quote:

ORIGINAL: Binyamin

So after 46 pages of back-and-forth have we come to any sort of consensus here? Where must I, as a babe in Christ go in order to have the truth of scripture explained to me?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Binyamin

So after 46 pages of back-and-forth have we come to any sort of consensus here? Where must I, as a babe in Christ go in order to have the truth of scripture explained to me?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Binyamin

So after 46 pages of back-and-forth have we come to any sort of consensus here? Where must I, as a babe in Christ go in order to have the truth of scripture explained to me?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Binyamin

So after 46 pages of back-and-forth have we come to any sort of consensus here? Where must I, as a babe in Christ go in order to have the truth of scripture explained to me?

quote:

The first thing is.....is it permissible to get a divorce due to physical abuse?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Binyamin

So after 46 pages of back-and-forth have we come to any sort of consensus here? Where must I, as a babe in Christ go in order to have the truth of scripture explained to me?

quote:

ORIGINAL: 3cappuccinosmom

quote:

The first thing is.....is it permissible to get a divorce due to physical abuse?

I read your other post. First of all, systemic dangerous abuse is different from a "slap here and there from both people" which I think is what your friend in your OP said. It is never OK to hit, but if both people occasionally lash out, then they have relational problems that are at least possible to fix with counseling and committment. I have slapped my husband once. It was absolutely wrong and I'm still ashamed of it, but I am glad he did not abandon me over that one instance.

If one person is beating the other and it is not a one-time slap but a persistent and habitual thing, the victim needs to leave for their own safety.

I don't think divorce is necessarily the first step. It could be that a person is married to a psychopath and needs to never be near them again. Sometimes legal divorce is necessary for security reasons.

But it's also possible for two people to be in an abusive cycle where one verbally abuses and the other hits, and of course, for good reason, the hitter comes off looking worse. Reconciliation can happen but it should happen in the context of demonstrable humility on the part of the abuser (or both people, if they were both abusive), counseling, constant involvment of a third party and accountability, and over a long period of time rather than just a few weeks or months.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Katie51

quote:

ORIGINAL: herestoresmysoul

your friend has definately done the wrong thing by divorcing her husband for such selfish reasons. Sadly it happens a lot.is she a christisn?Maybe you could tell her that you dont agree with what she has done and then you need to decide if you still want to be her friend. if you do, then she will have to accept how you feel and decide if she still wants to be in contact with you.

As for the abuse issue, This is something that isnt specifically mentioned in the Bible with reference to divorce, so it is a grey area, and I believe that it depends on the abuse, how serious it is, whether the abusive partner is working on changing etc etc,
However, if a man or wife is seriously abusing their spouse or children they need to seperate asap and then pray as to what the next atep is. If the abuser wont try to change and stays the same and isnt prepared to get help etc then I honesty feel that God would never want anyone to stay in abusive marriage.
I know a lady whose husband sexually abused their children. As soon as she found out, she insisted that he leave, and after muich prayer and waiting for 2 years, she then divorced him with Gods clear leading to do so. She has now been blessed with a good husband and step dad for her children.

why would anyone wait two years (not condemning her as i dont know her full story)...but sexual abuse of her children shouldnt require a waiting period but an immediate response. He is out for good. Period.

quote:

ORIGINAL: -Justyna-

First I would like to say that I have NOT read all the 46 pages simply becasue I dont have time. So forgive me if this is redundant.

Two things...

The first thing is.....is it permissible to get a divorce due to physical abuse?

Second thing.....I have an old friend who lives in CA who is getting a divorce, for no other reason than she believes that her husband is dragging her down. She is like 38 or something and recently just went back to get her degree. She has kids and she was never able to do that earlier. Anyway, we recently started talking again and she told me the news about her divorce. I was not shocked because she always seemed to complain about her husband a lot ever since I have known her. She never looked at the fact that he was a good provider and she lives in a nice home and drives a new car because of him. She just always just complained about the bad times. How am I suppose to react to her? I believe her divorce is wrong because she has no biblical grounds for it that I know of. How am I suppose to be supportive when I believe what she is doing is wrong?

quote:

I am divorced but I will tell you this.....even a "one time slap" would get a man out my door in a New York minute. One time is one time too many. There is never a good excuse for hitting. It is seldom one time either. The hitter SHOULD look worse, cause he, or she....is.

quote:

ORIGINAL: alaska

quote:

God hates divorce. You're encouraging people to get divorced again.

In Mal. the hating of divorce is in the context of the wife of his youth suggesting the first lawful marriage. Mal. also refers to the one flesh concept after the Adam and Eve scenario. The leaving and cleaving of which Jesus spoke also was in reference to a first lawful marriage because it is also directly related to Adam and Eve.
Since Jesus said that to remarry is adultery, it is understood to be a remarriage while the first lawful spouse is alive. Paul said it perfectly in 1 Cor. 7:39.
Jesus does not hate the repentance from adultery, which repentance will involve the putting asunder of that adulterous marriage.

quote:

ORIGINAL: herestoresmysoul

wlliam. Jesus said himself that we are permitted to divorce for sexual immorality (pornea). he and everyone who heard Him KNEW that if a couple divorced, they would almost certainly remarry, in fact women HAD to remarry or starve. Those churches who tell others to divorce, are into gross sin themselves becuase God will hold them personally responsible for the destruction of marriages and the destorying of childrens lives.I wouldnt wnat to have to stand before Him with that accusation on ME>

quote:

ORIGINAL: herestoresmysoul

wlliam. Jesus said himself that we are permitted to divorce for sexual immorality (pornea). he and everyone who heard Him KNEW that if a couple divorced, they would almost certainly remarry, in fact women HAD to remarry or starve. Those churches who tell others to divorce, are into gross sin themselves becuase God will hold them personally responsible for the destruction of marriages and the destorying of childrens lives.I wouldnt wnat to have to stand before Him with that accusation on ME>

quote:

ORIGINAL: WilliamtheConqueror

I realize my view is a minority view among evangelicals, however like Luther, "... unless I can be convinced by scripture....I cannot change..... Here I stand. I can do no other..."

quote:

ORIGINAL: WilliamtheConqueror

quote:

ORIGINAL: herestoresmysoul

wlliam. Jesus said himself that we are permitted to divorce for sexual immorality (pornea). he and everyone who heard Him KNEW that if a couple divorced, they would almost certainly remarry, in fact women HAD to remarry or starve. Those churches who tell others to divorce, are into gross sin themselves becuase God will hold them personally responsible for the destruction of marriages and the destorying of childrens lives.I wouldnt wnat to have to stand before Him with that accusation on ME>

Yes women would remarry in 1st century palestine, hence Jesus' statement in Matthew 5:32, "..causes her to commit adultery..". Now notice that the adultery was not contingent on the whether the man remarried or stayed single and celibate or became a philanderer, or if she was unjustly divorced by him (she being the innocent party). Of course if she committed adultery and that was the cause of the divorce then he would not be causing her to commit adultery, hence the exception. Matthew 5:32 nails down what the exception in Matthew 19:9 CANNOT be. In other words the committing of adultery does not sever the marriage in Jesus' eyes, for if it did, then His statement would have to be altered allowing her to remarry if he remarried first. A case in point is a church I attend when I fly back to Texas during Christmas to visit family. In that church an associate pastor was abandoned by his believing spouse who dropped out of church, philandered with another man, and then sued for divorce. The pastor tried to stop this process and went to extensive counseling but she would not reconcile. Eventually an elder introduced him to a wonderful christian widow attending the church. They started dating, were married by the pastor in that church where he is still an associate. From what the elder told me they have a wonderful marriage. Apparently the parishers must concur. I wrote a letter to my pastor in Anchorage explaining and what my view is, which is basically that both the associate and the pastor who performed the marriage ceremony should be defrocked! Matthew 5:32 states that the innocent party commits adultery on the remarriage regardless of what the guilty or divorcing party does. However my pastor like most is a thorough Erasmian on this subject and did not respond to my letter. I realize my view is a minority view among evangelicals, however like Luther, "... unless I can be convinced by scripture....I cannot change..... Here I stand. I can do no other..."

quote:

ORIGINAL: MowTin

quote:

ORIGINAL: WilliamtheConqueror

I realize my view is a minority view among evangelicals, however like Luther, "... unless I can be convinced by scripture....I cannot change..... Here I stand. I can do no other..."

Luther would disagree with you. Luther did not believe Polygamy was a sin. Hence he could not possibly think that remarriage by a man was adultery.

The problem with all these interpretations is that they are based on a few lines. A simple punctuation change alters the entire meaning. It's just not possible to infer an entire law from a couple of sentences.

If you start using a few sentences to create laws in the Bible then you can make the Bible say anything you want.

Can you divorce your spouse for any and every reason? No. The passage clearly teaches us that you cannot seek a divorce just because you feel like it. But if divorce were not permitted then Jesus could have easily said, "A man should never divorce his wife for any reason."

quote:

ORIGINAL: MowTin

quote:

ORIGINAL: WilliamtheConqueror

I realize my view is a minority view among evangelicals, however like Luther, "... unless I can be convinced by scripture....I cannot change..... Here I stand. I can do no other..."

Luther would disagree with you. Luther did not believe Polygamy was a sin. Hence he could not possibly think that remarriage by a man was adultery.

The problem with all these interpretations is that they are based on a few lines. A simple punctuation change alters the entire meaning. It's just not possible to infer an entire law from a couple of sentences.

If you start using a few sentences to create laws in the Bible then you can make the Bible say anything you want.

Can you divorce your spouse for any and every reason? No. The passage clearly teaches us that you cannot seek a divorce just because you feel like it. But if divorce were not permitted then Jesus could have easily said, "A man should never divorce his wife for any reason."

quote:

ORIGINAL: herestoresmysoul

quote:

ORIGINAL: WilliamtheConqueror

quote:

ORIGINAL: herestoresmysoul

wlliam. Jesus said himself that we are permitted to divorce for sexual immorality (pornea). he and everyone who heard Him KNEW that if a couple divorced, they would almost certainly remarry, in fact women HAD to remarry or starve. Those churches who tell others to divorce, are into gross sin themselves becuase God will hold them personally responsible for the destruction of marriages and the destorying of childrens lives.I wouldnt wnat to have to stand before Him with that accusation on ME>

Yes women would remarry in 1st century palestine, hence Jesus' statement in Matthew 5:32, "..causes her to commit adultery..". Now notice that the adultery was not contingent on the whether the man remarried or stayed single and celibate or became a philanderer, or if she was unjustly divorced by him (she being the innocent party). Of course if she committed adultery and that was the cause of the divorce then he would not be causing her to commit adultery, hence the exception. Matthew 5:32 nails down what the exception in Matthew 19:9 CANNOT be. In other words the committing of adultery does not sever the marriage in Jesus' eyes, for if it did, then His statement would have to be altered allowing her to remarry if he remarried first. A case in point is a church I attend when I fly back to Texas during Christmas to visit family. In that church an associate pastor was abandoned by his believing spouse who dropped out of church, philandered with another man, and then sued for divorce. The pastor tried to stop this process and went to extensive counseling but she would not reconcile. Eventually an elder introduced him to a wonderful christian widow attending the church. They started dating, were married by the pastor in that church where he is still an associate. From what the elder told me they have a wonderful marriage. Apparently the parishers must concur. I wrote a letter to my pastor in Anchorage explaining and what my view is, which is basically that both the associate and the pastor who performed the marriage ceremony should be defrocked! Matthew 5:32 states that the innocent party commits adultery on the remarriage regardless of what the guilty or divorcing party does. However my pastor like most is a thorough Erasmian on this subject and did not respond to my letter. I realize my view is a minority view among evangelicals, however like Luther, "... unless I can be convinced by scripture....I cannot change..... Here I stand. I can do no other..."

I am SOO pleased that the pastor who was so deeply hurt and betrayed by his first wife is happily remarried now. Good for Him and well done God for bringing them together.
I am not surprised n that you didnt receive the answer to your letter, he probably thought that is wasnt worth wasting the paper or the time to answer such a rediculous startment.