Marriage-Divorce-Remarriage is not Adultery
- Thread starter richard79408
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
So instead of answering my question, you resort to harsh personal attacks upon me.
But I ask again nicely, can you please answer my question, so which of the 10 Commandments do you willfully violate and break?
God bless.
Yes repentance is important and I have repented 12 years ago of my old lifestyle. Same applies to someone living in an adulterous relationship, they should repent.
God bless.
The OT law is not dead but should live in us as Christians who know the two laws that Jesus gave us are the key.
I don't think we can put the OT law under our feet.
I don't think we can put the OT law under our feet.
goodshepard55
New Member
Greetings,
Thank you for your responses..but you did not answer the question? Here is the original law given by Moses to the people?
I mention this because this is one of our major problems--we just react without thinking because one believes that they already know the answer.
And, based on the information one has at hand--that is the way we tend to do things--But can we learn and reconsider when new information is put on the table that we have not considered in making our conclusions??
Deu 24:1 When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house.
Deu 24:2 And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife.
Deu 24:3 And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, which took her to be his wife;
Deu 24:4 Her former husband, which sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before the LORD: and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.
Now--Do you know that in scripture--this is the first law given by God to man governing Divorce?
That Matt 19:9 is based on this law?
Since Jesus did not make new law during his earthly ministry--From a reading of Matt 19:3-9 it is clear that both Jesus and the Jews knew and understood this law..
But we do not seem to be able to..
This law was not given to the Jewish neighbors whom we identify as Gentiles{anyone not a Jew}.
Deu 5:1 And Moses called all Israel, and said unto them, Hear, O Israel, the statutes and judgments which I speak in your ears this day, that ye may learn them, and keep, and do them.
Deu 5:2 The LORD our God made a covenant with us in Horeb.
Deu 5:3 The LORD made not this covenant with our fathers, but with us, even us, who are all of us here alive this day.
Deu 5:4 The LORD talked with you face to face in the mount out of the midst of the fire,
Do we understand the fact that God never gave that Deut 24:1-4 law to anyone but those standing there that day and to their descendants?
This means that Matt 19:9 has never ever ever applied to anyone but the Jews--and since the cross--That law is gone and no one today can be under it.
In the scriptural example that we do have--We find God authorizing a putting away and giving of the bill of divorcement for any reason--any reason save adultery.
In fact we find a woman legally divorced twice for reasons other than adultery--and she is free to REMARRY FOR THE THIRD TIME except she cannot return to her first husband.
So those folks who are [a] saying that the only reason for a divorce is adultery--are not giving it as given.
And what does that make us when we turn the scriptures around{scriptures that do not apply to us} and we turn them and use them as a weapon on folks who are caught up in sin..
you asked
Richard, do you know the difference between the Laws, e.g Moral Law, Ceremonial law, Civil Law? If yes, then please explain to me the differences and who the individual laws were applied to. Thank you
Yes, I do and under the Mosaical law--laws applied only to the Jews--applies to no one alive today--Which is one reason why Matt 19:9 does not apply to anyone living today. No one today ever lived under that law and that law was never given to anyone today..To attempt to live under the law is die already dead...because that law never ever saved anyone...
Richard79408
Wahoo...preach it Brother and welcome to the family.....
Or why were they put there by God ?
I would think they are are a blueprint and Christ fulfilled it or brings it to light so to speak and i don't see why Christ would put it away as he said he came not to abolish the law ?? did he not !
Today there should be no Jew or Greek etc but all one in Christ only any other is the work of Satan.
I would think they are are a blueprint and Christ fulfilled it or brings it to light so to speak and i don't see why Christ would put it away as he said he came not to abolish the law ?? did he not !
Today there should be no Jew or Greek etc but all one in Christ only any other is the work of Satan.
What OT Law exactly are you referring to? The Moral, Ceremonial, Civil or all?
God bless.
Amen.
God bless.
Repentance 12 years ago was very good and essential, but if that's the only repentance you ever do, or have done, you're deceiving yourself and are lost. We can't live on yesterday's repentance just as the children of Israel couldn't live on yesterday's manna. It is something we must do continually to abide in life.
From TruthSeeker2012's posts that I have read so far, I agree .
The only things I would add are that if people become believers then a new start must surely be possible. .. but a marriage between beleivers should not end in divorce. Abuse for example is not the lifestyle of a believer.
The only things I would add are that if people become believers then a new start must surely be possible. .. but a marriage between beleivers should not end in divorce. Abuse for example is not the lifestyle of a believer.
What does this have to do with water-skiing?
A disciple of Christ is given a sound mind while yet in this present life. It is pointless to speak to one with an unstable mind. First connect to Christ...and He will heal your lack. THEN, see to helping others. Otherwise you are being a hypocrite.
Greetings,
When looking at Matt 19:9 we have been so ingrained--I do believe a 1500 year old lie is ingrained esp. when we parrot it as truth.
And, we do not think of the consequences of attempting to marry these two verses
Gen 2:23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.
Gen 2:24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
with this one--
Mat 19:9 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.
What we have in the garden is the ideal marriage. I point out that in the garden it is indeed ideal. Why? Because God only created one man and one woman.
The only covenant law in the Garden that I can find is this one--<p>
<span style="font-size: 18px;">Gen 2:16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
Gen 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. %
Greetings,
When looking at Matt 19:9 we have been so ingrained--I do believe a 1500 year old lie is ingrained esp. when we parrot it as truth.
And, we do not think of the consequences of attempting to marry these two texts.
Gen 2:23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.
Gen 2:24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
with this one--
Mat 19:9 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.
What we have in the garden is the ideal marriage. I point out that in the garden it is indeed ideal. Why? Because God only created one man and one woman.
The only covenant law in the Garden that I can find is this one--
Gen 2:16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
Gen 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
At this point--in the garden--there is no sin--there is no tempter, no adversary. When our adversary appeared in scripture not long after man sins and man is kicked out of the Garden.
Later in Gen. Man has become so evil--violations of God's Moral law of sin and of death that God is goingto start over.
After the flood is over and man is to go forth and replenish the earth--they do not. They gather and begin to build the tower of Babel.
Understand this--there is no divorce law--However, all know the ideal that is that marriage is just one man and one woman for life.
But there is totally no law dealing with what happens when men do not keep this ideal.
God comes down and confounds their one language into many and so man separates out and begns to repopulate the earth.
Over time many nations and cultures develop--but not in any of these nations are there any God given laws concerning what happens when the ideal one man and one woman is violated.
The first divorce law ever is given in a COVENANT RELATIONSHIP between the physical descendants of Abraham and God by God at Mt. Sinai.
In that law a putting away and the giving of the bill of divorcement{our understanding of divorce today} could be given for any cause save Adultery. God never authorized a divorce for Adultery but God did command a putting away followed by stoning to death.
This is by Mosaic law--the results of adultery.
This Covenant law went away at the cross as the result of the Jews putting Jesus on the cross and killing Him.
This law Deut 24:1-4 was never given to:
[a] Gentiles living around the Jews at Mt. Sinai
Not ever given to any Gentiles today 2012
[c] After the cross--God removed the law from the Jews{although many even today do not so believe}
[5] This law was removed from mankind{descendants of Abraham--50 days prior to the giving of the new Covenant in Acts 2--
[6] This law was never ever given to Christians.
So--Why are we today taking a law never given to anyone living today and using it as a baseball bat against folks who have been married, divorced and remarried by calling such an action Adultery?
Note this verse ---Rev 21:8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.
Yet how upset or reactive do we get when folks lie? :wub:
Richard
Greetings,
When one enters into a discussion of marriage divorce and remarriage as an act of Adultery--we are giving what we have been taught on the subject and thus what we believe.
The more discussions we have the firmer our mindset becomes.
Here, in this discussion to this point we are discussing Mosaic law and whom it does and does not apply to.
What we have to begin to think about or add to our pool of information is the idea that God is really and truly in charge of everything--and that includes marriages divorces and remarriages.
God via His Moral law of sin and death will judge every human beingfrom the day of Pentecost forward by this law. The only exception to that statement are for those who are in Christ.
What does that mean exactly? It means that God working through the civil government is in charge of marriages, divorces and remarriages not any given church.
When folks moved out from the tower of Babel...consider, who was in charge of marriages?
On the day of Pentecost--when the new covenant began up to around 400 AD who was in charge of Marriages?
The answers are the same God working and using the civil government.
Around 400 ad as near as I can tell--there may be some discussion on who has the power over the people--the church or the Princes.
The issue comes to the forefront with Gregory the First--490-504 AD where in his writings He begns to make the claim that it is the church and not the Princes that are in charge.
This is a battle that goes on for just over a 1,000 years and at the Council of Trent--via the use of sacraments the RCC wins this battle.
If you go here http://rgfheart.com/abs/about/
and chose Witness up to 550 AD..you can learn about how the early church found ways to deal with this issue.
And if you choose Martin Buccer died 1554--He is well qualified to
examine the newly claimed powers of the RCC{Roman Catholic Church} as he is just past the council of Trent. He is so hated by the RCC that four years after He dies--they dig up his body and burn it and all of his books that they can find.
It makes a great read and is going to add greatly to your current understanding of Marriage, Divorce, Remarriage being defned as Adultery.
Oh--one warning with Martin Buccer--Take some time that Old English is taking some time to read through.
And they are in book form with two pages open at a time.
Today, it is not a church governing Marriages but God working though and with the civil government doing so.
Richard
When looking at Matt 19:9 we have been so ingrained--I do believe a 1500 year old lie is ingrained esp. when we parrot it as truth.
And, we do not think of the consequences of attempting to marry these two verses
Gen 2:23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.
Gen 2:24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
with this one--
Mat 19:9 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.
What we have in the garden is the ideal marriage. I point out that in the garden it is indeed ideal. Why? Because God only created one man and one woman.
The only covenant law in the Garden that I can find is this one--<p>
<span style="font-size: 18px;">Gen 2:16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
Gen 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. %
Greetings,
When looking at Matt 19:9 we have been so ingrained--I do believe a 1500 year old lie is ingrained esp. when we parrot it as truth.
And, we do not think of the consequences of attempting to marry these two texts.
Gen 2:23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.
Gen 2:24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
with this one--
Mat 19:9 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.
What we have in the garden is the ideal marriage. I point out that in the garden it is indeed ideal. Why? Because God only created one man and one woman.
The only covenant law in the Garden that I can find is this one--
Gen 2:16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
Gen 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
At this point--in the garden--there is no sin--there is no tempter, no adversary. When our adversary appeared in scripture not long after man sins and man is kicked out of the Garden.
Later in Gen. Man has become so evil--violations of God's Moral law of sin and of death that God is goingto start over.
After the flood is over and man is to go forth and replenish the earth--they do not. They gather and begin to build the tower of Babel.
Understand this--there is no divorce law--However, all know the ideal that is that marriage is just one man and one woman for life.
But there is totally no law dealing with what happens when men do not keep this ideal.
God comes down and confounds their one language into many and so man separates out and begns to repopulate the earth.
Over time many nations and cultures develop--but not in any of these nations are there any God given laws concerning what happens when the ideal one man and one woman is violated.
The first divorce law ever is given in a COVENANT RELATIONSHIP between the physical descendants of Abraham and God by God at Mt. Sinai.
In that law a putting away and the giving of the bill of divorcement{our understanding of divorce today} could be given for any cause save Adultery. God never authorized a divorce for Adultery but God did command a putting away followed by stoning to death.
This is by Mosaic law--the results of adultery.
This Covenant law went away at the cross as the result of the Jews putting Jesus on the cross and killing Him.
This law Deut 24:1-4 was never given to:
[a] Gentiles living around the Jews at Mt. Sinai
Not ever given to any Gentiles today 2012
[c] After the cross--God removed the law from the Jews{although many even today do not so believe}
[5] This law was removed from mankind{descendants of Abraham--50 days prior to the giving of the new Covenant in Acts 2--
[6] This law was never ever given to Christians.
So--Why are we today taking a law never given to anyone living today and using it as a baseball bat against folks who have been married, divorced and remarried by calling such an action Adultery?
Note this verse ---Rev 21:8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.
Yet how upset or reactive do we get when folks lie? :wub:
Richard
Greetings,
When one enters into a discussion of marriage divorce and remarriage as an act of Adultery--we are giving what we have been taught on the subject and thus what we believe.
The more discussions we have the firmer our mindset becomes.
Here, in this discussion to this point we are discussing Mosaic law and whom it does and does not apply to.
What we have to begin to think about or add to our pool of information is the idea that God is really and truly in charge of everything--and that includes marriages divorces and remarriages.
God via His Moral law of sin and death will judge every human beingfrom the day of Pentecost forward by this law. The only exception to that statement are for those who are in Christ.
What does that mean exactly? It means that God working through the civil government is in charge of marriages, divorces and remarriages not any given church.
When folks moved out from the tower of Babel...consider, who was in charge of marriages?
On the day of Pentecost--when the new covenant began up to around 400 AD who was in charge of Marriages?
The answers are the same God working and using the civil government.
Around 400 ad as near as I can tell--there may be some discussion on who has the power over the people--the church or the Princes.
The issue comes to the forefront with Gregory the First--490-504 AD where in his writings He begns to make the claim that it is the church and not the Princes that are in charge.
This is a battle that goes on for just over a 1,000 years and at the Council of Trent--via the use of sacraments the RCC wins this battle.
If you go here http://rgfheart.com/abs/about/
and chose Witness up to 550 AD..you can learn about how the early church found ways to deal with this issue.
And if you choose Martin Buccer died 1554--He is well qualified to
examine the newly claimed powers of the RCC{Roman Catholic Church} as he is just past the council of Trent. He is so hated by the RCC that four years after He dies--they dig up his body and burn it and all of his books that they can find.
It makes a great read and is going to add greatly to your current understanding of Marriage, Divorce, Remarriage being defned as Adultery.
Oh--one warning with Martin Buccer--Take some time that Old English is taking some time to read through.
And they are in book form with two pages open at a time.
Today, it is not a church governing Marriages but God working though and with the civil government doing so.
Richard
WhiteKnuckle
New Member
- Mar 29, 2009
- 866
- 42
- 0
- 47
Jesus said, divorce is only acceptable in cases of adultery. It's interesting because He goes further into it by saying, if you look at a woman to lust after her you have commited adultery in your heart.
Jesus was talking to the pharisee's and explaining the reasons Moses permited divorce was because of the heardness of their hearts.
What makes the looking and lusting so interesting is Jesus was basically showing that you should forgive adultery. Because, if you wife cheated, you also have cheated because you looked and lusted. You're both guilty. However, Jesus also realizes how hard (if not impossible for some) it would be to forgive something like this.
I believe it's also a double meaning in the sense of worshiping other gods and such.
Now, we can play games with this for a while such as. If you commit adultery, then you can legally get a divorce. If you divorce then remarry, you have commited adultery, so, since you commited adultery, your first divorce is valid in the eyes of God and that makes your second marriage okay.
Then we can say, well, since adultery is a sin, and I repented, then my second marriage is okay. Ultimately, you still didn't repent, because, that means either staying unmarried, or returning to your spouse. (in cases that don't involve adultery from the beginning.)
And the wheels go round and round.
Then we can take a look at 1 Corinthians 7:10
And to the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: 11But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.
And, then later, about the unbelieving spouse. We're not in any form of binding marriage if we dont' wish to be with them. So, in the Lord, we can leave if we want, or if they want, they can leave. Then remarriage is okay, but, also, Later, or earlier (I can't find it at the moment.) The believer that was married to an unbeliever, must marry a believer if they remarry.
So, divorce just because you find yourself unhappy, is not okay. This is not an old covenant issue, this is also a new covenant issue.
From where I stand, we have some pretty clear cut guidelines for divorce and remarriage.
It's also pretty clear that, a believer that does this is bound by God, and therefore should have the knowledge in the forefront. A non believer is not bound by and law of God and therefore, if they become a believer their past is cleared and forgiven. Because at the time they didn't believe, they were not bound by anything. A believer on the other hand is bound because we have the wisdom and word of God in which we believe. Therefore, true repentence is required if one has been divorced and wants to remain a bishop.
Jesus was talking to the pharisee's and explaining the reasons Moses permited divorce was because of the heardness of their hearts.
What makes the looking and lusting so interesting is Jesus was basically showing that you should forgive adultery. Because, if you wife cheated, you also have cheated because you looked and lusted. You're both guilty. However, Jesus also realizes how hard (if not impossible for some) it would be to forgive something like this.
I believe it's also a double meaning in the sense of worshiping other gods and such.
Now, we can play games with this for a while such as. If you commit adultery, then you can legally get a divorce. If you divorce then remarry, you have commited adultery, so, since you commited adultery, your first divorce is valid in the eyes of God and that makes your second marriage okay.
Then we can say, well, since adultery is a sin, and I repented, then my second marriage is okay. Ultimately, you still didn't repent, because, that means either staying unmarried, or returning to your spouse. (in cases that don't involve adultery from the beginning.)
And the wheels go round and round.
Then we can take a look at 1 Corinthians 7:10
And to the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: 11But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.
And, then later, about the unbelieving spouse. We're not in any form of binding marriage if we dont' wish to be with them. So, in the Lord, we can leave if we want, or if they want, they can leave. Then remarriage is okay, but, also, Later, or earlier (I can't find it at the moment.) The believer that was married to an unbeliever, must marry a believer if they remarry.
So, divorce just because you find yourself unhappy, is not okay. This is not an old covenant issue, this is also a new covenant issue.
From where I stand, we have some pretty clear cut guidelines for divorce and remarriage.
It's also pretty clear that, a believer that does this is bound by God, and therefore should have the knowledge in the forefront. A non believer is not bound by and law of God and therefore, if they become a believer their past is cleared and forgiven. Because at the time they didn't believe, they were not bound by anything. A believer on the other hand is bound because we have the wisdom and word of God in which we believe. Therefore, true repentence is required if one has been divorced and wants to remain a bishop.
Jesus said divorce for adultery was ok for the man...not the woman. You will not find that remarriage pertaining to women is condoned at all.
Now we are getting somewhere
Finally I got you to say what you did. So just for the benefit for others...are you saying and teaching that a Christian cannot be saved by faith + grace alone if they do not repent of their sins, seeing you said that I would be lost if I don't continue to repent? Yes or No?God bless.
Wait one moment.. hold your horses, I need to get clarity from you about this!!! Episkopos, are you saying that EVERYONE who has a mental illness, and comes to Christ by faith, will be perfectly healed in the mind and miraculously and instantly be given a perfectly and completely healthy mind? Yes or No?
God bless.
Just so there is no misunderstanding... are you saying and claiming that God is OK with divorce even if adultery was never committed in the marriage and that Christians are free to divorce anytime they want, even if nobody committed adultery within the marriage? YES or NO?
God bless.
WhiteKnuckle
New Member
- Mar 29, 2009
- 866
- 42
- 0
- 47
I think maybe you're splitting hairs here. Many places the Bible mentions man, or men only, when the implied is, People.
Just like reading a manual and depending on who wrote it you may read, "He" or "She". It's funny that I thought about that while I was reading it today.
I thought about that when I was reading it. It's completely understandable that someone would see that as meaning what you state. However, there's many places in the Bible that meantion things such as, "If a man......." which applies to both. Seems to me, that since these letters were probably addressed to the leaders of the church, it was easier to explain things from a mans perspective. Paul did that alot. Also, the Pharisees also were men, and Jesus was addressing a subject from the viewpoint of a man, so that it would be easier understood.
I'll have to find some more verses later. I have some things to do tonight.
Just like reading a manual and depending on who wrote it you may read, "He" or "She". It's funny that I thought about that while I was reading it today.
I thought about that when I was reading it. It's completely understandable that someone would see that as meaning what you state. However, there's many places in the Bible that meantion things such as, "If a man......." which applies to both. Seems to me, that since these letters were probably addressed to the leaders of the church, it was easier to explain things from a mans perspective. Paul did that alot. Also, the Pharisees also were men, and Jesus was addressing a subject from the viewpoint of a man, so that it would be easier understood.
I'll have to find some more verses later. I have some things to do tonight.
The 10 Commandments in full. as they are still there for all, but Jesus shows us the two that are the ingredients that we need to fulfill them in their true context as the Law is not dead at all.
Jesus never said he came to abolish the Law.
God gave us the 10 Commandments not Satan.
I love and respect Holy Moses as a man of God as he did the will of God, as he was not for noting and if one knows the OT should know who it was that opposed Holy Moses when he came down with the 10 Commandments.
IT WAS GOD THAT GAVE US THE 10 COMMANDMENTS ! not men.
Amen.
I could never bring myself to willfully break the 10 Commandments, and go out and kill people, worship others gods, dishonor my parents, commit willful adultery, steal, etc. It's just not in my heart to do it. God has written His Law on my heart and I now delight in keeping God's Commandments. But it's the FRUIT of my salvation, not the ROOT of my salvation, and it's Jesus being obedient through me, for without Him I can do nothing, John 15.
God bless.
WhiteKnuckle
New Member
- Mar 29, 2009
- 866
- 42
- 0
- 47
Now we are getting somewhere
God bless.
Wait one moment.. hold your horses, I need to get clarity from you about this!!! Episkopos, are you saying that EVERYONE who has a mental illness, and comes to Christ by faith, will be perfectly healed in the mind and miraculously and instantly be given a perfectly and completely healthy mind? Yes or No?
God bless.
Just so there is no misunderstanding... are you saying and claiming that God is OK with divorce even if adultery was never committed in the marriage and that Christians are free to divorce anytime they want, even if nobody committed adultery within the marriage? YES or NO?
God bless.
No absolutely not. My point was showing how someone could "reason" their way into thinking something was okay. Like mind games. Also, showing how someone could misrepresent things to themselves or others. If you read to the bottom, I stated what the final synopsis was on the idea of divorce being okay. In other words, no matter how you rationalize, the Bible still says it's not okay.
BTW, my original post messed up, so there's kind of a double post thing. The first part seemed to disapear then reappeared when I posted.
Hold your horses WK, you did a backflip now. Just so there is no misunderstanding, are you now teaching and claiming that a person can sincerely come to Christ and be saved by faith + grace alone and be saved and inherit eternal life, even if they REFUSE to REPENT? Yes or No?
Can you please explain and contextualize this verse for me?
Luke 13:3 I tell you, no; but unless you repent you will all likewise perish.
God bless.
Similar threads
