 

Hey Wiz,

You would be welcome in our church. If God forgives the sinner, then it is a sin to hold the forgiven sin against the Believer.

 

Ernie Brazee writes:
&gt;&gt;If one was divorced and remarried prior to
&gt;&gt;salvation, yes I would accept them as members;
&gt;&gt;if as a saved church member one divorced and
&gt;&gt;remarried, then discipline should be applied as
&gt;&gt;it would be disobedience to the Word of God.

I must have missed something here: when did God start delegating punishment for sin to the church? If the sin is forgiven, then how can a congregation apply punishment?

 

Pretty simply, actually.

Galatians 6:1 Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted.

But if they won't hear the fault, or allow you to try to restore them, what should you do?

Church discipline now applies (Matthew 18). And if you weren't aware that the church is allowed to discipline church members, then you need to talk to your pastor about giving you some real meat.

 

So, if it's from us, it's an opinion. If it's from you, it's the word. :rolleyes:

That's all well and good, but would you still consider them adulterers?

 

Nice job, Don:
God forgave the sin, but the church doesn't.

 

Look at the situation presented again, BIR; nothing was said about the individual even asking for forgiveness, now was there?

In Ernie's situation, as presented, the individual--a saved church member--divorces and remarries.

The church MUST attempt to restore that individual. If the individual refuses that attempt, then the church, per Matthew 18 (please note: I'm quoting scripture, not my personal feelings on the subject) is required to get involved. And ultimately, if the individual refuses to acknowledge the church, then the church is instructed to treat him as a heathen.

Not my words; God's. You don't have to like it, dude, but since it's scripture, you have to abide by it.

Now, if the individual hears the church, and repents, then he's restored, and still has full rights in that church.

That make it clear for you?

 

The LORD said he would remove our sin, and cast it as far as East is from West, now that means the sinner is forgiven the sin, but sin, it self is never forgiven, (notice I said that the sinner is forgiven the sin, but S I N, the action is condemned to the Lake of Fire). The release from the penalty of sin, which is death,is what happens. The enmity that sin causes is therefore slain in the body of Christ, His physical body, not the "ecclesia". Jesus became S I N for us, therefore the enmity is slain thereby, not the sinner.

Yes, we as Christians are to be Christlike and forget the sin, but that doesn't change the fact that the one who has committed adultry, that the adultry is forgotten, only that the one who repents of that sin is forsaking it and putting it behind. No, we are not Christlike in digging up bones, but the one who commits sin is not released from the corruption caused by that, or any sin.

The adulterer who is re-married, thus causing adultry again, is forgiven of the sin if they have truly repented, BUT the sin they've committed is neither forgotten by them or by those offended by it. That there is, my friends, the biggest reason to avoid sin altogether.

"Sin ALWAYS complicates life!"

The spirit of a man is affected by his past sins, but we have that blessed assurance of forgiveness of those sins at salvation, but still, it does not change our past, only our future!

Divorce therefore invites the sin of adultry, so then it cannot be justified as anything other, than it is sin, due to unforgiveness.

In our utopias we like to think our past has no effect on our lives or the lives of others, but that is the lie of the devil, divorce affects all peoples involved or otherwise.

I stood before the bench at a jury selection after asked if anyone had any problems, ethical or religious, that would prevent them from making a descision regarding the dividing of property in a finalized divorce settlement. I informed the judge that God doesn't believe in divorce, neither do I, so I couldn't possibly have part in anything that constitutes divorce or the settling of properties due to that divorce. I was excused from the jury selection! May I also note, the judge said he appreciated some one who took the stand against divorce and if he weren't a divorce court judge already committed to the case he would reconsider and leave the occupation, he agreed!

Now that's only one example of some one who knows more about divorce than most of us, having presided over multitudes of divorce cases, but I would certainly follow his understanding; Divorce is SIN!

 

But, the next verse says that a man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

 

Now, the question again: If I, for example, marry, divorce, remarry, get saved (in that order), am I an adulterer because I have an ex wife?

 

But, the next verse says that a man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery. </font>[/QUOTE]HCL...the only time in which remarriage is not adutery is if the ex has passed away. As long as the ex-husband/wife is still alive, any remarriage is adultery.

 

So, is this the general consensus here?

 

wizofoz...I'm not saying that everyone believes that, but I am saying that the scriptures indicate that.

 

Now, the question again: If I, for example, marry, divorce, remarry, get saved (in that order), am I an adulterer because I have an ex wife? </font>[/QUOTE]Since my experience with you has proven that you try to ensare one with the accusation of being unforgiving, let me answer your question with a comparative question:

If you cut your right arm off and throw it away before you got saved, are you still missing your right arm? Wouldn't it have been better to have your right arm sown back on, and then get saved? It certainly would have been best to have gotten saved before you cut your arm off, right?