Why I love divorce

[serpentdove]

[Polygamy was occurring. God never endorsed it (Ge 2:24, Ex 20:14, Ps 128:1-6). :dizzy: He does not give his seal of approval to man's depravity (Mt 5:19). :hammer:]None of those verses says anything against polygamy.

You're promoting polygamy now?

 

[serpentdove]

"P. Gorday in Principles of Patristic Excess and Romans 8-11 in Origen, John Chrysostom and Augustine clearly show the bulk of Christians not only believed in staying married but also advocated celibacy for some--even in marriage itself."

1 Co 7:4, Pr 5:15-19 :dizzy:

"And Paul--who remained single as his life--said his bottom line was that no one should be married ("...I wish that all men were even as I myself.""

He was likely a widower (1 Cor. 9:5). :hammer:

 

[serpentdove]

...I have found God's truth...

"Ro 2:15 work of the law. Probably best understood as “the same works the Mosaic law prescribes.” conscience. Lit. “with knowledge.” That instinctive sense of right and wrong that produces guilt when violated. In addition to an innate awareness of God’s law, men have a warning system that activates when they choose to ignore or disobey that law. Paul urges believers not to violate their own consciences or cause others to (13:5; 1 Cor. 8:7, 12; 10:25, 29; 2 Cor. 5:11; cf. 9:1; Acts 23:1; 24:16), because repeatedly ignoring the conscience’s warnings desensitizes it and eventually silences it (1 Tim. 4:2). See 2 Cor. 1:12; 4:2." MacArthur, J., Jr. (Ed.). (1997). The MacArthur Study Bible (electronic ed., p. 1695). Nashville, TN: Word Pub.

See:

Divorce & Remarriage: A Position Paper by John Piper

 

[God's Truth]

I never would have divorced in the first place if i could have prevented it or sucessfully reconciled the marriage. I would not encourage someone to remarry either. But I would not tell them to totally shut that idea out...be sensitive to the Holy Spirit and see what happens.

I would also tell them not to date or remarry until the kids have grown up and left the house....that is a formula for trouble.

They would also need to be at peace with their ex and harbor no grudges and to wish them well and mean it. If you harbor any resentment and have not fully forgiven her and yourself, you are of no use to anyone. And this takes years!

Seek out the council of your fellow Christians and get their opinions on the matter and pray, pray and pray some more.

As far as my current marriage, i would never leave her or divorce her unless she walked away like the first did. But i would also say that after being through the grinder with the first, the motivation for this marriage and how we treat each othervis vastly different from the first. We are also established in our careers, children are not an option, and we are better grounded and in tune with each other because there is a lot less pressure on us. We have never fought or so much as raised our voices at one another in 7 years. Its entirely about taking care of one another and companionship... and building each other up. I have never seen a marriage like it.

I appreciate you opening up about your personal situation. I am glad you have such a good marriage, truly I am. I understand that you do not think something that is such a blessing to you could have come from something we are not to do. However, we are to stay single no matter who did the divorcing and for whatever reason; and, we are not to marry a divorced person.

I know that is a hard teaching and that not everyone can accept it.

 

[God's Truth]

You don't have a clue about that God's truth is... that is quite evident to people around here. You, Meshak and Daniel1611 are all peas in the same pod.

That is right of you; but that is the way people defend themselves when they are caught in error.

 

[God's Truth]

If we did, that means that eating shellfish at Red Lobster, wearing clothes that have two or more different types of cloth as well as "men lying with other men" are literally "ABOMINATIONS".

Jesus teaches the guidelines to enter the New Covenant, and Jesus does not tell us it is now okay for men to lie with each other.

It is still an abomination. As for clean and unclean food, all food is clean if taken with thanks.

 

[Ben Masada]

Why I love divorce.

Why I love divorce.

Probably because God hates divorce. (Malachi 2:16) But why do you love what God hates? Because the reference here is to Israel aka Ephraim whom God had to divorce in order to keep Judah to Himself as the sacred remnant of Israel. You can't stand the idea that God hated what He had to do to let Israel go. That's why you love divorce.

 

[serpentdove]

..God hates divorce. (Malachi 2:16) But why do you love what God hates? Because the reference here is to Israel aka Ephraim whom God had to divorce...

God is not finished with the nation Israel (La 1:1).

He'll bring her back to himself (Isa 54:7, Pr 5:18).

See:

God’s Good Purpose in Election by John Piper

 

[HisServant]

I appreciate you opening up about your personal situation. I am glad you have such a good marriage, truly I am. I understand that you do not think something that is such a blessing to you could have come from something we are not to do. However, we are to stay single no matter who did the divorcing and for whatever reason; and, we are not to marry a divorced person.

I know that is a hard teaching and that not everyone can accept it.

Its not a 'hard' teaching.... its an error in your teaching and you will be held accountable for it one day.

We are not in bondage based on our bad choices... and God does not support is in our bad choices.

Christ died to give us freedom from people like you who truly do not understand what Christ called us to do.

The Believer’s Freedom

23“I have the right to do anything,” you say—but not everything is beneficial. “I have the right to do anything”—but not everything is constructive. 24No one should seek their own good, but the good of others.

25Eat anything sold in the meat market without raising questions of conscience, 26for, “The earth is the Lord’s, and everything in it.”f

27If an unbeliever invites you to a meal and you want to go, eat whatever is put before you without raising questions of conscience. 28But if someone says to you, “This has been offered in sacrifice,” then do not eat it, both for the sake of the one who told you and for the sake of conscience. 29I am referring to the other person’s conscience, not yours. For why is my freedom being judged by another’s conscience? 30If I take part in the meal with thankfulness, why am I denounced because of something I thank God for?

31So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God. 32Do not cause anyone to stumble, whether Jews, Greeks or the church of God— 33even as I try to please everyone in every way. For I am not seeking my own good but the good of many, so that they may be saved.

The above contradicts the bondage you preach... you are a millstone around people's necks and anyone that follows you will drown along with you...

 

[Interplanner]

Sorry Bob Enyart, the church is the bride. Eph 5 and Rev 17. The harlot is stoned and then the marriage takes place.

 

[Interplanner]

If we did, that means that eating shellfish at Red Lobster, wearing clothes that have two or more different types of cloth as well as "men lying with other men" are literally "ABOMINATIONS".

As conservative rabbi Dennis Prager says, the Law only permits sex between married, human, adults, one of each gender, and at least two generations removed from family. As you can see from the restrictions Jesus put on divorce, the New Covenant has some harder things to accomplish than the old did, so no, there is no change in calling 'a man lying with a man' an abomination. If he was going to validate that, he would have said so there in Mt 19 when he mentioned eunuchs. Not a chance.

 

[serpentdove]

I never would have divorced in the first place if i could have prevented it or sucessfully reconciled the marriage. I would not encourage someone to remarry either. But I would not tell them to totally shut that idea out...be sensitive to the Holy Spirit and see what happens.

I would also tell them not to date or remarry until the kids have grown up and left the house....that is a formula for trouble.

Moms and dads are interchangeable (Eph 5:25). :idunno:

 

[HisServant]

Moms and dads are interchangeable (Eph 5:25). :idunno:

Husbands are told to love... wives are told to submit. So they are not interchangable.

What do you do if you have a wife that is intent on doing her own thing and submit to the authority of her husband... and you have had both sets of parents and the church involved in it for many a year... yet she refuses to submit?

Basically she has proven herself to be a non-christian and you should not be unequally yoked.

 

[Interplanner]

I think HisServant meant "and not submit to the authority..."

 

[serpentdove]

Husbands are told to love... wives are told to submit. So they are not interchangable.

What do you do if you have a wife that is intent on doing her own thing and submit to the authority of her husband... and you have had both sets of parents and the church involved in it for many a year... yet she refuses to submit?

Basically she has proven herself to be a non-christian and you should not be unequally yoked.

Marry a believer (2 Co 6:14). Christian love lasts (1 Co 13:8). Godless

love does not (1 Jn 4:20).

 

[serpentdove]

I think HisServant meant "and not submit to the authority..."

I think that's what he meant to say. Once you've married an unbeliever or a make-believer you're stuck with them (Matt. 19:6, Rom. 7:2, 3). Good luck with that. :granite:

See:

Divorce & Remarriage: A Position Paper by John Piper

 

[HisServant]

I think that's what he meant to say. Once you've married an unbeliever or a make-believer you're stuck with them (Matt. 19:6, Rom. 7:2, 3). Good luck with that. :granite:

See:

Divorce & Remarriage: A Position Paper by John Piper

Cherry picked doctrine is the talk of fools.

I can post a verse that tells you you are supposed to kill yourself or cut off your hand or cut out your tongue.

Here is another good read that discusses all the verses in scripture that deal with divorce.

http://www.equip.org/article/biblical-grounds-for-divorce-and-remarriage/

 

[aikido7]

Jesus teaches the guidelines to enter the New Covenant, and Jesus does not tell us it is now okay for men to lie with each other.

Taking the text seriously it never once has Jesus saying anything about guidelines or "New Covenant." These phrases have been added to the Word.

It is still an abomination. As for clean and unclean food, all food is clean if taken with thanks.

It is listed as an abomination, as are many other instances we follow and commit in modern times.

Where on earth do you get the theology of giving thanks for food makes it clean?

That assertion sounds suspiciously like your own opinion that you are trying to pass off as biblical.

 

[aikido7]

As conservative rabbi Dennis Prager says, the Law only permits sex between married, human, adults, one of each gender, and at least two generations removed from family. As you can see from the restrictions Jesus put on divorce, the New Covenant has some harder things to accomplish than the old did, so no, there is no change in calling 'a man lying with a man' an abomination. If he was going to validate that, he would have said so there in Mt 19 when he mentioned eunuchs. Not a chance.

We need to be careful not to assume we know what Jesus or anyone else "would have said" or what "they really meant."

Historical methodology means that we should never make a claim that is not directly backed up by scriptural proof or outside ancient writings not included in the canon.

You are clearly not following the rules of Christian hermenuetics.

 

[aikido7]

Just spend 15 minutes and read the link I posted.

I DID. You gave it already.

We need to show evidence for our claims with actual quotations from scripture and other ancient manuscripts. We just cannot give out some proof text without context and then confidently assert what it means without objective proof.

No one should be throwing out their personal theological conjectures. History is different than theology. Theology makes a meaning of historical events. For example, Jesus was crucified by Pilate. That is a historical FACT. Jesus died on the cross for humankind's sin--THAT is a theological conclusion from the facts.

All we have is the gospels themselves and some valuable contextual evidence from other ancient writings at the time. Scholars and serious readers have to admit that.

You have dismissed this literal evidence of mine as "heresay" without any proof or example whatsoever.

It looks to me like you have either been backed into a corner and don't want to admit it or you have no idea what "rightly dividing" the Bible and other ancient manuscripts entails. Or maybe even both.