Which View On Marriage, Divorce and Remarriage do you take ?

[PuritanCovenanter]

Originally posted by LadyFlynt
correct...I don't see it as a conditional covenant. I see it simply as a covenant. If our covenant with God is to be compared to marriage, and if you believe marriage to be a conditional covenant, then I think you would have to side with the arminians that our covenant with God is conditional, yes? God never "remarried". Instead time and time again He perservered even when his bride (those covenanted to Him throughout time) was unfaithful. Hosea is a good representation of this. Also, I was listening to the Bible on CD this afternoon and it started with Jeremiah 3, which dealt directly with this comparison.

Also, I believe it would be inconsistent to say that the "innocent" party is free to remarry and the "offending" party is not. From having dealt with couples in crisis, I've learned that rarely is there a truely wholly innocent party...there is generally ALOT more to the story. However, even in cases of there being a truely innocent party, I would still see this as inconsistent.

(btw, I'm not stating that I have it all down pat...this is just where I stand.)

[Edited on 9-22-2005 by LadyFlynt]

Colleen, Not all Covenants that God made were unconditional. The Mosaic was Conditional. The Adamic was Conditional. The only things paralleling them that isn't aren't conditional are the Covenant of Redemption, the Noahic Covenant, and Parts of the Abrahamic Covenant. If God wants to set one free and leave another under bondage, that is up to him. He is the one who set the boundaries. Where is the inconsistancy in that the innocent is free and the violator is in bondage. This happens everyday when the Police send people to jail. They leave seemingly innocent people still on the outside. Well at least the non violent ones hopefully.

 

[ChristianTrader]

Originally posted by puritancovenanter

Originally posted by ChristianTrader
A question and a comment.

First, does anyone agree that the lines tend to go along presbyterian vs. baptist views on this issue, with Presbyterian's agreeing with divorce and remarriage while baptist some form of limitation on either divorce or remarriage? (Not saying everyone fits but it seems that when this dispute comes up those tend to be the lines)

I would disagree with this. Most of the Baptists I know agree with what the Westminster says. I hadn't heard the extreme view that remarriage is only possible if death is involved until I had read Joe and Colleen. Maybe I live a sheltered life.

I stated my question unclearly. I did not intend to say that most baptist were against allowing divorce and remarriage (under certain conditions), I was attempting to say, that it seems when the discussion comes up, it seems that baptists seem to be more likely to take an "extreme" position.

 

[ChristianTrader]

Originally posted by fredtgreco

Originally posted by puritancovenanter

Originally posted by ChristianTrader
A question and a comment.

First, does anyone agree that the lines tend to go along presbyterian vs. baptist views on this issue, with Presbyterian's agreeing with divorce and remarriage while baptist some form of limitation on either divorce or remarriage? (Not saying everyone fits but it seems that when this dispute comes up those tend to be the lines)

I would disagree with this. Most of the Baptists I know agree with what the Westminster says. I hadn't heard the extreme view that remarriage is only possible if death is involved until I had read Joe and Colleen. Maybe I live a sheltered life.

I also do not think it is an ecclesiastical affinity issue. Actually the place where I have seen the restrictive view propogated most is in Family Radio circles. Harold Camping was a Presbyterian (at last not baptist) I believe, and he is a huge proponent of the view.

Again let me attempt to clarify. I was speaking of those who tend towards orthodoxy. From last time I checked, that does not apply to Camping.

 

[Romans922]

Originally posted by puritancovenanter

Originally posted by LadyFlynt
My point was...they would have had to step down at the point of remarriage. (btw, I know one of the men you are referring to, not personally)

Why would they have to step down? Please don't tell me because of the one wife verse. It won't fly.

What about the other qualification of taking care of his household? It seems to be only in regards to children, but it seems like the household would include his family. If his wife divorces him, is it most likely because he has not run his family the way he ought?

He should love his family, especially his wife, moreso, like Christ loves the Church. Just because the Church has been unfaithful, Christ didn't forsake her, He pursued her more. Am I off in asking this? I think a elder/pastor who gets divorced (moreso after he is already a pastor/elder) is subject to this verse and subject to step down. It seems to me, he who can't run/shepherd his own household probably and can't run/shepherd his flock (church).

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by ChristianTrader
Again let me attempt to clarify. I was speaking of those who tend towards orthodoxy. From last time I checked, that does not apply to Camping.

I understand. My point - and I was equally unclear - is that I have tended to see it more in some "fundamentalist" (for lack of a better word) Presbyterians. I was referring to Camping before he made his insanity clear. I also knew several (many would be an overstatement, since I believe this position is a super-minority in the Church, maybe 1-2% ) Presbyterians who liked Family Radio until the recent insanity and who bought Camping's argument.

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by joshua

Originally posted by Romans922
If his wife divorces him, is it most likely because he has not run his family the way he ought?

He should love his family, especially his wife, moreso, like Christ loves the Church. Just because the Church has been unfaithful, Christ didn't forsake her, He pursued her more. Am I off in asking this? I think a elder/pastor who gets divorced (moreso after he is already a pastor/elder) is subject to this verse and subject to step down. It seems to me, he who can't run/shepherd his own household probably and can't run/shepherd his flock (church).

In some cases, it may be so...but it's not that easy to blanket them all as such. There are men who love their wives as Christ has loved the Church. That doesn't mean it will be reciprocated, or even wanted.

Scripture posits two duties: one for the wife, one for the husband. A failure in the marriage could be the result of either one, or both.

In case anyone is interested:

Exhortation to Wives (1 Peter 3:1-6)
Exhortation to Husbands (1 Peter 3:7)

[Edited on 9/22/2005 by fredtgreco]

 

[LadyFlynt]

okay, my homework assignment...restudy the covenants (thoroughly this time) and look at the similarities and differences.

 

[BlackCalvinist]

OOOHHHH good discussion.

I found it interesting that Gleason Archer (of all people) took the 'no remarriage' view and said that 1 Cor. 7 was NOT speaking of divorce (in the case of abandonment). I've always wondered 'how in the world can you exegetically defend that ?'

I have another 'marriage and divorce' question.... mainly for the clergy folks. I'll start a new thread on it....

 

[LadyFlynt]

Kerry, you did a great job breaking down scripture on this issue for me. However you didn't really answer my question on what seemed contradictory (grammatically...kinda ignored the part where he is told not to divorce her).

One of the reasons I am really hitting on this issue (other than I notice that there is a difference of views here) is that we are moving to PA. Home of the Anabaptists and will be living less than a mile from anabaptist relatives of ours. They hold strongly to this same view (only they hold to it in a more detrimental manner...believing the remarried couple should separate but not divorce and they will not even permit my FIL and his wife to stay in their home). Needless to say, this subject will come up and probably often as my children have a wonderful relationship with "nana & papa".

Here is a link to an article in the most recent publication put out by their church. Could you or anyone else comment on each point, that I may look it over?

http://www.charityministries.org/theremnant/theremnant-September2005-marriage-covenant.cfm

BTW, you can copy and paste it here if you need to...they permit such of both their publications and tapes as long as you note that they produced it (which I know none of you would take claim for any of this anyhow LOL)

 

[LadyFlynt]

bumping

 

[BlackCalvinist]

Originally posted by LadyFlynt
Kerry, you did a great job breaking down scripture on this issue for me. However you didn't really answer my question on what seemed contradictory (grammatically...kinda ignored the part where he is told not to divorce her).

Not really. Paul said the wife is not to leave (divorce) his wife and then came back and stated the converse - the husband is not to divorce his wife.
No loopholes.

Where's the problem ?

 

[LadyFlynt]

okay, gotcha. I took it as she shouldn't leave and if she does, he is not to pursue a divorce. Thus the reason for the terms being different rather than the same. (This is how our relatives will take this...we are very literal ppl )

 

[LadyFlynt]

Originally posted by LadyFlynt

One of the reasons I am really hitting on this issue (other than I notice that there is a difference of views here) is that we are moving to PA. Home of the Anabaptists and will be living less than a mile from anabaptist relatives of ours. They hold strongly to this same view (only they hold to it in a more detrimental manner...believing the remarried couple should separate but not divorce and they will not even permit my FIL and his wife to stay in their home). Needless to say, this subject will come up and probably often as my children have a wonderful relationship with "nana & papa".

Here is a link to an article in the most recent publication put out by their church. Could you or anyone else comment on each point, that I may look it over?

http://www.charityministries.org/theremnant/theremnant-September2005-marriage-covenant.cfm

BTW, you can copy and paste it here if you need to...they permit such of both their publications and tapes as long as you note that they produced it (which I know none of you would take claim for any of this anyhow LOL)

no one?