quote:

Isaiah331516 Date 7/6/2009 2:24:25 PM
quote:

quote:

should we also point out other sins or just remarriage after divorce> Jesus mentioned a whole lot of sins!

this is the remarriage thread

quote:

ORIGINAL: gmcspice

quote:

Isaiah331516 Date 7/6/2009 2:24:25 PM
quote:

quote:

should we also point out other sins or just remarriage after divorce> Jesus mentioned a whole lot of sins!

this is the remarriage thread

Yep it sure is and it is not a place for judgement either.
Who are we humans to say God won't forgive those that are remarried? And it isn't even our place to do such a thing.
Divorce is because of the hardness of the human heart but doesn't and hasn't God used the hardness of the heart in some to prove he is God and he has the last say?
He certainly does. He did it with Pharaoh.
God sent Jesus to restore and reconcile that which is lost. Who are we to say how and when he does it or to even question his methods?
How can the clay tell the Potter what to do?

quote:

And to repent of a sin means to stop doing that particular sin. Otherwise it's not repentance. Just saying 'sorry' is not repentance.

quote:

northstar Date 7/6/2009 2:57:37 PM
quote:

ORIGINAL: gmcspice

quote:

Isaiah331516 Date 7/6/2009 2:24:25 PM
quote:

quote:

should we also point out other sins or just remarriage after divorce> Jesus mentioned a whole lot of sins!

this is the remarriage thread

Yep it sure is And it is not a place for judgement either.
Who are we humans to say God won't forgive those that are remarried? And it isn't even our place to do such a thing.
Divorce is because of the hardness of the human heart but doesn't And hasn't God used the hardness of the heart in some to prove he is God And he has the last say?
He certainly does. He did it with Pharaoh.
God sent Jesus to restore And reconcile that which is lost. Who are we to say how And when he does it or to even question his methods?
How can the clay tell the Potter what to do?


Of course God will forgive those who are remarried. IF THEY REPENT. And to repent of a sin means to stop doing that particular sin. Otherwise it's not repentance. Just saying 'sorry' is not repentance.

As it says in Proverbs 28:13
He that covereth his sins shall not prosper: but whoso confesseth And forsaketh them shall have mercy.

People are quick to talk about confession, but less eager to talk (or practice) forsaking sin.

quote:

ORIGINAL: northstar

quote:

ORIGINAL: gmcspice

quote:

Isaiah331516 Date 7/6/2009 2:24:25 PM
quote:

quote:

should we also point out other sins or just remarriage after divorce> Jesus mentioned a whole lot of sins!

this is the remarriage thread

Yep it sure is and it is not a place for judgement either.
Who are we humans to say God won't forgive those that are remarried? And it isn't even our place to do such a thing.
Divorce is because of the hardness of the human heart but doesn't and hasn't God used the hardness of the heart in some to prove he is God and he has the last say?
He certainly does. He did it with Pharaoh.
God sent Jesus to restore and reconcile that which is lost. Who are we to say how and when he does it or to even question his methods?
How can the clay tell the Potter what to do?

Of course God will forgive those who are remarried. IF THEY REPENT. And to repent of a sin means to stop doing that particular sin. Otherwise it's not repentance. Just saying 'sorry' is not repentance.

As it says in Proverbs 28:13
He that covereth his sins shall not prosper: but whoso confesseth and forsaketh them shall have mercy.

People are quick to talk about confession, but less eager to talk (or practice) forsaking sin.

quote:

The other thing I want to add to my previous post, is that for a person to say that God will forgive remarriage, it means that they do know that it's a sin to remarry, otherwise why would it need forgiving? And as Christians are we allowed to use the grace of God as a licence to sin. As Paul says 'by no means!'

quote:

The other thing I want to add to my previous post, is that for a person to say that God will forgive remarriage, it means that they do know that it's a sin to remarry, otherwise why would it need forgiving? And as Christians are we allowed to use the grace of God as a licence to sin. As Paul says 'by no means!'

quote:

ORIGINAL: mikesayen

Paul also states other non-specific “laws” that binds something to another i.e. “another law”, “law of the sin”, “law of the God”, “I find a law that is evil is present with me”, “law of the mind”, “law of the Spirit”, “law of the sin and of the death (as Rom 5:21)”. ...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Belle_Texas

quote:

ORIGINAL: gordiex

Thank you Benelchi, for your reply. SO what would happen to marriages (and remarriages if we begin to focus on this relational aspect of a life with Jesus and marriage?) instead of endless discussion about what a word means in Greek or whatever. There IS a place for that but it doesnt help those of us who are divorced. It helps no one really. Again, that is very important but relationship with Jesus, an intimate personal one, is what He is seeking. How would that help with remarriage after divorce if we focused on that? Thanks again.

For many of us, we have found ourselves divorced when we didn't want to be, but thanks to our spouses we had no choice. So, I have struggled with this issue myself. Sometimes, I wonder do I want to believe that divorce is permissible simply because I want to remarry sometime or do I face the years alone simply because my husband chose to leave? Do I have to suffer for his sins too?? Believe me I have enough of my own.

I have to believe that Jesus knows my heart and He has a plan for me whether Im remarried or not. He has put me on this earth for a reason and I, finally, want to walk this path I have been set on and go for it. I know, with Him, I am never truly alone.

So, let people discuss divorce, sin or not, or whatever, but in the meantime, we should keep our focus on Him and let Him direct our paths..

God's blessing to you gordiex...

quote:

ORIGINAL: GodsGiddyGirl

quote:

ORIGINAL: mikesayen

Paul also states other non-specific “laws” that binds something to another i.e. “another law”, “law of the sin”, “law of the God”, “I find a law that is evil is present with me”, “law of the mind”, “law of the Spirit”, “law of the sin and of the death (as Rom 5:21)”. ...

Aren’t we released from the above law? Don’t we belong to another?

It is written in Romans 7:4, So, my brothers, you also died to the law through the body of Christ, that you might belong to another, to him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit to God.

We died. We were co-crucified with Christ. Right? Galations 2:20, “I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me...”

Romans 7:5 For when we were controlled (Note:"were" is past tense) by the sinful nature, the sinful passions aroused by the law were at work in our bodies, so that we bore fruit for death. 6 But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code.

We were controlled. Again, “were” is past tense. Right? We are no longer controlled, not because of our own efforts, but because of Christ crucified ... His finished work on the cross.

As for, what you call, “the law of the husband”, I don’t think the subject, of Romans 7, is divorce and remarriage among men and women on earth, but rather a spiritual analogy to perhaps help the Jews understand their transition from Moses to Christ. In verse 4, Paul says that from this illustration in law they should regard themselves to be freed from the law and at liberty to be "married" to another, that is, to Christ. It seems the application made of it in the text itself is not that someone cannot be married to another, but rather that they can. The Jews were released from a "marriage" to the law that they might form a "marriage" with Christ.

The statement of Matthew 19:9 implies that under Jesus neither a man nor a woman continues to be bound to a mate who is guilty of fornication, though the mate remains alive. The "law" referred to in Romans 7:2-3 is not the law of Christ. In verse 7, the law to which Paul refers is the one which said, "Thou shalt not covet," which was, the Mosaic law. Right?

Pondering on Christ crucified this evening.

Blessings GG.

quote:

No, you are not responsible for the sins of others, and God does not hold you accountable for them. if your spouse leaves or commits sexual immorality then you are free to divorce them and marry again.

quote:

ORIGINAL: gmcspice

quote:

No, you are not responsible for the sins of others, and God does not hold you accountable for them. if your spouse leaves or commits sexual immorality then you are free to divorce them and marry again.

Amen!
I am just wondering why some don't get this.
And when we ask those that oppose this to explain themselves and give scripture they can't. Where does it say God holds the non sinning spouse accountable for the sin of the spouse that wants to leave?
Even when they try to reconcile but the other does not want to. How and why do they insist on saying the one spouse that tries to reconcile is the one in sin?
Or that they can't even get married again when they haven't sinned in the first place?

quote:

ORIGINAL: pickupyourmat

quote:

The other thing I want to add to my previous post, is that for a person to say that God will forgive remarriage, it means that they do know that it's a sin to remarry, otherwise why would it need forgiving? And as Christians are we allowed to use the grace of God as a licence to sin. As Paul says 'by no means!'

Here's the problem. It may happen that a person becomes convinced (unfortunately) that this false teaching is true. They are already remarried. If that is the case then of course, they would begin to ask seek forgiveness. The same would be true if those folks realized they divorced for unbiblical reasons. That is what they should do if they have become convinced they have sinned. That is not the issue though. The issue is if they should sin again by divorcing again in order to "repent". That is the problem here.

Now, I really don't care how folks try to make divorce righteous in this case. The bottom line is that people commit themselves to second marriages after divorce. They make commitments, vows and a covenant with their spouse. They establish families and the like. For them to, yet again, break another covenant and divorce their current spouse for yet another unbiblical reason (that is where this false teaching comes in and deceives), it is the same thing.

I wonder what you think divorce is? You say how horrible it is, the damaging effects on families and on how the world views marriage. You have stats out the wazoo to show the long term consequences, and the list goes on. Then you turn around and tell a man who has been in his second marriage for over 10 years with a family to do divorce. Is that the point where we get to tell the world how holy divorce is? It's no wonder the world thinks Christians are nuts! One minute it's bad, one minute it's good and then you attribute all that to God. So now we make God out to suffer from Paranoid Schizophrenia.

One minute it is said divorce is sin then the next minute that same "sinful" act is declared holy and righteous! How can that be? It is either one or the other. You're saying divorce can be a holy act based on the circumstances. Now if you insist that divorce can go from bad to good, then why is it so difficult to apply that same standard to remarriage that may have been entered into after an unlawful divorce? How much more the second marriages where adultery was committed by the spouse and that same one divorced the other? Why can't that bad turn to good?

Crazy!!!!!!!!!

quote:

ORIGINAL: mikesayen

When Paul is using "law" in Rom chap 7 and 8 like the "law of the Spirit" and "law of the mind" it is not talking about the Law of Moses but another "law" a truth of God through the understanding of how law works.

quote:

ORIGINAL: northstar

quote:

ORIGINAL: gmcspice

quote:

No, you are not responsible for the sins of others, and God does not hold you accountable for them. if your spouse leaves or commits sexual immorality then you are free to divorce them and marry again.

Amen!
I am just wondering why some don't get this.
And when we ask those that oppose this to explain themselves and give scripture they can't. Where does it say God holds the non sinning spouse accountable for the sin of the spouse that wants to leave?
Even when they try to reconcile but the other does not want to. How and why do they insist on saying the one spouse that tries to reconcile is the one in sin?
Or that they can't even get married again when they haven't sinned in the first place?

That's right...the 'non-sinning' spouse is not accountable for the other...however, they *are* accountable for themselves, and accountable to remaining faithful to their side of the covenant, no matter what the other person does. I don't see that as being accountable for someone else, but rather it's being accountable for myself and my own actions.

Just because they break their word doesn't mean I'm free to as well.

quote:

ORIGINAL: northstar

quote:

ORIGINAL: pickupyourmat

quote:

The other thing I want to add to my previous post, is that for a person to say that God will forgive remarriage, it means that they do know that it's a sin to remarry, otherwise why would it need forgiving? And as Christians are we allowed to use the grace of God as a licence to sin. As Paul says 'by no means!'

Here's the problem. It may happen that a person becomes convinced (unfortunately) that this false teaching is true. They are already remarried. If that is the case then of course, they would begin to ask seek forgiveness. The same would be true if those folks realized they divorced for unbiblical reasons. That is what they should do if they have become convinced they have sinned. That is not the issue though. The issue is if they should sin again by divorcing again in order to "repent". That is the problem here.

Now, I really don't care how folks try to make divorce righteous in this case. The bottom line is that people commit themselves to second marriages after divorce. They make commitments, vows and a covenant with their spouse. They establish families and the like. For them to, yet again, break another covenant and divorce their current spouse for yet another unbiblical reason (that is where this false teaching comes in and deceives), it is the same thing.

I wonder what you think divorce is? You say how horrible it is, the damaging effects on families and on how the world views marriage. You have stats out the wazoo to show the long term consequences, and the list goes on. Then you turn around and tell a man who has been in his second marriage for over 10 years with a family to do divorce. Is that the point where we get to tell the world how holy divorce is? It's no wonder the world thinks Christians are nuts! One minute it's bad, one minute it's good and then you attribute all that to God. So now we make God out to suffer from Paranoid Schizophrenia.

One minute it is said divorce is sin then the next minute that same "sinful" act is declared holy and righteous! How can that be? It is either one or the other. You're saying divorce can be a holy act based on the circumstances. Now if you insist that divorce can go from bad to good, then why is it so difficult to apply that same standard to remarriage that may have been entered into after an unlawful divorce? How much more the second marriages where adultery was committed by the spouse and that same one divorced the other? Why can't that bad turn to good?

Crazy!!!!!!!!!

Here's what I don't understand...
You say that a person makes commitments, vows and a covenant with a second spouse and therefore shouldn't leave...I understand that...but what I don't understand is why people fight and fight and say they made a covenant that can't be broken, yet they broke the first one. Why is the second marriage more 'sacred' than the first? Why are the vows made the second time around more unbreakable than the vows they broke in leaving their first marriage?

And as for establishing families with the second spouse - what about the families they established with their first spouse? I suppose the children of the second marriage are more important than the children of the first, who've been left with one parent and perhaps later had to come to terms with having a step parent, yet those children didn't matter, only the ones from the remarriage matter.

So yeah, what I don't understand is why the children of the second marriage, the spouse and the commitments of the second marriage are more important than those of the first.

And for those who are left single as the result of their spouse leaving them - well imo, a person teaches their children more about loyalty, fidelity, commitment, humility, honour, longsuffering etc (all qualities I'm sure we agree Christians should have) by their example of remaining faithful to their vows no matter what the other person does, than by fighting for their rights, remarrying, and then trying to tell their children about these qualities instead of showing them by example.

And for those who can't afford financially to stay single - that's what the church is there for...to look after the members of the body who are suffering and in need, to support them emotionally and financially, and if we don't do that for our brothers and sisters then our faith is worthless (see James for details). So if the church is operating as it should, then no one should be left high and dry. So perhaps remaining single wouldn't be considered so much of a 'punishment' if the whole church family rallied around on a long term basis in order to support the spouse who is remaining faithful no matter what.

quote:

You say that a person makes commitments, vows and a covenant with a second spouse and therefore shouldn't leave...I understand that...but what I don't understand is why people fight and fight and say they made a covenant that can't be broken, yet they broke the first one. Why is the second marriage more 'sacred' than the first? Why are the vows made the second time around more unbreakable than the vows they broke in leaving their first marriage?

quote:

And as for establishing families with the second spouse - what about the families they established with their first spouse? I suppose the children of the second marriage are more important than the children of the first, who've been left with one parent and perhaps later had to come to terms with having a step parent, yet those children didn't matter, only the ones from the remarriage matter.

quote:

And for those who are left single as the result of their spouse leaving them - well imo, a person teaches their children more about loyalty, fidelity, commitment, humility, honour, longsuffering etc (all qualities I'm sure we agree Christians should have) by their example of remaining faithful to their vows no matter what the other person does, than by fighting for their rights, remarrying, and then trying to tell their children about these qualities instead of showing them by example.

quote:

And for those who can't afford financially to stay single - that's what the church is there for...to look after the members of the body who are suffering and in need, to support them emotionally and financially, and if we don't do that for our brothers and sisters then our faith is worthless (see James for details). So if the church is operating as it should, then no one should be left high and dry. So perhaps remaining single wouldn't be considered so much of a 'punishment' if the whole church family rallied around on a long term basis in order to support the spouse who is remaining faithful no matter what.

quote:

pickupyourmat Date 7/9/2009 9:01:53 PM
My responses are in blue.

quote:

You say that a person makes commitments, vows and a covenant with a second spouse and therefore shouldn't leave...I understand that...but what I don't understand is why people fight and fight and say they made a covenant that can't be broken, yet they broke the first one. Why is the second marriage more 'sacred' than the first? Why are the vows made the second time around more unbreakable than the vows they broke in leaving their first marriage?

You misunderstand. If a person has entered into a second marriage (made vows, etc.), then they should not leave yet again especially for an unbiblical reason. If you do it once and it is wrong, you don't do it again. This is not about the second marriage being more sacred. It's about not doing the same thing twice - repentance.

quote:

And as for establishing families with the second spouse - what about the families they established with their first spouse? I suppose the children of the second marriage are more important than the children of the first, who've been left with one parent and perhaps later had to come to terms with having a step parent, yet those children didn't matter, only the ones from the remarriage matter.

Wrong again. This is not about either family being more important than the other. I am addressing what has happened after a person has left and remarried. Once a second marriage has taken place, all children have to be taken care of. The point is that you don't stop supporting your children from your first marriage just because you have married again. If there are children in the second marriage, they must be supported as well.

quote:

And for those who are left single as the result of their spouse leaving them - well imo, a person teaches their children more about loyalty, fidelity, commitment, humility, honour, longsuffering etc (all qualities I'm sure we agree Christians should have) by their example of remaining faithful to their vows no matter what the other person does, than by fighting for their rights, remarrying, and then trying to tell their children about these qualities instead of showing them by example.

Perhaps these are the situations you are familiar with and that is great but the things I have seen and experienced do not fall into that category. For example an abusive marriage which has been mentioned a few times in this thread. Both parties made vows but I'm sure when and if they said "till death do us part", it was said in the classical sense and did not mean one spouse possibly beating the other to death. In these cases, it is not about fighting for ones rights. I can confidently say that in many cases where abuse is present or even other situations, there is a spouse that is fighting hard for the marriage. They are loyal, faithful, committed, humble, honorable and amazingly longsuffering. These are all the things God is but even He has a limit.

Revelations 2:21
I have given her time to repent of her immorality, but she is unwilling. So I will cast her on a bed of suffering...

We are all familiar with Jezebel's fate as well as Pharoah who would not repent and submit and countless others who were, after a time, cut off because they would not repent. Perhaps this part of God makes you uncomfortable but it is part of His character as well.

quote:

And for those who can't afford financially to stay single - that's what the church is there for...to look after the members of the body who are suffering and in need, to support them emotionally and financially, and if we don't do that for our brothers and sisters then our faith is worthless (see James for details). So if the church is operating as it should, then no one should be left high and dry. So perhaps remaining single wouldn't be considered so much of a 'punishment' if the whole church family rallied around on a long term basis in order to support the spouse who is remaining faithful no matter what.

The issue is not about the church supporting men or women who have gone through divorces and been left single. The issue is that God has not left them without remedy and forbidden them to marry. This is something man chooses to teach as truth even when it is false. That is what this thread addresses among other things.

quote:

If they have broken the covenant then it is broken. If a vase is smashed, it is smashed. It cannot be smashed fpr one and whole for the other. There are things that one spouse does that smashes the marriage covenant and that is why Jesus allows divorce in these cases. Never does God hold one person accountable for what another does. if one spouse leaves or is sexually unfaithful, then the marriage is over and the other spouse is free, just as they would have been if their spouse had been stoned to death in the Old Testament.Why do we think that God thinks that something that is SOOO serious as to have resulted in death suddenly becomes so acceptable that the spouse cannnot even be released from it today?.
There is no point in us hanging on to a smashed marriage. The marriage is broken and our vows are now worthless. We are free to move on and allow our wonderful God to restore to us ALL that we have lost, and that may well be another marriage to a godly spouse.He is so good like that, and He loves to restore and heal.

quote:

You’re right. It is talking about how the law works in one’s life when one lives by God's law instead of God’s grace. Because of Christ Crucified ... His finished work on the cross, we can choose to live by grace. Amazing grace. Here’s the thing, we have a choice. We can live by His law or His grace.

However, if one chooses to live by the law ... welcome to the killing fields. It is written, in Galations 3:10, “All who rely on observing the law are under a curse, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law."

Mike, God’s law or God’s grace? God’s law is good. God’s grace is better. At least ... I think it is. What about you, Mike, what will you choose this day?

Continuing to ponder on Christ crucified. To Know Christ and Him Crucified.

Blessings, GG.

I know of a great camping ground ... the book of Romans.

quote:

ORIGINAL: GodsGiddyGirl

quote:

ORIGINAL: mikesayen

When Paul is using "law" in Rom chap 7 and 8 like the "law of the Spirit" and "law of the mind" it is not talking about the Law of Moses but another "law" a truth of God through the understanding of how law works.

You’re right. It is talking about how the law works in one’s life when one lives by God's law instead of God’s grace. Because of Christ Crucified ... His finished work on the cross, we can choose to live by grace. Amazing grace. Here’s the thing, we have a choice. We can live by His law or His grace.

However, if one chooses to live by the law ... welcome to the killing fields. It is written, in Galations 3:10, “All who rely on observing the law are under a curse, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law."

Mike, God’s law or God’s grace? God’s law is good. God’s grace is better. At least ... I think it is. What about you, Mike, what will you choose this day?

Continuing to ponder on Christ crucified. To Know Christ and Him Crucified.

Blessings, GG.

I know of a great camping ground ... the book of Romans.

quote:

when Paul say the "law of faith" or the "law of the spirit". how do you read this? Paul in these situations is not talking about the Law of Moses, but another law....God's law..like the law of the woman being submissive to her husband said in 1 cor 14:34 speaking about Gods law in Gen 3:16 not the law of Moses.