My friend was reading through the WCF and came to the chapter on Marriage and Divorce (Ch. 24). In section 5 he stated that he had a hard time believing what it says.

"V. Adultery or fornication committed after a contract, being detected before marriage, gives just occasion to the innocent party to dissolve that contract. In the case of adultery after marriage, it is lawful for the innocent party to sue out a divorce and, after the divorce, to marry another, as if the offending party were dead."

The Bold and especially underlined part were really troublesome and as I think about it, it is hard for me to see this in Scripture. Could someone first explain what is going on here (especially in the underlined part)?

He stated that the Scripture proofs were horrible on this and wondered why they would use something like Romans 7 to back it up. I explained about the history of the Scripture proofs (that they weren't originially wanted by the Divines but he then wondered why they hadn't been revised). His thought was why have them if they aren't good. I said, does there need to be Scripture Proofs in a Confession, he said yes there did probably for people to understand and hold to these doctrines. Can someone respond about the Scripture Proofs please

__________________
Andrew
Husband to Dena
Candidate of the MVP in the PCA
MDiv graduate from Reformed Theological Seminary, Jackson, MS
Pastor (elect) of Tchula Presbyterian Church, Tchula, MS

"What do you think about when you are not thinking about anything else? This is what you worship!"

As if they were dead, refers to the status of the marriage bond, not necessarily your personal feelings about the person. Death is the ordinary end of marriage. In the case of adultery, if the innocent party sues out a divorce, she/he has every right to pursue it, as if that person were dead, in other words, they have legitimate grounds to sever the marriage bond completely and finally just as if the person had died. Hope that helps.

__________________
Patrick
OPC
MDiv, RTS Jackson.

"He does well, that discourses of Christ; but he does infinitely better, that by experimental knowledge, feeds and lives on Christ." Thomas Brooks.

Respond how? I lost the question.

__________________
Chris Coldwell
Lakewood Presbyterian Church (PCA), Member
• Naphtali Press: Presbyterian & Reformed Books
• The Confessional Presbyterian, A Journal for Discussion of Presbyterian Doctrine & Practice
• The Blue Banner Archive

When heresy rises in an evangelical body, it is never frank and open. It always begins by skulking, and assuming a disguise. Its advocates, when together, boast of great improvements, and congratulate one another on having gone greatly beyond the ‘old dead orthodoxy,’ and on having left behind many of its antiquated errors: but when taxed with deviations from the received faith, they complain of the unreasonableness of their accusers, as they ‘differ from it only in words.’ This has been the standing course of errorists ever since the apostolic age. Samuel Miller, Introductory essay, The Articles of the Synod of Dort (1841).

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

Well, my friend is viewing the WCF as below adaquate because of the Scripture proofs [1) Scripture Proofs are not good; 2) They don't always fit; 3) They don't make the doctrine true]. How would you respond to a friend who views it this way and wants to see better Scripture proofs there or just a better understanding of what is going on?

So you are saying that it is saying (let me use my marriage as an example so I can understand it, and I'll use myself as the bad person here) that if I committed adultery then my wife can sue out a divorce (meaning get a divorce) and then she can marry again. That is because the divorce has been undergone (that is it breaks the marriage as if it hadn't happened) and so she can marry again. Is this correct?

This is really a no-brainer. I'm shocked your friend was tripped up over this.

1. I hope it's first clearly established that the Scriptures permit divorce in the case of adultery. If a man commits adultery, she is free to divorce him. She is then free to re-marry based on the dissoloving of the marriage over the fact that the husband has violated the covenant and she is not at fault. She is no longer bound to remain in relationship with the man. If she re-marries she is not an adulteress.

In like fashion, if a husband dies then a woman is free to re-marry. Why? She has been released from the vow because marriage covenants are only binding "until death do us part." The Saducees question to Jesus is silly but, in the hypothetical, she is not married to any man after he dies. Paul's purpose in Romans 7 is larger than the marriage covenant but it is true as far as it goes. He's pointing out the obvious (that you're no longer bound to a covenant when one of the members dies).

I don't know if there is a grammar comprehension problem in the reading of the paragraph by your friend to assume that Romans 7 is meant to "prove" the entire paragraph.

The paragraph is not saying that a woman is released from the marriage covenant in the case of adultery on the basis that her husband is dead. The point of Romans 7 is to show that women are not adulteresses if they re-marry after their husbands die. Now for the connection...

Other passages demonstrate that a woman who remarries after divorcing a man on grounds of adultery is not an adulteress.

Thus, she is free to re-marry and not be an adulteress in the same way that she's not an adulteress if her husband was dead.

The point is that she's not an adulteress in both cases.

__________________
Rich
Okinawa, Japan

WebsiteMaven - Web Hosting Reviews, Guides, and Advice to build and promote your web site.
SoliDeoGloria.com - A Community for Reformed Thought and Discussion

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

Put yourself in an OT mindset. The offending party would be dead. No as if there. Like Rich said, till death do us part was taken seriously at one time.

__________________
Chris Rhoades -33
Good Shepherd Presbyterian Church (PCA) Nashville, TN-Under Care

Vera theologia non theoretica, sed practica est; Finis siquidem eius agere est hoc est vitam vivere deiformem. - Martin Bucer
""True theology is not theoretical, but practical. The end of it is living, that is to live a godly life."

Yes, she is free to marry again, just the same as if you had died. It's not adultery for her to remarry because the bond is completely severed upon completion of the divorce. Rich may have said it better.

I think it's the remarriage question that trips most people up. A lot of people believe that remarriage is not allowed until the offending party is dead. We had this discussion in Sunday school this past Lord's Day; while studying Mark 10 someone brought up the fact that John Piper does not allow remarriage. I countered that the WCF does.

__________________
Scott Roper
Member, Redeemer Presbyterian Church (PCA): "A bunch of hippie Calvinists"
Winston-Salem, NC

The wisdom of the Divines was so thorough that it is often difficult to give a single passage as support for their confessional positions. I once was like your friend and thought the Divines must have been off their rockers because their proof texts seemed to have nothing to do with anything. But I have learned over time that if there is a proof text that eludes me it is because the Lord has not yet given me the same wisdom He did the Divines. I am continually humbled by them.

__________________

I hope this is not deemed too silly or far-fetched, but what about the sins that are in each of our minds at times throughout our lives. Does this ever come into effect or are we ALWAYS talking about the cold hard act?

Obviously, I think I know the answer, but we are ALL guilty in our minds of a lot of different sins that we have never actually committed.

Jesus' distinction, however, cuts right to the quick on just how guilty we ALL are.

Matthew 5:28 28 "But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

__________________
~ Steven Bradford ~
Member Covenant Presbyterian, Chattanooga, TN

Yes, I've had to learn the hard way that the early church fathers and 17th-century theologians are never, ever wrong - about anything.

__________________
Richard T. Zuelch, M.Div
Ruling Elder, OPC (not currently serving)
Westminster Presbyterian Church, CA (OPC)
www.reiterations.wordpress.com
www.foft.wordpress.com

Talking to oneself is, I believe, considered a sign of lunacy. Thinking to oneself is most certainly a sign of it. - G. K. Chesterton (1874-1936), in January, 1906

I don't know if they are ever wrong or not, but their wisdom definitely surpasses my own. I think that most of the Divines were pastors at heart and their work reflects that. The WCF is not just mental gymnastics.