Jump to content
  • Welcome Guest

    For an ad free experience on Online Baptist, Please login or register for free

Remarriage


Recommended Posts

  • Members

The sticking point seems to be whether divorced and then remarried couples are living in sin or not.

If they have not confessed their sin and been forgiven, per 1 John 1:9, then they are living in sin. If they have followed 1 John 1:9 then they are not living in sin. If even after following 1 John 1:9 they were still living in sin then that would mean such a sin would be unforgivable and Chris's blood wouldn't wash away the sin.

God has made provision for all our sins for He knows our sin nature and our weak flesh. God recognizes these marriages which were begun in sin just as he recognizes other marriages that were begun in sin. God provides the same means for forgiveness for this sin as He does others.


John seeing as how you want to continue this discussion. Tell me this. Two christians fornicating with each other every night. And they confess thier sin every day. Can they continue in that sin, or is it that they need to stop living that sin period? God give provisions?
Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.

9For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.


Romans 13:14
10Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.

11And that, knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake out of sleep: for now is our salvation nearer than when we believed.

12The night is far spent, the day is at hand: let us therefore cast off the works of darkness, and let us put on the armour of light.

13Let us walk honestly, as in the day; not in rioting and drunkenness, not in chambering and wantonness, not in strife and envying.

14But put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make not provision for the flesh, to fulfil the lusts thereof.

But put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make not provision for the flesh, to fulfil the lusts thereof.

God doesn't make provisions.

The precept for divorce was from Moses or else Jesus Christ wouldn't have laid the responsibility on him. That is not a provision from God. Jesus corrected them on it.

I should just agree to disagree with you on this as well.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

The difference is in the marriage covenant. While the marriage was entered into in sin, the marriage itself is viable before God.

We can look to the Old Testament and notice how many times God refers to the wives of various men. God doesn't say, "his wife and his adulterous harem", God acknowledges them as wives. It should also be noted that God only acknowledges those women a man actually took as wives to be wives. Concubines and such are not called wives.

As Suzy pointed out, Jesus acknowledged that the woman at the well had 5 husbands.

The sin is in marrying the divorced person, just as the sin of a believer and unbeliever marrying is in the marrying itself. In both cases the marriage covenant before God is valid and in both cases they can come to the point where they realize their sin, confess to God and receive forgiveness; at which point they move forward with that sin now under the blood of Christ.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

The difference is in the marriage covenant. While the marriage was entered into in sin, the marriage itself is viable before God.

We can look to the Old Testament and notice how many times God refers to the wives of various men. God doesn't say, "his wife and his adulterous harem", God acknowledges them as wives. It should also be noted that God only acknowledges those women a man actually took as wives to be wives. Concubines and such are not called wives.

As Suzy pointed out, Jesus acknowledged that the woman at the well had 5 husbands.

The sin is in marrying the divorced person, just as the sin of a believer and unbeliever marrying is in the marrying itself. In both cases the marriage covenant before God is valid and in both cases they can come to the point where they realize their sin, confess to God and receive forgiveness; at which point they move forward with that sin now under the blood of Christ.

:thumb:

Jesus mentioned Moses' writ of divorce in reference to the fact that it was under the law, and Christ was here to fulfill the law. Christ referenced Moses several times - and it was always in regards to the law: not the fact that it "came from" Moses, and so was not valid, but the fact that it was the law. That law was given to Moses by God. Jesus' usage of "ye have heard...but I say unto you" was showing us the better way under Christ.

Christ was in no way saying that someone who marries again, who ought not, can never be forgiven - that completely flies in the face of the character of God. The example of two people committing fornication night after night and asking forgiveness day after day is not actually a good one, simply because, as John pointed out, there is the marriage covenant. When a couple is joined in marriage, it is to be for life. If divorce rather than death intervenes, and a remarriage takes place, forgiveness needs to be sought - and, as God promises, it is given. To compound the sin of remarriage by divorcing again shows a lack of true understanding of God's Word.

My husband and I believe that, if the marriage ended due to adultery, it was as if it had never taken place in God's eyes, therefore remarriage is possible on those grounds only. As Kita said in regards to her husband, we have also studied it out and have come to that belief. However, we won't argue the point because it actually doesn't help to do so! Nor would we encourage remarriage, because allowance doesn't mean it's for the best.

There are restrictions (not as many as most folk would like to put) on service by those who are divorced, but there is still a plethora of opportunity to serve the Lord. To make someone who is divorced and/or remarried feel like they are second class citizens is to put ourselves above God. See, He forgives and wipes out the sin...we keep record.

Any time a marriage can be saved, that is wonderful. But it takes two to work at it, and sometimes (unfortunately many times nowadays), at least one of the two decides they want to take the "easy" way out.
Link to comment
Share on other sites



:thumb:

Jesus mentioned Moses' writ of divorce in reference to the fact that it was under the law, and Christ was here to fulfill the law. Christ referenced Moses several times - and it was always in regards to the law: not the fact that it "came from" Moses, and so was not valid, but the fact that it was the law. That law was given to Moses by God. Jesus' usage of "ye have heard...but I say unto you" was showing us the better way under Christ.

Christ was in no way saying that someone who marries again, who ought not, can never be forgiven - that completely flies in the face of the character of God. The example of two people committing fornication night after night and asking forgiveness day after day is not actually a good one, simply because, as John pointed out, there is the marriage covenant. When a couple is joined in marriage, it is to be for life. If divorce rather than death intervenes, and a remarriage takes place, forgiveness needs to be sought - and, as God promises, it is given. To compound the sin of remarriage by divorcing again shows a lack of true understanding of God's Word.

My husband and I believe that, if the marriage ended due to adultery, it was as if it had never taken place in God's eyes, therefore remarriage is possible on those grounds only. As Kita said in regards to her husband, we have also studied it out and have come to that belief. However, we won't argue the point because it actually doesn't help to do so! Nor would we encourage remarriage, because allowance doesn't mean it's for the best.

There are restrictions (not as many as most folk would like to put) on service by those who are divorced, but there is still a plethora of opportunity to serve the Lord. To make someone who is divorced and/or remarried feel like they are second class citizens is to put ourselves above God. See, He forgives and wipes out the sin...we keep record.

Any time a marriage can be saved, that is wonderful. But it takes two to work at it, and sometimes (unfortunately many times nowadays), at least one of the two decides they want to take the "easy" way out.


I couldn't agree more and maybe this is what I've been saying all along. I might add that a divorcee should not only ask and receive forgiveness from God but also attempt to receive forgiveness from the prior spouse if it is possible.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members


:thumb:

Jesus mentioned Moses' writ of divorce in reference to the fact that it was under the law, and Christ was here to fulfill the law. Christ referenced Moses several times - and it was always in regards to the law: not the fact that it "came from" Moses, and so was not valid, but the fact that it was the law. That law was given to Moses by God. Jesus' usage of "ye have heard...but I say unto you" was showing us the better way under Christ.

Christ was in no way saying that someone who marries again, who ought not, can never be forgiven - that completely flies in the face of the character of God. The example of two people committing fornication night after night and asking forgiveness day after day is not actually a good one, simply because, as John pointed out, there is the marriage covenant. When a couple is joined in marriage, it is to be for life. If divorce rather than death intervenes, and a remarriage takes place, forgiveness needs to be sought - and, as God promises, it is given. To compound the sin of remarriage by divorcing again shows a lack of true understanding of God's Word.

My husband and I believe that, if the marriage ended due to adultery, it was as if it had never taken place in God's eyes, therefore remarriage is possible on those grounds only. As Kita said in regards to her husband, we have also studied it out and have come to that belief. However, we won't argue the point because it actually doesn't help to do so! Nor would we encourage remarriage, because allowance doesn't mean it's for the best.

There are restrictions (not as many as most folk would like to put) on service by those who are divorced, but there is still a plethora of opportunity to serve the Lord. To make someone who is divorced and/or remarried feel like they are second class citizens is to put ourselves above God. See, He forgives and wipes out the sin...we keep record.

Any time a marriage can be saved, that is wonderful. But it takes two to work at it, and sometimes (unfortunately many times nowadays), at least one of the two decides they want to take the "easy" way out.


Take it as you will. My friend doesn't seem to think he is a second class citizen. Funny how when a certain sin is pointed out and because that very same sin is prevelant amoung a certain group it has to be swept under the rug or reasoned out, or even justified. I guess if you get a enough people doing the same sin, it turns out to not be a sin anymore, because then we are being too judgmental. If i remember correct our same God destroyed two cities and the land about because sin being prevelant and almost destroyed Ninevah. The difference between Ninevah and Sodom and Gomorrah is that those of Ninevah heeded what was being said and realized what sin really is and suffered no loss, but Sodom and Gomorrah didn't have that luxury. A lack of true understanding of God's Word? Is that a valid assumption? I have shown multiple verses that explicitly says that the spouse is bound to the other spouse as long as that other spouse is alive and that they are called an adultress/adulterer as long as the other is alive. If those verses don't apply to this topic, then what do they apply to? I can count how many verses were used to defend in opposition on one hand and they are practically all from the Old Testament law. Are we under that law of Moses? Is polygamy ok or even concubines? Is that a good example to bring to this table? Read Romans 6. Are we under law or grace? The law of marriage as Jesus pointed out was before that Mosaic law. Love fulfills that law according to Romans 13. The sin on top of that list is adultery which if we have love we shall not do such things. We can beat a dead horse but in the end it is still dead.
Emotions and personal experience I suppose in the end ,to some, out weighs scripture. All sin was forgiven at the cross. I realize this but it still doesn't mean we can do what we will with our life and think it is right with God. Chastisement will insue at some point. Edited by Kleptes
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

Kleptes, no-one in any indicated a justification of divorce and remarriage, or said it wasn't sin (Christ did give the exception clause, and anyone who wants to discuss this topic has to accept what He said). What you are saying is that the sin of adultery cannot be forgiven, unless another divorce ensues (remaining in adultery while the former spouse is alive unless one divorces again would mean that there is no forgiveness). It isn't emotion or personal experience that says that is against God's character. He is a forgiving God, and He will forgive.

Are we under the law? Absolutely not. But God's principles don't change. HE gave Moses that law. And I guess you missed where I said Christ was quoting Moses to show that Christ had a better way, or that He fulfilled the law? That would, I would guess, indicate that I don't believe we are under law.

Just to be clear: I never said a word about your friend feeling like a second class citizen. In actuality, most of my post was not directed at anything you said - least of all about your friend. My comment about second class citizen was because of the way I have personally seen (yep, there's that experience...kinda like your referencing your friend....) some divorced people treated. For Christians to treat divorced people like they have the plague is setting ourselves above God. Obviously you do not do that, so, I wasn't talking about your friend. See?

Yes, Kleptes, divorce is wrong (unless it is for adultery). Remarriage is wrong (unless the one remarrying was the victim of adultery). But if one is remarried and seeks God's forgiveness, they will receive it. To try and tag on that they must commit another sin by divorcing again is wrong. If one divorce is sin, two divorces is still sin. Doing wrong to do right is never right. When a remarriage takes place, vows are said. And God recognizes those vows. You say that the only verses quoted were all from the OT law, and yet the Samaritan woman was given as an example. Christ acknowledged that she had had 5 husbands, and the one she was with now was not her husband. Christ recognized that she had husbands, not just men she lived with in adultery (which it was - I'm not making light of that).

Again, no-one is condoning divorce. and no-one said chastisement doesn't ensue. It most certainly does. Just as with any sin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I'm adding these quotes into this discussion because I just can't help thinking about a verse in the Bible that talks about straining at gnats and swallowing camels.

Don't get me wrong I believe it is wrong,about the hair length, but compared to adultery or being married in adultery, It just doesn't fit the priorities. It is implied several times that the Bible is clear on the subject of hair. there is even a quote on this hair topic similar to mine on non christians seeing the divorce and remarriage and it being a bad testimony.


That's true for most Christian women too but it's yet an important topic because God chose to address it in Scripture.

It's interesting that some churches are quick to ensure their men have short hair, and if any man's hair grows long or someone new begins attending, they are quick to discuss the issue with them. However, they can have a congregation full of women with very short hair, often in positions within the church, and the pastor, elders and members look the other way and are silent.


That's a fact!

This is also why women basically run many churches today (and in some denominations they do run the church) and why many Christian families are unbalanced.

It's a shame Christian pastors and Christian men in general are more afraid of upsetting women than they are of not obeying God.


Absolutely! If Christian pastors, husbands, dads, and other men of God would truly fear God more than woman and preach, teach and expect the whole Word of God to be followed, we wouldn't have all these Christian women with short hair, wearing immodest clothes, taking leadership roles in the church, becoming pastors, disrespecting men with their attitudes and speach, etc.

Men are called by God to lead and it's so sad that fear of women's reactions prevents them from obeying the Word of God.



When I was young I recall many Baptist ladies wore hats to church. It was typical for Baptist ladies and girls to get new Sunday dresses and Sunday hats every Easter.




I paid some extra attention to women going to and coming from churches this morning and what I saw was disturbing.

The number of women with those very short hair cuts which could get them mistaken for a man from behind were too numerous to count. The number of those with other styles of very short hair were just as many.

Women with hair obviously long were sadly few.

In doing some checking I found out many of the women with the shortest hair were public school teachers and Sunday school teachers or held other positions in their churches. Interesting that the women with the most man-like hair styles are also the women that hold authority positions.




The best I've heard this put is that if one has to wonder whether their hair is long enough then it isn't. A woman's hair should be obviously long, not short, not some length that folks might think is somewhere in between, but obviously long.

The same applies to men, in the opposite manner of course, their hair should be obviously short, not maybe short and certainly not long.



No doubt many of the women with very short hair were older women and often these were the women doing women's Bible studies, teaching Sunday school or holding another position in the church. I agree these women are presenting a bad example to the younger women and by doing this they are failing to properly teach the younger women.

I agree that no matter the style, short hair is short hair. I've heard some women try to excuse short hair by saying they have it styled differently than menn wear their hair. Scripture says men are to have short hair and women long hair, not that they can have the reverse if they style it a certain way.



That's a good theory and I've encountered many that proclaim Jesus had long hair because he was a Nazarite. They they typically point out Samsons hair.

This, coupled with the idea that people in ancient times must have all had long hair (not sure where they got that idea), the manmade images of Jesus typically depict Him with hair far too long.


The Bible says women are to have long hair and men are to have short hair. Their style is not the issue here. So long as their hair is long for women or short for men, they can then style it feminine or masculine.



If a woman's hair isn't obviously long then it's too short. If a man's hair isn't obviously short then it's too long.

Simply following that rule would solve many problems. If we are in doubt as to whether our hair is long or short enough then it isn't.

Besides all this, our hair should not be a matter of what we prefer to call long or short, but as to what gives a proper testimony to others. We are to consider others above ourselves and give no occasion for others to stumble and avoid the appearance of evil. Our hair should be obviously long or short for the sake of others, not only so we can believe our hair is right in our own eyes.




I can't even count the number of nonbelievers I've heard comment on professing Christian men and women's clothing, their hair length, their mannerisms, the places they go and any number of other "little" things as they explain why they believe Christianity isn't real and why Christians are so fake.

It's actually amazing at how much Scripture some lost folks know. When they see professing Christians not abiding by what they do know this places a stumbling block before them and the testimony of the offending professing Christians is ruined.


one of them said:

I realize that this thread is almost a year old, but I guess I just had to put in my . I get headaches--a lot of headaches-- and if I let my hair get much longer than my shoulders, I get a raging headache that lasts for days.I also get one that won't quit when I wear anything in my hair or on my head. That includes barrettes and scrunchies as well as winter hats.
I have spent a lot of time on this passage in 1 Corinthians because all I want to do is obey God, and I tend to be a literalist about it. If the KJB says to do it, then that's what I want to do.
I know that Paul used different words that were translated as covering. I found that ancient Greek had synonyms. I also know that the hookers in Corinth kept their heads shaved. Therefore, after much study and prayer I decided that I believe in headaches, hookers and synonyms. What it comes down to, for me, is that if God had meant me to have very long hair and keep a veil on, He would have made it possible for me to do it.

and the reply was this:
Only addressing the last sentence. That's not good reasoning. Just because we can't do something easily, without sacrifice or without pain doesn't mean we "can't" do it and it certainly doesn't mean God doesn't mean for us to do it.
Edited by Kleptes
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

This really doesn't seem to fit here. The sticking point between your position and others is that you hold that if a person marries a divorced person or a divorced person remarries, they are in perpetual sin, that 1st John 1:9 doesn't apply; while others don't believe this is a perpetual sin, that 1st John 1:9 does apply.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

This really doesn't seem to fit here. The sticking point between your position and others is that you hold that if a person marries a divorced person or a divorced person remarries, they are in perpetual sin, that 1st John 1:9 doesn't apply; while others don't believe this is a perpetual sin, that 1st John 1:9 does apply.


I think it fits very well here. Those post make it sound like those women with short hair are in perpetual sin and that a man with long hair is. How is anyone to know this? How do we not know they got the hair cut and later repented of it and are waiting for it to grow back, or that on the following Monday the guy with long hair is getting his hair cut. Maybe they have short hair during the week and put extentions in on Sunday. That shows repentance right? Those posts show judgment but not to those that who posted,about the hair length, don't see it that way. My posts show judgment, and I am singled out on it. Does anyone not realize that a wicked tree bears wicked fruit, and that a good tree bears good fruit. Yet I am told that an adulterous couple (wicked) is married and it turns into a (good) marriage. That doesn't fit the bible. Adultery isn't the act of vows only but of the sexual sin they are in. A piece of paper or an exchange of vows, somehow miraculously make it disappear. When the Bible says that a man is called a brother, you will tell me that it means he is a brother in Christ. Right? For how long? You will say it is eternal right? The condition is he is born again and become a brother for eternity. Then it is turned around when the Bible says if a woman is married to another man while her husband is living she is called an adulteress because she is still bound by the law of the husband. Yet those posting say that she is only called an adulteress at the time of the marriage, but when those vows are made to another man, she isn't an adulteress any longer, even though she is still bound to her first husband by the law. I see a condition here as well. That condition is that she is called an adulteress as long as the husband is alive. It further states that if the husband be dead she is no longer an adulteress. Think about part of that phrase a bit (she is no longer and adulteress). That isn't just a name. It implies what she is if her husband is alive, and that she is no longer that when he is dead. Think about the phrase (married to another man) and this phrase (her husband liveth) What does married to another man mean? What does husband mean? They can't both be right. Either the married man is the husband or the husband is the husband. Some on will say well it says married to another man and her husband be dead. I think common sense applies. The difference is a life or dead situation. What those in opposition are doing is adding to the Bible and saying they have repented. Is that husband still alive? Is that husband dead? If two people are in a adulterous relationship before they get married. Are they in perpetual sin? Even if they confess it to Jesus and keep on doing it?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

IF remarriage is perpetual adultery, then the only way out is another divorce.

So tell me...how does one repent of the sin of adultery-via-remarriage? What would you tell a divorced-and-remarried couple to do?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

IF remarriage is perpetual adultery, then the only way out is another divorce.

So tell me...how does one repent of the sin of adultery-via-remarriage? What would you tell a divorced-and-remarried couple to do?


Im presenting the Bible and that is all. What does the Bible say about the word of God? Is is not a sharper than any two edged sword?
It is all on conviction. We can't strong arm them. How many people have been married 2 or 3 or even 4 times? How did those people handle it? I know a woman married 3 times myself. That means she was divorced twice. I know a woman that has been married twice and is now in a process of divorce. I do not see that second marriage as valid. The Bible doesn't either, or it wouldn't say what it says about a woman married to another man if her husband is alive. A mormon or even a muslim converts and has multiple wives and your on a mission field somewhere and they want to come to america and join your church? What are you going to say to them?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members



Im presenting the Bible and that is all. What does the Bible say about the word of God? Is is not a sharper than any two edged sword?
It is all on conviction. We can't strong arm them. How many people have been married 2 or 3 or even 4 times? How did those people handle it? I know a woman married 3 times myself. That means she was divorced twice. I know a woman that has been married twice and is now in a process of divorce. I do not see that second marriage as valid. The Bible doesn't either, or it wouldn't say what it says about a woman married to another man if her husband is alive. A mormon or even a muslim converts and has multiple wives and your on a mission field somewhere and they want to come to america and join your church? What are you going to say to them?


You didn't answer my question.

My dad is a widower married to a divorced woman. Has been married over 10 years now. You can't hurt my feelings, but for sake of this argument...I would like to honestly know what my dad should do, to get right with God, hypothetically speaking. If he were to ask you today what he has to do to "get right", what would you counsel him to do? (I'm using my dad, not because he taints my opinion but because its a ready example that I can use for the discussion.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members



You didn't answer my question.

My dad is a widower married to a divorced woman. Has been married over 10 years now. You can't hurt my feelings, but for sake of this argument...I would like to honestly know what my dad should do, to get right with God, hypothetically speaking. If he were to ask you today what he has to do to "get right", what would you counsel him to do? (I'm using my dad, not because he taints my opinion but because its a ready example that I can use for the discussion.)


2 Timothy 3:16
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

I can tell you it would be hard for the both of us. Yesterday I talked with a christian woman who's husband left her 3 weeks ago, I presented her what the Bible says she agreed with it. All I can show is scripture that is all. I showed that to my friend that has been married and divorced twice, it was hard. I talked to him about it , he read it and studied it. Now at the church he attends, women are interested in him. He tells them he can't, that he is still bound to his first wife. They don't understand it though. I can't just omit what the Bible says. If a persons mind is made up then it is made up I can do nothing to change that. It isn't a witch hunt like I guess I protray it to be. I present this topic when asked. I guess this whole topic caught me off guard I didn't realize it would be such an over whemling opposition. I hope i don't come across that this is a salvation issue. It isn't at all. If your dad didn't agree, it is fine. It doesn't make him any less of a brother than before. Only the Jugdgment seat of Christ will tell in the end.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members



2 Timothy 3:16
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

I can tell you it would be hard for the both of us. Yesterday I talked with a christian woman who's husband left her 3 weeks ago, I presented her what the Bible says she agreed with it. All I can show is scripture that is all. I showed that to my friend that has been married and divorced twice, it was hard. I talked to him about it , he read it and studied it. Now at the church he attends, women are interested in him. He tells them he can't, that he is still bound to his first wife. They don't understand it though. I can't just omit what the Bible says. If a persons mind is made up then it is made up I can do nothing to change that. It isn't a witch hunt like I guess I protray it to be. I present this topic when asked. I guess this whole topic caught me off guard I didn't realize it would be such an over whemling opposition. I hope i don't come across that this is a salvation issue. It isn't at all. If your dad didn't agree, it is fine. It doesn't make him any less of a brother than before. Only the Jugdgment seat of Christ will tell in the end.


Funny. You'll say they are in constant sin. Yet you will not say they have to get another divorce in order to get right. Very interesting.

You are trying to teach that without actually saying it. You believe a person has to get ANOTHER divorce in order to be right. Yet you won't come out and say it. Yet you'll say a person in this situation cannot be right with God because they are living in unrepentant sin. Therefore, you are saying for a divorced/remarried person to get their prayers answered or have any hope of a relationship with God, they have to get re divorced.

Also, Scripture for you:

I Corinthians 6:9: Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

The context of this verse says that people who are living in unrepentant sin, doing sin without care, are not going to inherit the kingdom of God. Which means they were probably never saved to begin with.

So according to you, all remarried people are in constant, unrepentant sin...which means none of them are saved.

This is all things you have either said, or inferred. Am I correct?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members



Funny. You'll say they are in constant sin. Yet you will not say they have to get another divorce in order to get right. Very interesting.

You are trying to teach that without actually saying it. You believe a person has to get ANOTHER divorce in order to be right. Yet you won't come out and say it. Yet you'll say a person in this situation cannot be right with God because they are living in unrepentant sin. Therefore, you are saying for a divorced/remarried person to get their prayers answered or have any hope of a relationship with God, they have to get re divorced.

Also, Scripture for you:

I Corinthians 6:9: Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

The context of this verse says that people who are living in unrepentant sin, doing sin without care, are not going to inherit the kingdom of God. Which means they were probably never saved to begin with.

So according to you, all remarried people are in constant, unrepentant sin...which means none of them are saved.

This is all things you have either said, or inferred. Am I correct?


A christian man gets drunk for a third time dies in a car accident. Where is he? A christian couple falls into the sin of fornication, they are in it for a month or so, they are in the act of fornicating the boyfriend has a heart attack and dies. Where is he? A christian sees something they like at a store, it is something small, steals it, gets away with it, steals another time he is seen, flees, and gets shot and dies. Where is he? A christian gets caught up on a drug, overdoses, and dies. Where is he? A chrstian covets another mans wife, she is always on his mind, he is contemplating what he needs to do to get her, stumbles off the side walk gets hit by a car dies. Where is he? There are so many scenarios.

Wasn't sin taken away on the cross? When we are born again we are forgiven? You know as well as I, that those verses are talking of those who are not saved. It is like an unsaved adulterer is presented the Gospel and is told once saved always saved and in his heart he says, "Well I will get saved because I want eternal life and because I can still live the way I want." Is that a true conversion? A person who is born again and falls into sin later in life is a totally different scenario. In those verses in 1 Cornthians 6, Paul is telling them that people who are those things listed will not inherit the kingdom of God. He is clearly talking of those who never were born again. Because he tells them that such were some of them. The difference is they are washed, cleansed and justified by Jesus Christ and the spirit of God. He tells them to flee fornication that the body isn't for that. Even mentions if they are joined to a harlot they take Jesus Christ with them to that bed. and says God forbid. The next chapter starts off in the context of avoiding fornication. Why? They can fall into that sin, it doesn't mean they lose their salvation. Jesus says that The KIngdom of God is in us. The Bible is clear on what condemns a man, it is being in the state of unbelief because man is condemned already, before believing Jesus Christ for salvation. Paul evens says fornication is commonly reported amoung them in 1 Corinthians 5. That is saying that fornication was a common thing with that church. Like I said before about the man who had his father's wife, he didn't lose his salvtion nor was his salvation questioned. Paul does say give him over to satan for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit maybe saved on that last day. Security of the believer is a truth. Like I said it isn't a salvation issue.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...