divorce statistics

Believe me... I've wondered this myself. Jesus allowed for a divorced person to remarry under only one condition: If the divorce was because of adultry. Today Christians divorce for as many reasons as the unsaved. Some claim physical or psychological abuse. Now, I would never recommend anyone stay in an abusive relationship... especially if children are involved. However, they are not free to remarry, according to scripture. Period.But today, divorce and remarriage happens all the time in the church. A lot of pastors are in their 2nd marriage. This is wrong, and it is sin. Period. You can not argue against it being sin using scripture.And there are certain offices within the church that a divorced person can not hold. Scripture declares this and is very specific... and gives a quick explanation of why.No amount of human reasoning can override what scripture makes clear. Dont like it? Take it to God... He authored the book. Not me. I've heard every argument in the world for why divorced Christians can remarry (meaning when the divorce did not involve adultry). Especially when I was in the Charismatic movement. I dont know what the stats are, but it sure seems to me I knew a lot more divorced and remarried Christians in the Charismatic movement than in any other.It's nuts! The church in America is so worldly, yet believes it is so blessed because of material wealth. If you ask me... it's cursed with material wealth... not blessed.Krispy

I don't know why there is so much divorce among ChristiansI do... there is hardly any difference between the saved and the unsaved. Christians in America are more in love with the world and it's pleasures than they are the One who died to saved their soul.The Bible makes it abundantly clear that God hates divorce (Malachi 2:16) and that reconciliation and forgiveness should be the marks of a believer’s life (Luke 11:4; Ephesians 4:32)Absolutely! Amen...However, God recognizes that divorces will occur, even among His children. A divorced or remarried believer should not feel any less loved by GodThis is very true... but they are under His judgement at the same time.God often uses even the sinful disobedience of Christians to accomplish great good.While true, we can never use that as an excuse to remain disobedient and unrepentant. I know thats not what you're saying... but I know many who feel just fine in their disobedience because they misinterpret material wealth and comfort, or weak preaching, as God's blessings.Krispy

Hmmm... I took a bath last month. I need another one, this is sure to get me in hot water with some people.... Krispy

Man, I would get so much feedback from that it would probably drive me to the moonshine.... get the peach flavored. It's pretty good.Krispy

I personally feel anything before salvation does not count, isn't that what salvation is all about and if I was a member of a Church that held that against me There are those who believe this does apply to those who were divorced before salvation. My personal feeling is that if you were divorced and remarried before salvation, then your clean. If you were divorced before salvation... but never remarried and are now saved... you should remain single, or reconcile with your ex. But no on the remarriage.Just my personal conviction on it.Krispy

This is very true... but they are under His judgement at the same time.Krispy,I don't think you can say this. You can only advise a person to seek God's word to their own life.If you were divorced before salvation... but never remarried and are now saved... you should remain single, or reconcile with your ex. But no on the remarriage.Just my personal conviction on it.Again, it has to depend on the reason for the divorce and what else is going on with the ex, whether reconciliation is ever going to be an option. Either the slate is clean or it isn't. You are trying to have a half-way house, here.

Again, it has to depend on the reason for the divorce and what else is going on with the ex, whether reconciliation is ever going to be an option. Either the slate is clean or it isn't. You are trying to have a half-way house, here.No, actually I'm not... we're presuming the divorce did NOT happen because of adultry. For anything other reason other than adultry I stand by what I said. Again, this is my personal convictions based on my interpretation of the Bible. I'm not forcing anything on anyone here... just want to make that clear. This has been my counsel to people when I am asked what I think. It's up to each individual to seek the Lord.Krispy

No, actually I'm not... we're presuming the divorce did NOT happen because of adultry. For anything other reason other than adultry I stand by what I said. Krispy,Could you explain your advice when children are being violated? What is the 'Christian' status of the molestor? And, what is the culpability of the non-molesting parent, who does not remove the children from danger, if any? (Please bear in mind the possibility of a female who molests children.)Lastly, we are discussing physical violence in another thread, it might be better to comment there, on that, if you wish to.

Could you explain your advice when children are being violated? What is the 'Christian' status of the molestor? And, what is the culpability of the non-molesting parent, who does not remove the children from danger, if any? (Please bear in mind the possibility of a female who molests children.)Simple... if I was in charge of the US, child molestors would be put to death. Then the spouse would be free to remarry.In reality tho, if someone came to me and sought my counsel about their spouse molesting the children, or being physically violent, I would recommend they seperate. Seek counseling for the violence. For sexual molestation I would personally recommend they never never never let the children near them again. Also, the guilty party needs to be turned over to the law.Divorce is ok in that instance. It is not the divorce that Jesus forbids... it's the remarriage. However, in the case of sexual molestation it could be argued that the guilty spouse committed adultry/fornication, thereby making remarriage lawful for the innocent spouse. I personally do not have an issue with that, I think remarriage is ok in that situation.But not for violence or psychological abuse. Jesus only gave one condition in which a spouse could remarry. Peeople were beating their spouses back then too... He would have mentioned it if it was ok to remarry under those conditions. He did not, and neither did Paul.Also... one more thing... if the innocent spouses keeps the children in a dangerous situation and does not remove them... I recommend a tall tree and a short piece of rope for them as well.Krispy

Mine would be the guillotine. Gotta love Texas justice! LOLWe do things a little slower here in North Carolina... we let 'em swing for awhile. Bake in the sun until they're golden brown...Krispy

I love reading threads on this website. With that being said here is my take on this situation. Yes the bible does clearly say (in mulitple scriptures) that divorce is only permitted under adultry, yet also informs believers to not marry unbelievers. 2Co 6:14 Stop forming inappropriate relationships with unbelievers. Can right and wrong be partners? Can light have anything in common with darkness? So what are we to do if one finds themself in a marriage with a nonbeliever? Are we supposed to stay and beat our heads up against a wall trying to convert them? The bible also says that you will be forgiven of your sins if you repent. I myself was married at age 16 to a nonbeliever due to my getting pregnant. After I "woke up and smelled the coffee" I realized that this marriage was nothing but an excuse to get out of my parents house, and I also did not want my son to be born out of wedlock. So I said enough and divorced. At the age of 19 I remarried and now we are church going people. I have read the scriptures dealing with divorce and sex before marriage and hundreds of other sins that I fall under, but yet I hold firm to the belief that God has forgiven me since I have repented. So while the slat is never wiped clean, it is God that decides if we are living in sin or not, not us.While you are forgiven, you are forbidden to hold certain offices of authority in the church. Cindy, I know, will have much more to say about this... and she is better at articulating than me... so I'll let her handle this.2Co 6:14 Stop forming inappropriate relationships with unbelievers. Can right and wrong be partners? Can light have anything in common with darkness? What modern version is that?? I would recommend that first you get a better version... (KJV).Krispy

So while the slat is never wiped clean, it is God that decides if we are living in sin or not, not us.By 'while the slate is never wiped clean' do you mean, you still have a son to care for? I hope not. I believe the slate IS wiped clean, or, there is no forgiveness for anything. If God doesn't forgive broken marriages, it is as fundamental a difficulty as not believing the resurrection.If Christ be raised from the dead, then there is TOTAL release from sin, including marriage certificates which should never have been obtained. Your statement about God deciding the status of your relationship is excellent. This restores the leadership of the Spirit to the believer, in discerning what God is saying. Krispy,John 8:11And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more. This must also have meaning for those who fall. Not everyone who commits adultery should be divorced. What does that solve?

Krispy, Patrick and all reading here,I'm making two posts here, because it is too long otherwise.I don't 'read' the 'adultery clause' into what Jesus said in Matthew, because of the way it is worded mentioning 'fornication'. Let me explain. Notice it is Matthew the Levite who has cottoned on to this, the writer who specialises in linking the gospel to the Old Testament promises and prophecies. And, remember what happened to the woman in John 8, whose adultery partner should also have been brought, according to the Mosaic law, and both of them stoned. Also remember how Jesus speaks against the Pharisees for putting a legalistic meaning on the law adding to the law, traditions of men, yet forgetting mercy and justice. (Isn't it amazing they did that?)Deuteronomy 2213 If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her,14 And give occasions of speech against her, and bring up an evil name upon her, and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid:15 Then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel's virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate:16 And the damsel's father shall say unto the elders, I gave my daughter unto this man to wife, and he hateth her;17 And, lo, he hath given occasions of speech against her, saying, I found not thy daughter a maid; and yet these are the tokens of my daughter's virginity. And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city.18 And the elders of that city shall take that man and chastise him;19 And they shall amerce him in an hundred shekels of silver, and give them unto the father of the damsel, because he hath brought up an evil name upon a virgin of Israel: and she shall be his wife; he may not put her away all his days.20 But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel:21 Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.22 If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel. (John 8)23 If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her;24 Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.25 But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die:26 But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbour, and slayeth him, even so is this matter:27 For he found her in the field, and the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none to save her.28 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;29 Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.30 A man shall not take his father's wife, nor discover his father's skirt.I've included the next few verses, :-P which some may feel should still apply in the Church? Why not? ;-)Deuteronomy 231 He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD.2 A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the LORD.

Here I explain why I think Jesus is saying that to marry a woman who was not a virgin when she got married, is legitimate ground for divorce and remarriage.Matthew 5:32 But 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. The important concept to collect from all these verses, is the importance of VIRGINITY to God. This recurs in the New Testament, with regard to the Bride of Christ. He died to make her spiritually virgin, that He may be married to her.This is the picture.If you read the verse from Jesus again, you will find that the action is being taken by the man. By 'putting her away' he is causes her to commit adultery.Look again. If she had already been married when she had a sexual relationship with another man, she would have been guilty of ADULTERY. In Deut 22:22 it is the MAN who is held responsible for polluting another man's marriage. That is why the Pharisees' test of Jesus in John 8 failed so abysmally - they deliberately did not bring the man as well.If the man who interfered with her marriage relationship had been single, then she would have been guilty of adultery AND fornication. But the Lord ONLY mentions fornication. This leads me to believe He is saying that a man who finds his new wife, is not a virgin, may divorce her immediately.In the Old Testament, God uses this language - adultery and fornication - to discuss the spiritual state of His people's relationship with Him. He always intends to take them back though, no matter how many illicit lovers they have had.Remarriage is a different subject, but again, my belief is, there is liberty in the Spirit, depending on the circumstances of a marriage failure, and an honest heart before God. I 'see' that once a person is no longer a virgin, physically, it really doesn't matter whether they are still single or in a marriage when they meet God. Their whole world is changed by that event and how He leads them thereafter. There is always the option to remain single and never to marry, but even forbidding to marry is spoken against in the New Testament.1 Timothy 41 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.A happy marriage is very close to God's heart. His hatred of divorce is not a legalistic hate. It is because He knows what it is like to be the rejected partner, or, the one who was cheated on.Divorce was discussed in depth in a thread called 'Help! I've got 10 wives!!!! https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=5599&forum=36#41084In the above thread, I didn't realise the discussion about adultery may have been based on what I would call a misreading of Matthew 5:32. :-o

Krispy,I want to round up a few things in this post, which go back to before my last two posts.In reality tho, if someone came to me and sought my counsel about their spouse molesting the children, or being physically violent, I would recommend they seperate. Seek counseling for the violence. For sexual molestation I would personally recommend they never never never let the children near them again. Also, the guilty party needs to be turned over to the law.I'm not happy about the glib way you dismiss psychological violence here, or physical violence. A third of sexual abuse of children is accompanied by physical violence. Also, how is a woman supposed to feel 'loved, as Christ loved the Church' (Eph 5) if her husband beats her? Same question if the violent roles are reversed.In the other thread on psychological violence, the same idea was put forward, but is there not a man here that sees it is not a 'marriage' by Paul's definition of relationship, if one partner is even occasionally violent towards the other? I 'get' all the arguments about not divorcing, but, in the Old Testament there were strict rules of provision to be made by the man, if he was putting away a wife. It would be very interesting to investigate how many women are forced to divorce from a man who will not provide for their separation. Just a thought, which was certainly relevant to my situation.I personally do not have an issue with that, I think remarriage is ok in that situation.This is heartening, although there will be many who have no desire to separate from a good lover and provider on the suspicion of these grounds. They don't know how to protect the children and may not even believe that such an otherwise decent (wo)man also offends this way. While you are clear of the course they should take, it would be fewer rather than more non-offending parents who will take it. (Just more thoughts for the mix.) Now, I'm not going to quote your solution for child molestors because I'm concerned about something; can't these offenders be saved?(Edited for increased clarity.)

Hi AgapeLove81,Thanks for answering. I've always believed that when a person is divorced, they are no longer married to the person they divorced. I realise not everyone sees it this way and I don't wish to rehash ground which has been gone over in the other thread, but, the reference to a husband of one wife, is at least as much to state that Christians cannot have several wives simultaneously as in certain other religions. When the gospel is preached in those situations, there is a serious work to be done amongst those who have several wives. I'm not sure how it is treated (to be honest) but bringing divorce into the picture was not (I don't think) what Paul had in mind.In particular (Cindy) the breaking off of the power of the 'marriage' was a figurative way of explaining how the Mosaic law had been superseded by the Law of love. (Rom 7:1-3)God was intent on setting forth the 'singleness of heart' towards Himself, which He desires to find in His people. To Him, this is the prize - our complete abandonment to His love, His will, His pleasure. He was always headed in this direction - from Abraham and Sarah, to Christ and the Church - that man should understand the meaning of having no other gods before Him.The thing that grieves me the most about this discussion of divorce, is that if everyone who was not a virgin when they came to the Lord was also willing to refrain from marriage, seeing they are not 'fit' under the Mosaic law, it would be a truly level pitch. But to pick on those who had been legally married and then say they can't revamp their sexual mores in the light of God's word to their heart - is unjust. What you said about God deciding who is in sin, captures much of the essence of His heart as I have come to know it.

I have gone round and round with people on certain ones. So I respect your wishes not to rehash ground. At the end of one of my long posts on p3 of this thread, is a link to the thread to which I refer. It is so recent, that most people who contributed to it, are still here at SI.

This must also have meaning for those who fall. Not everyone who commits adultery should be divorced. What does that solve?Oh no no no... I never said they should! Gosh no. I know plenty of people who survived adultry and remained married, and actually flourished after some time.No, divorce should be the very last resort.Krispy

I am glad to see that there is someone out there that looks at it the same as me. Thank you for letting me know I am not alone in my thinking.Whoa... there's a dangerous statement if I ever heard one. I'm always looking for people to agree with me to justify my actions. But it doesnt matter if I find 10,000 who agree with me... If my thinking contradicts the Word of God there is one word for me: WRONG.Krispy

What part of what I wrote contradicts the Word of God? Please let me knowThats been answered by others (like Cindy), I was merely commenting on that line of reasoning... feeling comforted that someone else agrees with me, even if I'm wrong but dont realize I'm wrong. Thats all. We all do it.Krispy

Hello everyone,Has anyone read my posts before the last one on P3 of this thread? Is the lack of comment because you don't understand them, or, you are still doing your own private Bible study and prayer to see how you can refute my exposition?Krispy,Having lived in a country where men expect to have at least several wives (unless they are already Christian by the time they reach marriageable age), and my father having been propositioned to sell me 'for wife' many times, I think you can trust my observation and also, that when Paul talks about 'if any be .... the husband of one wife', (Titus 1:6) he was not unaware of these practices. I have seen Christian missionaries struggle with the implications of sorting out who could be given responsibility in a church, precisely because of this requirement - that is, how to decide which wife will stay with the man and how will he provide for the others and the children by those unions. This simultaneously throws the traditional preoccupation with divorced spouses into orbit.

A happy marriage is very close to God's heart. His hatred of divorce is not a legalistic hate. It is because He knows what it is like to be the rejected partner, or, the one who was cheated on.That is a really good word.We worship a Savior and a God Who is in the ressurection business, Praise His Name!!

Really briefly let me describe my situation.The mother of my son, (I'll explain in a bit why I term her that) and I started living together in 1985, needless to say we were both unbelievers. In 1990 we actually married...we were married by a very old preacher man on a cliff in Big Sur. In 1995, our son was born, in 1999, we actually seperated for the last time. In 2002, I was saved.from 1985 till 1999, I lost count, but I believe that we were seperated maybe 6 to 10 times, and between us there might be a dozen to 2 dozen lovers. A bad scene, most definitely dysfunctional, and steeped in sin. The product of generational sin, and being taught adulterous behavior by both sets of parents. ( a tale too difficult and seamy to relate on a non-exclusive internet forum)Her older sister has been walking with Jesus for a while, and had always prayed for the both of us. I do believe that my older sister-in-law's prayers were crucial in God unhardening my heart, breaking me, and raising me up again in the Image of His Son.After I was saved, this marriage that had been so unimportant to me assumed MAJOR importance. In fact, it was my ex-wife who God used to lead me to Him, even though she was NOT a follower of Jesus. During the period God was crushing me, she told me to pray to "God". Once I began to pray, Jesus came.I started attending the church I confessed Christ in, and the pastor became my mentor, and the Bible my only reading material. This was early in my walk, I hadnt read the Bible before, and I needed to make up for lost ground. Hence I began to pray for restoration of the marriage, so did my older sister in law. However, my wife was laying with two different boyfriends at that time, after a bit she got rid of one, and kept the other. I kept praying, as well as modeling Godly behavior to her.But it wasnt to be....New Years 2003, she served my pastor with the divorce papers. We both agreed, my pastor and I, that I would just "lay down" and contest nothing, fight nothing.in the meantime, she got rid of the other boyfriend, then got another. She finalized the divorce then, and has made plans to now marry this other boyfriend. She has also begun to recieve the catechism rites of the roman church. I don't know what thats all about, maybe its that I'm in a Protestant church, etc etc ???Since I've been saved, I've stayed in the Word, I lead a pretty vigorous prayer life, and I haven't dated, until about two weeks ago, when I went out on a date when I was back in Chicago. One night, I was crying out to God, begging Him to send me a wife coz I was so lonely, and He laid this Edict on me, "I won't let you get intimate with one of my children, till you learn how to get intimate with Me".That was stunning and so sweetly direct, I heard Him as clear as a bell, I love the Lord,Praise His Name, He puts up with so much with me.I used to think that intimate meant to get naked with someone. Now I know different and thats thru my Father I learned, that it means to get to know someone well. and I've been getting to know Him as well as a human heart can.When I was saved, ALL my sins were wiped clean, I became a virgin again, born again of the Spirit. She, my wife was not. She was laying with a man at that time. She divorced me, as I prayed for restoration of the marriage. I know what God says about this, I don't need the testimony of man on this matter, A born-again virgin can marry.Thats why its called Grace.what say you?

Cindy, actually, the posts to which I referred were not (in my opinion) about divorce, they were about a correct interpretation of what Jesus said, as quoted by Matthew. I would be glad if you disagree with me, to please explain.

Neil,I didn't see your testimony there when I posted the last time. Amen brother! Hallelujah! I know exactly what you're talking about. 8-)Unfortunatly their are many people that believe that only under your circumstance of divorce (adultry being involved) is remarriage not a sin.When I recommended the other thread, it was to look at the 'divorce and remarriage' hashed through, which is not what I've posted about in this thread.PLEASE go back to P3 and read the scriptures which I linked to Matthew 5:32. I would hate to think that half a chapter of Deuteronomy is too hard for you to get to grips with, for a definition of fornication (that sin which (with adultery) is regularly brought to our attention by Paul), so that you correctly interpret what Jesus said.Jesus is saying that PRE-marital sex by the woman is the only reason a man can divorce her. Adultery is not a reason for divorce, according to Him. The man in the Old Testament would have had PRE marital sex only once. After that, he'd become her husband.That's why the disciples saidMatthew 19:10 His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry. But don't take my word for it - please go and do the Bible study yourself and tell me if I'm wrong?

Dear Cindy,Some people were living on a 'different planet' before they were born again. They didn't start out from even a pseudo-Christian standpoint. They were pagans. NOTHING that they did according to the law of the land, brought them under 'what God has joined let not man put asunder'. That is what this part of the discussion is really about. Yes, even pagans are joined by God, but for those pagans who were not, your stance can make neither emotional or practical sense. Reading out of the Bible isn't going to turn their situation suddenly into God's will for them.RonB answered a question to someone, like this. He said, of 'apples', you are asking me 'how many wings does it have'. In other words, the preconceptions being brought by the questioner, rendered Ron's answers meaningless (in effect).OF COURSE if a man and woman were joined by God when they were 'married' before they knew Him, they are on the platform from which Paul speaks but it is a huge burden to put this on everyone regardless, if it cuts across the ministry of the Lord to them, through the Spirit. The Old Testament is chocka-block with non-standard situations which God 'overlooks' because He has the person's heart and obedience, first. And, there is nothing to suggest, there, that the first wife (in polygamy) is the chosen 'one'.My most basic difficulty with the stance you take, is its unyeildingness to the image of God in man (and woman). He is tender. He is gentle. He is sweet. He is patient. He has set His heart upon us, as a lover who will not let us go. Spouses have a lot to live up to, if they are to be the lover in God's heart for the other partner. I do actually agree with you strongly, that where a couple have a good loving marriage, they should stay together if at all possible. But, there is no meaning in 'and He led captivity captive', if after being born again one is merely in a different prison. For some people they need God to tell them to 'go'. For others, they need Him to tell them to 'stay'. This is the living word. The one who is obedient to His directions, is blest indeed. I see it working, in both ways. Having learned the hard way about almost everything that can go wrong with a pretend marriage, which holds together by the letter of the law at best and on the other side of the coin, at the extreme expense of everyone involved, I no longer try to put a fixed template - 'one size fits all' - on those who basically, should never have set up house together. This is not to say that turning to the Lord doesn't make some marriages, but, it doesn't make them all.You don't have to like my testimony, but I sure hope you can accept it as one which was wrought in the same fire of God, as burns in yours. I really do hope you will look again at what Jesus is saying in Matthew 5:32 and come back with your thoughts.

is why we don't find the so called "exception clause" in the other GospelsThanks. We've posted across each other.Could you explain then, where the idea that adultery is grounds for divorce has come from, as many of the brothers on this forum seem to believe in it? Have you any idea which scriptures they use to support it?Lastly, are you also saying that your stance is based on this word to the Jews, and actually doesn't apply to Gentiles in the first instance, when they are born again?EDIT: After a few more minutes thought, please answer, if you can, the other questions, but also this one. What do you do with this?Romans 2:29 But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God. EDIT end.

I don't think you understood fully what I wrote: she divorced me.and only after I was born again and walking with Christ.I did NOT divorce her.also, as I related. she is preparing to marry another man.as to what happens after we are born-again, is not a new born baby a "virgin"?Is not therefore a person who is born-again, cleansed and forgiven of ALL past sins and unrighteousness?......hence a virgin?When I was saved, we were not living as man and woman, nor as of one flesh. I did not say that I unbound our marriage thru rebirth in Christ, I would have never divorced her, this was her doing.

God bless you beloved, I'm not going to fall into the trap of arguing this or that with you.My marriage at the time of my salvation was not a marriage in any sense of the word, I've been pretty transparent on my testimony.nor do I really want to engage in thread arguing the letter of the law with you......you have a nice grasp of the letter, what about the Spirit?Born-again means just that...born-again and cleansed from all sin.

The longer this discussion has proceeded, the more I see Jesus was explaining how important to God is virginity - both physical and spiritual. (Matthew 5:32)I keep returning to the standard of love God requires within marriage (Eph 5) to make sense of what Paul said in Corinthians about the various different married (or unmarried, or separated) states in which new believer might find themself. There is a presupposition that the sexual relationship has bound the two partners into an intimacy of relationship which neither of them will wish to break, because of what it and the other person means to them.HopeinChrist askedDo you not think that when a man and woman enter into a sexual relationship they are forming a covenant relationship in God's eyes and they should marry? (I am not saying that the marriage would clear their fornication but that they have made a covenent which would make any future relationships a violation to this one.)Cindy, I can see how you are thinking, but because the WHOLE thing hasn't been retained - the stoning, the not marrying (the first time) if one isn't virgin, or, the being divorced if one wasn't a virgin, I can see no reason to make Jesus's words into a bondage to be swung around like a ball and chain, against people (believers or not, Jews or Gentiles) who do not know Him at all, or, who had lost their virginity before they did. Seriously, how much of this bondage is a hangover from Roman Catholicism? (See below.)Wedding festivities and ceremonies, as described in the Old Testament and the New Testament, began in the home of the the bride and were concluded at the home of the groom, where the marriage contract was read and blessings were pronounced by parents and friends. Then the marriage couple went to their private room, offered prayers, and sexually consummated their relationship.First-century Jews and Christians did not hold weddings in synagogues or churches. As was the case with Jewish weddings, ceremonies very likely were performed in the homes of the marriage couples. Those homes sometimes may have been the same homes in which the Christians of that city or town gathered for worship, since all "churches" during the first three centuries of Christianity were house churches.Christians were not required to seek the blessing of the Church to give validity to their marriage. However, by the time of Tertullian [160-225 A.D.] it seems to have become customary to have a Christian ceremony in which the Church cemented the marriage, confirmed it with an oblation, and sealed it with a benediction. A religious wedding ceremony did not begin to be considered as a sacrament until almost three centuries later, and it was not officially recognized as one of the seven sacraments until the Council of Trent, between 1545 and 1563.This puts further perspective on Jesus'words, I believe, in that what has come to be seen as an indispensable part of 'marriage' - the church bit - has existed for less than 500 years, apparently. So why are we so attached to it? Might God Himself be less attached to it than we imagine? And, might this be why people who come to the Lord from any number of legalised or informal partnerships, when so gathered up by God into His arms, find they are free to be led by the Spirit, (while taking temporal responsibility for ex-spouses and children) and not necessarily feeling bound to stay single?http://www.bibletexts.com/glossary/wedding.htmUnless one understood the implications of Jesus words clearly beforehand, it is a bondage I believe He never intended. He is not going to have a Bride He is not delighted with.....Perhaps we should go back to arranged marriages, and introduce them to the Church again?

Perhaps we should go back to arranged marriages, and introduce them to the Church again? As the father of 4 boys... I think I might support that!I can tell you one thing, dating many different girls will not happen while under my roof. I'm a strong supporter of courtship, not dating. My sons will ask a girl's father if they can court them... and it will be done with much supervision.Someone is bound to say that they will rebel against that. I disagree... not if they are prepped for it in advance, and taught from scripture about purity and relationships. Hardly anyone is doing that today... but we are. It's part of the reason we homeschool. Our kids are so out of synch with public school kids! It's WONDERFUL!My 9 and 10 yr old boys have a friend on their football squad who is small for his age. My boys just dont understand why some of the bigger boys pick on him. Of course they dont understand... they are not exposed to the "pecking order". God bless my 9 yr old... he got in a shoving match with a bigger kid because the kid was picking on this smaller kid the other night at practice. (I coach another squad, but I was right there when it happened) I defended my sons intentions to his coach. The coach made sure he lined my son up against this bigger kid... and my son laid the kid out flat in a scrimmage. He told him when they got up... "dont pick on my friend!"I dont know what that has to do with divorce... oh yea, raising kids differently than the world does. (I'm a proud papa)Krispy

Hi Cindy,Yes, I believe the Bible. When I am studying a topic I follow it through till I understand God's heart, through the Spirit, as He interprets the written word to me. I find much elucidation in the Old Testament, where things are spread out carefully, for ones such as me, who cannot guess at all He has packed up into some of the New Testament verses. Also, the Lord speaks to me many ways outside the Bible and I guess you have that, too. Then, there is the discrepancy between who I am now, to contend with, against who I know I am in Christ, and who I will be in Christ one day, after He has changed me further from where I once was, (in the past) and from glory to glory. I find it a marvellous thing that God weaves together so many things in one life, to make it useful to Him. And the thought that He is able to do this with every other believer, as we have come to Him through the years since Christ, fills me with wonder. Therefore, I hesitate to imply to Him that He doesn't know what the written word means, especially after Jesus pointing out that it testifies of Him. John 815 Ye judge after the flesh; I judge no man.16 And yet if I judge, my judgment is true: for I am not alone, but I and the Father that sent me.17 It is also written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true.18 I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me.19 Then said they unto him, Where is thy Father? Jesus answered, Ye neither know me, nor my Father: if ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also. John 15:26 (Young)And when the Comforter may come, whom I will send to you from the Father--the Spirit of truth, who from the Father doth come forth, he will testify of me; No matter how well we know the word, we still need God Himself to act on our behalf to do the work in us, without which, the written word is pure theory.

I read study and possess an NIV Bible, and the verse reads:"I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery".I'm not going to go over my personal testimony point by point, but I feel very much within Scripture and within what i have discussed with the Lord in secret prayer.anyway, there's no woman in my life, nor in my sights. It's just me and Jesus.

I would ask you Dorcas: do you believe I Cor. 5:12-13 should be practiced by those in the Body of Christ, or do you think that we are all to make up our own standards and practice them as we will-----with God's blessings? Do we determine what is marriage and then God blesses that or does He determine what is the lawful use of marriage?There is an assumption in your question, which makes it difficult for me to answer. If you actually mean, should all the people in churches who commit fornication be excluded from meeting together to pray, praise, hear the word preached and face the possibility of being convicted while in the presence of those who are not committing fornication, I'm not sure how to answer. Would you be suggesting they are met by the church leaders individually, or in groups, to discuss their personal sins, instead? What is your practical solution to bringing them back into fellowship with God? I'm sure I've answered this question in this forum before. What happened in 1 Cor 5 was very specific to one person. What is going on in churches today, is that teenagers are having sex outside marriage. Big deal? Not if they are not professing to be Christians. So, why are they at church? Well, many of their parents are officers in the church - elders, pastors and so on. So, should these officers be the first to step down, seeing they are not keeping one of the basic 'qualifications' for chuch ministry? I think probably these are enough questions for one post, so I'll stop here.

I'm just tired of the church treating divorced people like they are some kind of second rate Christian. Some churches take the attitude of just sit on the back pew and be quiet. A person who looks upon a woman and lusts is also an adulter. I would like to see how many guilty of this one, even after salvation are holding positons of leadership within the church.Paul made it abundantly clear who was qualfied to be in church leadership... and who was not. And there are even married people who not qualified. Divorced Christians can certainly be of great value to the service of the Lord, but there are things that scripture says they are not qualified for. It's black and white. It doesnt make them second class christians. Paul even explained WHY they are not qualified for certain postitions.Jesus and Paul were both extremely clear about divorce and remarriage. I think they were more clear on this issue than perhaps any other. If you read their words, there can be no doubt about what they were saying. None! Some people act like their teachings on divorce and re-marriage were as unclear as the book of Revelation. Buy a pair of reading glasses... it's not that hard to understand.If you choose to ignore their commands, then you might as well ignore the rest of scripture too... and become a Buddist or something. I'm not trying to be mean, but I just dont understand why people try to hold to only SOME of the Bible, and ignore what they dont like.If you're going to ignore some of it, you might as well ignore it all.Krispy

If you're going to ignore some of it, you might as well ignore it all.Krispy,I hope to answer this point later, because it is not a helpful addition to this discussion, bro.EDIT: added adjectives and everything after 'world'. What has been missing, is TOTAL balance on what scripture actually says about virginity as a prerequisite to marriage. Once the virginity is in place - the absence of pre- or extra-marital sexual activity - then we'll talk about the grace which doesn't need to be extended to the majority of mankind in this age - not just the western world, either - and which therefore protects us from the slightest hankering for a happy marriage.... because we will all be so blissfully ensconced in the bosom of the spouse of our youth - the only person with whom we've ever had sex, and - whom we wouldn't wish to change for the whole world.... I jest not. This is how it should be done and this is what Christ is advocating. But remember, Jesus is descended humanly-speaking from a foreign prostitute, a widow who (racially) should never (according to God's own pronouncements) have found favour in the eyes of a Jew as wife-material, and at least one Jewish polygamist. Now how did God do that, if it is such an unforgivable sin for a person to have had sex with more than their current (and only ever) wife? What's more, why did God do that?Sloppy thinking and double standards.... That's what I see and hear, here. And I also note a remarkable silence from the many brethren who are reading this thread, who haven't been swift to quote all the scriptures in which 'man' features as the active person in the sentence. Something about 'stone' comes to mind.

Dorcas, you took one sentence from my post and quoted it with no context. If you read that sentence in light of my entire post, it makes perfect sense in response to someone's statements. I hope you handle scripture better than you do when you quote from posts.Krispy

To Krispy,I did say, in the first sentence of my post, that I intended to return to that point later, but I wanted to register my concern, that you can't really offer throwing out the whole Bible as an option..... In no way did the sentence, no matter how it followed from the previous one, add to your point. It doesn't do you any justice, and no-one can say, 'ok, let's do it that way, instead'. Arguing that way leads nowhere.Further, you didn't give any verses to support your post. That's major, in the face of the claims you make for your understanding of scripture. I'd be very grateful, therefore, if you'd go back and show where are the 'black and white' to which you allude, thanks.Dorcas, you took one sentence from my post and quoted it with no context. If you read that sentence in light of my entire post, it makes perfect sense in response to someone's statements. I hope you handle scripture better than you do when you quote from posts.I lost my original post, which retrospectively, I thought was a good thing, and quickly wrote another. Still, my original post had not addressed the points in your post. I took the last sentence because in one fell swoop, it virtually destroyed your preceding construct. I know why you said it, but, it was a bridge too far for the meaning you were trying to convey.If you read their words, there can be no doubt about what they were saying. None! Some people act like their teachings on divorce and re-marriage were as unclear as the book of Revelation. Buy a pair of reading glasses... it's not that hard to understand.If you choose to ignore their commands, then you might as well ignore the rest of scripture too... and become a Buddist or something. I'm not trying to be mean, but I just dont understand why people try to hold to only SOME of the Bible, and ignore what they dont like.What I've highlighted in bold, may well be true of some people, but, I don't believe it applies to me, any more than you or Cindy believe it applies to you. So far, anyone who has disclosed personal details in open forum, has had it implied to them that they are continuously committing an unforgivable sin - unforgivable by God and most certainly unforgivable by fellow Christians - if they remarried (or believe they are free to.) If on the other hand God does forgive marriages which cannot be sustained, then, there is a need for that to shine through in the posts from those who are presenting the most legalistic standpoint, please. The lack of recognition of genuine Christians who have at least one other marriage in their past, is unbelievably demoralising. There are many things in scripture I would not 'interpret'. They either apply today or they don't. BUT, there is no LOGIC, in partly applying what Jesus said (which you are doing, by allowing the non-virginity clause to bite the dust,) if you are not going to apply the rest of it.We could have a very useful discussion about what this could mean. Instead, without defending what is required of a person from puberty, you are slapping a pronouncement with no heart on top of, a forgiven base. Where are the verses which say that a divorced unbelieving (spiritually dead) spouse, has to die, before the believing spouse is free to marry? Obviously, the unbelieving spouse is free to remarry as often as they like, without coming under the jurisdiction of Christian doctrine. So, please explain how that spouse is free from the marriage, but the believing spouse is not? I'm all ears.Earlier in the thread, you said you'd have no hesitation with a person divorcing a child molestor and remarrying. Please justify this from scripture? (I know how I would, but I'd like to know how you would.) Thanks.

I'm at the library and they don't allow the PM pop-up boxes, otherwise I would have responded back straight away, so let me respond in public to some elements of your post and what disturbs me about some witness on this forum.Here's what I found:People LOVE to pick up stones, and wield them.they LOVE to condemn, they love to point out sin in others, whether it be individuals, or high profile ministers.they love those stones.They are all burning to be Phineas', what a delicious feeling that would be. To stand in the midst of the Body, pick up a spear, stalk into the tent of the fornicators, all full of Holy righteous anger and to drive that spear through not one, but two naked sweating sin-loving bodies. Kill 'em both! Dead!oh yeh! doing God's work. Now Phineas did what he had to do, definitely he was led by the Lord, but..........Did ya notice how much killing man does in the Old Testament, but in the New Testament you don't see that...instead look Who and whom gets killed:Jesus......and then Stephen.and look who they were killed by:Pharisees.People just love to pick up stones and they love to judge, and when you call them on it, they say they're following the Word of God. Well, the Pharisees thought they were following the Word of God, look at chapter 13 of Deuteronomy, and they thought they were protecting the Things of God.What did Jesus do?Washed feet, healed the sick, saved the lost.People should put down their stones, back away from these miserable computer keyboards, and get off these forums and into the streets to walk as Jesus did.Much love to you my sister and to all who read this.Neil

Brother Neil, good afternoon :-)Another post from you which doesn't disappoint. I hear you. And some people will be met and fed by someone in 3D; but for a season, this is where I am, and I believe, should be; defending the spirit of the gospel to the broken-hearted, the defiled, the violated, the war-ravaged victim, the naive, the bewitched, the crushed.One thing I've noticed recently in Matthew's gospel, is his quotes from Isaiah, about promises to the Gentiles. It struck me to wonder how long it took for some scripture to percolate through into the understanding of the apostles, once it had been agreed for Paul to preach not only to Jews.Paul's pronouncement Galatians 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. is growing in interest for me, as a lens by which to understand something about life in the Spirit. I'm not sure if it applies to the current discussion, but, it enhances his words on other subjects, and brings them from what might sound like a severe pronouncement, round to a heartfelt entreaty. We know he would have thought through all his recommendations thoroughly, and especially if the Lord had not given him a definite instruction for the Church.What this has to do with marriage, is all-round 'attitude', having taken everything into account.

I hope you handle scripture better than you do when you quote from posts.Krispy,I'm sure there are other threads in which you could judge something about that for yourself. I look forward to an example of exposition when you answer my previous post with the verses you already had in mind (but didn't post). I need to understand how from scripture you arrive at your present conclusions, hopefully.

I look forward to an example of exposition when you answer my previous post with the verses you already had in mind (but didn't post). I need to understand how from scripture you arrive at your present conclusions, hopefully.Dorcas, I know from experience with you that you do not mishandle scripture, at leaast not that I have seen. We dont always see eye to eye, but then, I'm not always right either. But in that instance, you really took what I said out of context and it sounded unrecognizable to me. Thats all I was trying to say.I dont think there needs to be an expository teaching on what Jesus and Paul had to say about divorce and re-marriage. Below are the scriptures... if there is something that is hard to understand, let me know and I'll be glad to give you my take on them.As to Neil's assertion that people are throwing stones because we're holding to a scripture pattern for marriage, divorce and re-marriage... all I can say is: wow...Anyway... Here is what the Lord and the Apostle had to say:Mat 5:31-32 It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: But 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. Mat 19:7-9 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? 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. 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. 1Co 7:9-11 But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn. And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.As far as being qualified for church leadership:Bishops (elders)...1Ti 3:2-7 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behavior, given to hospitality, apt to teach; Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; [i](For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?) Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil. Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.Tit 1:5-9 For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee: If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly. For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not self-willed, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre; But a lover of hospitality, a lover of good men, sober, just, holy, temperate; Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers.[/i]Deacons...1Ti 3:8-13 Likewise must the deacons be grave, not doubletongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre; Holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience. And let these also first be proved; then let them use the office of a deacon, being found blameless. Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things. Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well. For they that have used the office of a deacon well purchase to themselves a good degree, and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus.Being divorced does not make one a 2nd class citizen in the Kingdom. I said that at least once before on this thread. If you are saved, then you enjoy all the benefits of being a child of the King. However, according to scripture, you are limited in your ability to be in leadership... and scripture explains exactly why. I listed it above.Folks, this is the Word of God we're talking about. These are not my rules. Cindy didnt make them up either. I dont always understand why God orders things the way He does... but I also dont have His mind. I dont see the big picture. No one does.But if we do not follow His order, and His commands, and we begin to justify our ignoring of His Word... then we do not have faith. If we had faith we would say "I dont understand why we have to do it this way, but if God says it then I will trust Him."On my football coaching staff my assistant coaches dont always think I'm right. (big surprise!) But I do have the final word on decisions. 95% of the time we're in agreement, but sometimes we're not. The other night I was discussing something with one of my coaches after practice, and I made a decision that he didnt agree with concering our quarterback. He told me "I dont agree with you on this, but I trust that you know what you're doing."More Christians (myself included) need to have that kind of attitude.Krispy

Dear Krispy,Thank you for laying out these scriptures, which I also had in mind.You think you know exactly what they mean in practice, especially as translated into secondary issues such as church leadership. But, I have been trying to get your attention for several pages here, to please look more deeply into your assumptions. I'm not asking you to deny the word of God. I don't deny the word of God. We both believe passionately in the relevance of scripture to our Christian walk. I need the Holy Spirit to help me understand God's heart as it shines through His word. This is not synonymous with disregarding the word. I get the impression some believers are deeply suspicious of anyone who needs the Holy Spirit to illuminate scripture to them. Whereas I am deeply suspicious of anyone who doesn't. I know you're very busy at weekends so I won't expect a response to this post, until you've had time to either read from p3 (until you 'get' what I've been trying to say. Maybe I've been leaving too much to your imagination?) or, you could skip that and answer one (initial) question for me. Thanks.What is the difference between adultery and fornication?

...I must tell you, I must tell you that I'm praying to God right now to keep me from anger, not because of unrepented sin and/or conviction on my part, but because I don't think you understood what I wrote in my testimony, either that , or I wasn't clear in my testimony. My ex-wife, who is an unbeliever, divorced me.I did NOT divorce her..as I type this, she lays with a man she is not yet married to.Do you understand that?Do you think this is easy for me to spell that out on a forum?If there is someone who can scripturally "put away his wife for fornication", it is I.But I did NOT divorce her, SHE divorced me, and it was AFTER I was saved, after I told her that was praying daily to God to restore the marriage.I'm confident in the Holy Spirit that I am not walking in "error" as you put it.This is (probably) going to be my last post to you on this matter. God is Who I have to please, not an anonymous poster named "Cindy".

fornication (noun) : consensual sexual intercourse between two persons not married to each other adultery (noun) : voluntary sexual intercourse between a married man and someone other than his wife or between a married woman and someone other than her husband also : an act of adulteryI don't think these wordings make the differences clear enough and there seems to be a shift away from identifying a party who is UNMARRIED, which is an important aspect of fornication, because this suggests that two married people can commit fornication, (and will be committing adultery at the same time) whereas, I believe the adulterer will be committing fornication only if the other person is UNMARRIED. EDIT: I'm still thinking about this, as I've never been aware of two adulterers being accused of fornication. I did believe they were only committing adultery.... but with each other.1 Corinthians 5:1 It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father's wife. The man who committed fornication in this situation, is unmarried, or, he would also be committing adultery. It appears that his father's wife, was not his mother or,... EDIT end.

Man I personally don't think those definations could not be any clearer. Hello MrBillPro,(By the way, I've edited my previous post.)I can see, on the strength of these definitons, you would think they are clear. So, let me ask you this... Why does Jesus separate fornication and adultery, if it is possible for a wife to commit both at the same time? In Matthew 5:32But 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. Another question from this verse could be: Why does it not read, '..whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of adultery, causeth her to commit adultery:...' thus emphasising her adultery as a just reason for divorce. But, Jesus states clearly here the man can put away his wife for fornication, and he will NOT be causing her to commit adultery. How?

Who amoung us would qualify for these positions if we base the qualifications on the old man? The qualifications go beyond the adultry issue. If you apply it to a person's entire life, no one would qualify for leadership.Krispy,Please could you comment on the other scenario to which the 'one wife' verse applies - polygamy. How should the situation be resolved, say the man had become a Christian, but only one of his wives, also?In fact, (thinking of the apostles and what Jesus said about one having the option to stay as a eunuch) you don't believe (do you?) that only married men can be elders.

Thanks for posting the scriptures in Titus referring to this. I am not refuting God's word on this but I interpret it to apply from the time someone names the name of Christ. It is addressed to the church, correct? Those "in" Christ. My point is all things become new at the time of salvation. Whatever happened before is not applicable. Who amoung us would qualify for these positions if we base the qualifications on the old man? The qualifications go beyond the adultry issue. If you apply it to a person's entire life, no one would qualify for leadership.This is a very good question, and I think there is room for grace in this. However, I think when we consider the gravity of the appointment to elder or deacon, I think it is best to err on side of being too conservative.Lets face it... even if they were married and divorced and remarried to someone else before coming to Christ, if there were children involved, there will normally be struggle between the ex-spouses. I dont think this sets a good example in the church, and it disqualifies them in other areas, such as having their children under subjection. 1Ti 3:5 For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?Eldership and deaconship is not supposed to be the popularity contest that it has become today. It is a VERY serious thing... and character counts. It's not to say that there arent any divorced and remarried men out there who would make a good elder... but Paul was trying to maintain the PURITY of the church. He did exclude certain people from leadership... and with good reason. I call it wise. Others call it hate. Call it what you want... it's scripture.Krispy

But I did NOT divorce her, SHE divorced me, and it was AFTER I was saved, after I told her that was praying daily to God to restore the marriage.There was a lot of hurt in your post, Neil... that really touched my heart.Let me tell you something, according to scripture you are free. 1Co 7:15 But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace.It's pretty clear to me that you are free to remarry and pursue a life together with a believing wife.I also believe that in such cases, so long as their are no children involved from your previous marriage, you would qualify for church leadership in this particular area... after a period of time. (No one should ever choose elders too quickly... this would apply to everyone, not just you)I bet this post surprised you, eh?Forgive your ex-wife... and move on. You are free! Find the one God has for you.Nihi asequui wehali, o'gina'li. Dakata o-ni Unelanvhi!Krispy

I don't think these wordings make the differences clear enough and there seems to be a shift away from identifying a party who is UNMARRIED, which is an important aspect of fornication, because this suggests that two married people can commit fornication, (and will be committing adultery at the same time) whereas, I believe the adulterer will be committing fornication only if the other person is UNMARRIED. Semantics... lets just call it sin.Krispy

Please could you comment on the other scenario to which the 'one wife' verse applies - polygamy. How should the situation be resolved, say the man had become a Christian, but only one of his wives, also?Dorcas... one wife. Period. Next someone is gonna ask "what if a man is married to a space alien...?" lol... Where is polygamy gonna be a real issue? And even if it was... the answer is "one wife".In fact, (thinking of the apostles and what Jesus said about one having the option to stay as a eunuch) you don't believe (do you?) that only married men can be elders.Yep... I sure do. The scriptures that deal with elders has a lot to say about how their lead their families, and how that translates to the house of God.Krispy

Hi Krispy,There is still plenty of polygamy in the world, along with all the human difficulties it produces. I'm happy with the 'one wife' for people who have them, but I think you're pushing too far, to say that every elder should have not only a wife, but also children. It may be there is plenty of choice between married men in your locality, but many a Christian man has been the first to take the gospel back to his 'village' (let's call it) and been 'the elder' to those who became Christians afterwards. Even single women have this experince. As long as you realise this happens where there are no married men, that's fine, but Yep... I sure do. The scriptures that deal with elders has a lot to say about how their lead their families, and how that translates to the house of God.The references to ruling one's children well, must surely be of utmost concern and importance to those elders who have (one wife) and some children.I definitely know you cannot bar a man from eldership who has chosen to be single, for the sake of the gospel, and is moving in appropriate gifts.... You may not need to, if your church has none of these, but, how much more time for everything to do with God would you have, if you had no wife and no children? Simple math. A man with no such responsibility grows in God too... the more, if it is his sure calling.

In 1 Timothy 3:1-7 the apostle Paul describes the call and characteristics of elders in the church. We have seen that an elder must be called by God . That call is initiated by the Holy Spirit, who places within him a strong desire to serve God in that capacity (v. 1).In addition, we saw that an elder must be confirmed by the congregation as it examines the quality of his life. He must be blameless (v. 2a) above reproach and an example of godliness against which his people can measure the quality of their own lives. Blamelessness is the overarching characteristic of an elder.Here's what I find interesting... we all agree there are requirements for elders and deacons. I get accused of "judging" people... isnt it judging if we hold to the requirements for elders? Just something to think about for anyone who believes we should not "judge"...Krispy

By the way, I've been challenged privately about my comments concerning Neil's situation. I will not reveal who it was, and it is not relevent. But I stand behind what I said. If his ex is an unbeliever, and she chose to leave him (and he is believer)... then he is free.Nihi asequui wehali, o'gina'li. Dakata o-ni Unelanvhi!All I know is what Neil has told us, and so I am making an assumption that that is the situation. Paul said he is free. Period.Let me add this tho (and this is not in reference to Neil)... if you have an unsaved wife, and a saved husband... and the husband commits adultry, and the unsaved wife leaves, then that is a completly different situation. Paul is clearly talking about unbelieving spouses who leave because they do not wish to be married to a believer, and not because the believer sinned against them.I do believe if you have two unbelievers, and adultry happens, and somewhere along the line one spouse gets saved and really tries to reconcile... yet the unbelieving spouse does not wish to reconcile, and leaves... the newly believing spouse is again free.This is one of those things that is not black and white, and I am not dogmatic on this. These are merely my convictions based on what I believe the Holy Spirit has taught me. Each person needs to seek these things out on their own thru prayer and the Word of God.Krispy

How many of the apostles were married? I know Peter was, but....any others?We're not talking about apostles, we're talking about elders. There is a huge difference. Paul seemed to indicate in his other writings that at times it was best a person remain unmarried so that they could dedicate themselves to the service of the Lord. This would have been especially true for someone like Paul since he was constantly travelnig for years at a time. And elder is not usually required to travel... he is to oversee the work of God locally.Paul had to have been married at one point because he would not have been able to hold the position he did before he was saved. Scripture does not tell us what happened to his wife... so I assume we dont need to know... or speculate.I'm surprised no one has accused me of speaking in tongues in a couple of my posts today... must be a slow day around here! lolKrispy

I bet this post surprised you, eh?Not at all, you're Blood bought and undergoing Holy Ghost sanctifion which, Praise God, is an ongoing process.(just like me)One day we will be holding the prayer/praise meeting that will never end.Let me go deeper with my testimony, coz I believe that it glorifies God. We have a beautiful son together, and we raise him together. As I am an artist, and my time is definitely malable, I am responsible for his daily comings and goings. I transport the lad to all actvities, too and from. Lets call him lil Gee.Lil Gee and I are extraordinarily close, after all we were baptized together. Oh yes!! Praise God, I'll explain.About two months after confessing Christ, Pastor Ted arranged for a few new believers to be water baptised. I was one of them, lil Gee was 6. He has always been extremely smart beyond his years. For instance, he's almost 10 and he reads at college level and voraciously. Right before the Sunday baptism, he comes up to me and says, "Daddy, I wanna get baptised also". I said, "okay, but do you know what it means to go in the water". Clear as a bell lil Gee said, "Yes, it means I accept Jesus as my personal Saviour". My heart leapt like a calf in a stall, because I had never forced the Lord on him, God spoke into his little heart. It was just a heavenly moment. After Ted, lil Gee and myself confered, Pastor Ted heard the boys confession of faith, and we went into the water together.My ex is an alcoholic, sober now for 5 years, Praise God. I never knew she had that in her, till we seperated and she began to run wild in this small town. At AA meetings, they have child care, and my son became very good friends with a boy I shall call Samuel. The boys loved be in each others company and it was Samuel's dad who attended AA meetings, lets call his dad Joe. Joe and my ex-wife fell in love, this is the man she is going to marry.Little Samuel, Joe's son lost his mom to a drug overdose three years ago. I happen to love Samuel, as a son. He has attended my class in church, the three of us regularly attend Dodgers games. These two boys are like brothers, and I love them both.Krispy, That verse you gave me from 1 Cor 7 and 15, was the one Pastor Ted gave me where I described to him the forum brouhaha. Pastor knows my ex-wife well.Something happened the other night at Dodgers stadium. I had bought me and my son a five pack special of Dodgers tickets...which is a five game special. (season tickets are too much work..lol) and Samuel was hurt because we didnt include him.Man, was I convicted. To make a long story shortish, his daddy Joe and him joined us at the game recently. At that game, I came to love that man, Joe....God gave me such peace. I watched my son hug that man like a father. It was glorious. I kid you not. You see, I have no insecurities about my relationship with my son...OR, his relationship with Joe, who will soon be his stepdad. My boy LOVES this man...and this man LOVES my boy, you can SEE it.Do you realize how many horror stories there out there about "stepdad's"?on the ride back home, I found myself interceding in prayer for that little family.What a truth that is.......that "God is love".

Can you tell me where you got this kind of information?The O.T. requirements. I agree with the 2nd half of Bill's post, but we are now venturing into the waters of speculation... and none of us can proove it within a shadow of a doubt... so lets not waste our time. Paul was not an elder of a local church, he was an aposlte and missionary...Krispy

Do you realize how many horror stories there out there about "stepdad's"?Yep... I do know. I coach youth sports. I bet over 50% of the kids I'm coaching in football right now come from broken homes. God has given me the unique ability to reach them thru the medium of sports. Teach them confidence, personal disilpine, a good work ethic... and I share my testimony with them at different times. It's sad to see the wreckage out there. I especially hate to see a kid being caught in the middle of a tug of war between to divorced parents. Thats the worst.Neil, thank you for sharing your testimony. That was wonderful, and I certainly have compassion for you, your son, and your situation. Many times the compassion doesnt come thru very well in the written word when we are discussin teachings of the Bible. I know many assume I am without compassion on many topics, but that simply is not true. I do have compassion for everyone.And just the fact that you and I are talking to each other in this manner is testiment to that fact... Keep your eyes on Jesus, bro...Krispy

Neil, I've followed this thread, and I don't know how to put into words what I've seen on it, but I will only post to your last post here, for Peace' sake.This last post of yours, especially, though the others also, has me in literal tears and awe of the mighty 'act of grace' He is working into you and the ability to come back for more here.Unbelievable ~ Merciful is The Lord.I won't go much further than that, but I praise the Lord on High, that you and your son, have had a sensible/sound Pastor to confide in.The understanding of the "letter of the Law" and "The Spirit of the Law" is not yet fully comprehended by all the Saints,,, but will be, when 'things' begin to happen.Thank you for sharing the Tenderness that only Christ can work into any heart.God Bless you.Annie

Man, was I convicted. To make a long story shortish, his daddy Joe and him joined us at the game recently. At that game, I came to love that man, Joe....God gave me such peace. I watched my son hug that man like a father. It was glorious. I kid you not. You see, I have no insecurities about my relationship with my son...OR, his relationship with Joe, who will soon be his stepdad. My boy LOVES this man...and this man LOVES my boy, you can SEE it.This is one of the most beautiful testimonies I've heard in Christian circles - ever. It surely tells us more about the love of God, if we are able (willing) to receive from Him with an open mind. It seems a certain type of extremity in God, makes it possible to see hope in unusual places (and I don't mean baseball? :-P )

Back a bit in this thread, Krispy said this:I do believe if you have two unbelievers, and adultry happens, and somewhere along the line one spouse gets saved and really tries to reconcile... yet the unbelieving spouse does not wish to reconcile, and leaves... the newly believing spouse is again free.This is one of those things that is not black and white, and I am not dogmatic on this. These are merely my convictions based on what I believe the Holy Spirit has taught me. Each person needs to seek these things out on their own thru prayer and the Word of God.The link below here, is to a document which RonB linked to in a previous discussion which was specifically on divorce and remarriage.http://www.rbc.org/ds/q0806/q0806.html#point5I'm not going to make it too easy by presenting a precis, because the document itself is not long; it is focused, entirely scriptural, applies sensitivity and common sense, and looks at the whole range of issues (apart from children) with regard to restoration to fellowship, including serving as a leading elder. (It refers to pastors and positions of responsibiliity.)Above all, it puts fairness and the welfare of the believer's soul, high in importance - which is very refreshing, (glad to say). :-)If you're following this thread for personal reasons, (but not posting) I recommend you read it carefully, as it covers everything, including a team of people working with the wronged spouse, towards restoration of a marriage. This may not be what happens in your church, but you can't miss the point that it would be desirable for a wronged spouse to be given such support - as well as support to the offending spouse.

Hi Cindy,Can you remember whether you read the article at the link in the post above, which comes from a previous thread in which you participated last year?Now that I've read it myself, I'm having even more difficulty with your stance towards divorce chosen by a spouse on the grounds of infidelity, whether they were saved or not.It now seems clearer that the instruction for a husband and wife to stay together, as I have thought and implied all along, would have been founded on their hitherto faithfulness to each other. Even then, the unbelieving partner was permitted to leave; and although the one 'loosed' from a wife (or a husband) was encouraged to remain unmarried, this was neither expected nor forced, in New Testament times.In particular, the author makes these valid points:"God considers two people as married when they have met the civil requirements. This is true even when their divorces were not valid in God's sight. Jesus told the Samaritan woman that she had five husbands before her present live-in arrangement (Jn. 4:17-18). It is unlikely that she was widowed five times. We can therefore assume that at least a couple of her marriages followed a divorce. Jesus still recognized each man she married as a husband. Moreover, in 1 Corinthians 7:20 Paul urged first-century believers to do their best to remain in the marriage they had when they were converted. The people he addressed must have included some who had married new mates after divorces obtained on trivial grounds. If these people were living in perpetual adultery, we can assume that Paul would have told them to separate immediately. This leads us to the conclusion that when two people marry after a divorce on grounds less than specified by Jesus and Paul, they sin against the covenant they made in the previous marriage. But this occurs only once. Their first sexual union breaks the former bond. The new marriage covenant is now in effect. This fact, however, should not be taken as weakening the force of Christ's restriction. Deliberate disobedience is always a serious matter. Believers who truly love the Lord will not lightly ignore or disobey Him." Lastly, in Romans 7:1 - 3, there is no way of knowing if the wife who is referred to, is married to the only husband she has ever had. It is simply an example, of how a death ends the relationship. Well, it would, wouldn't it? ;-)

Hi Cindy,Perhaps 'common sense' was a poor choice of phrase on my part; I didn't mean to imply it is devoid of spiritual intelligence - but I realise now that's the way it's usually read.Nothing in scripture is without relevance or importance. Here, you have hit the nail on the head. But you appear to have ignored a study on a Biblical definition of 'Husband'. I've referred to it several times in this thread alone, but, the focus always seems to end up back at what a wife must do regardless of the husband departing from his role model - Jesus. It's not easy for a man whose wife is departing from her role model, either - the Holy Spirit - the one called alongside to help. There are many varieties of 'marriage' which have wild variations from each other. If love makes them stick, the differences become irrelevant.My thesis is based on the picture language of scripture and rests entirely (as it should) on the natural leadership of the man. Whether he is a Christian or not, a man is capable of loving, as Christ loved - his wife. Once that foundation begins to crumble, it is not difficult for the whole marriage to follow; God understands this. Isaiah 55, it is not in conflict with this; and neither is it a rod with which to beat an innocent party. I don't accept that it's God's heart to see anyone burdened by an intimate relationship which has become damaging. THAT is not God's thought. The suggestion that He is a cruel Father, forcing (His) unwilling children into situations where their trust, their mind and possibly their health and safety are routinely violated, in the name of an ideal which has become patently unobtainable, is ANATHEMA. God's compassion is well able to deliver the poor and needy from destruction at the hand or tongue of a spiritual enemy - which is what a spouse becomes, when they cease to love.

Is it "fair" to say that when a person departs from their spouse, they HAVE to in obedience to the Lord, remain single or be reconciled to that spouse----especially if that spouse is abusive? In my own mind, that is not "fair", but that is what God has commanded us to do.God doesn't say this. You are welcome to labour under your opinion, but it is inconsistent with God's revelation of His love, and, it is inconsistent with the picture of marriage which He wishes to convey to the world, as a type of how He loves and died for us. It is not His desire to see such a caricature of marriage given credence. Everyone involved should stop living a lie, drop the facade and come out into the light of the Sun of Righteousness for some healing, rise up and rejoice at a great deliverance. There may be a stage in the process, where a failing marriage can be restored by the conscious choice of the couple, I don't doubt, but my point is, divorce is not an unforgivable sin - whether the realisation a marriage has already ended in spirit, arrives suddenly, or dawns slowly. Discernible evidence of the ending will trail back into its history, once it is discussed honestly by the parties. I don't think Christians should rush at this conclusion, but neither do I believe God has said the faithful, the innocent, should be bound interminably to the unfaithful and/or guilty.

Is it "fair" that we are commanded to forgive those who offend us, even those who are horribly wicked to us?There are many ways I could approach this question but, from my experience, I'd say 'yes' but, the time scale is intensely personal. An honest heart can accept the death of Jesus for the other person's sin, and in principle, accept that they would be forgiven if they approached Jesus to ask for it.The individual who was wronged still has to work through the issues which arise for them personally. It may be that a relationship with the 'forgiven' person, is not a healthy option. God understands this, too. Stumblingblocks to forgiveness arise when the hurt person has an agenda - wants an apology, wants a certain bad behaviour to stop, wants to see the other person suffer, wants to hold the grudge - are some possibilities. If the other person is unwilling to 'own up', then hope of mutual reconciliation is dashed (and sometimes this is the best that can happen, if the Christian is going to grow up spiritually). After they have received healing from the Lord - perhaps even before they receive healing - a Christian can receive grace to let go of the whole forever. If the offender is regularly asking forgiveness but not ceasing the offence, I don't know the answer, except, it would be natural to challenge them (Jesus says 'rebuke'). When this did not work in a situation I've experienced, I removed myself from the situation. By default, this stops the offences. It's a great feeling!should spend some time understanding my views and how I and others in the Body of Christ came to those through our own personal studies of the WordThe position I now hold is the one I'm going to keep. I was brought up with and have previously studied your interpretation; but as I've got to know the Lord, He has convinced me I was misunderstanding His heart. I did not arrive at this conclusion quickly or lightly, but the release I've felt since, has all the hallmarks of His ministry, including a new phase of spiritual healing. This is not what you want to hear, but, I did not actively seek it. It happened to me.

The Holy Spirit convicted me of remarital adultery and I repented of the adulterous remarriage.Do you mind my asking how you sort out the remarriage, in practice?

did you realize that at the bottom of your webpage that there is a little button that saysONLINE DATING WEBSITESand this is a link to trudating.com