Jump to content
Online Baptist Community
  • Newest Sermon Entry

    • By Jim_Alaska in Jim_Alaska's Sermons & Devotionals
         14
      Closed Communion
      James Foley
       
      I Corinthians 11:17-34: "Now in this that I declare unto you I praise you not, that ye come together not for the better, but for the worse. For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it. For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you. When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's Supper. For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken. What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not. For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till he come. Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep. For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged. But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world. Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another. And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come."

      INTRODUCTION

      Historic Baptists, true Baptists, have believed in and still believe in closed communion. Baptists impose upon themselves the same restrictions that they impose on others concerning the Lord’s Supper. Baptists have always insisted that it is the Lord’s Table, not theirs; and He alone has the right to say who shall sit at His table. No amount of so called brotherly love, or ecumenical spirit, should cause us to invite to His table those who have not complied with the requirements laid down plainly in His inspired Word. With respect to Bible doctrines we must always use the scripture as our guide and practice. For Baptists, two of the most important doctrines are Baptism and The Lord’s Supper. These are the only two doctrines we recognize as Church Ordinances. The Bible is very clear in teaching how these doctrines are to be practiced and by whom.

      We only have two ordinances that we must never compromise or we risk our very existence, they are Baptism and The Lord’s Supper.

      The moment we deviate from the precise method God has prescribed we have started down the slippery slope of error. True Baptists have held fast to the original doctrine of The Lord’s Supper from the time of Christ and the Apostles.

      Unfortunately, in this day of what the Bible describes as the age of luke warmness, Baptists are becoming careless in regard to strictly following the pattern laid out for us in Scripture. Many of our Bible colleges are graduating otherwise sincere, Godly and dedicated pastors and teachers who have not been taught the very strict, biblical requirements that surround the Lord’s Supper. Any Bible college that neglects to teach its students the differences surrounding Closed Communion, Close Communion and Open Communion is not simply short changing its students; it is also not equipping their students to carry on sound Bible traditions. The result is men of God and churches that fall into error. And as we will see, this is serious error.

      Should we as Baptists ignore the restrictions made by our Lord and Master? NO! When we hold to the restrictions placed upon the Lord’s Supper by our Master, we are defending the "faith which was once delivered to the saints" Jude 3.

      The Lord’s Supper is rigidly restricted and I will show this in the following facts:

      IT IS RESTRICTED AS TO PLACE

      A. I Corinthians 11:18 says, "When ye come together in the church." This does not mean the church building; they had none. In other words, when the church assembles. The supper is to be observed by the church, in church capacity. Again this does not mean the church house. Ekklesia, the Greek word for church, means assembly. "When ye come together in the church," is when the church assembles.

      B. When we say church we mean an assembly of properly baptized believers. Acts 2:41-42: "Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls. And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers."

      The church is made up of saved people who are baptized by immersion. In the Bible, belief precedes baptism. That’s the Bible way.

      Acts 8:12-13, "But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done."

      When we say properly baptized, we mean immersed. No unbeliever should take the Lord’s supper, and no non-immersed believer should take the supper. Those who are sprinkled are not baptized and cannot receive the supper. The Greek word for baptize is baptizo, and it always means to immerse.

      "In every case where communion is referred to, or where it may possibly have been administered, the believers had been baptized Acts 2:42; 8:12; 8:38; 10:47; 6:14-15; 18:8; 20:7. Baptism comes before communion, just as repentance and faith precede baptism".

      C. The Lord’s Supper is for baptized believers in church capacity: "When ye come together in the church," again not a building, but the assembly of the properly baptized believers.

      D. The fact that the Lord’s Supper is a church ordinance, to be observed in church capacity, is pointed out by the fact that it is for those who have been immersed and added to the fellowship of the church.

      E. The Lord’s Supper is never spoken of in connection with individuals. When it is referred to, it is only referred to in reference to baptized believers in local church capacity I Cor. 11:20-26).

      I want to quote Dr. W.W. Hamilton,

      "The individual administration of the ordinance has no Bible warrant and is a relic of Romanism. The Lord’s Supper is a church ordinance, and anything which goes beyond or comes short of this fails for want of scriptural example or command".

      “The practice of taking a little communion kit to hospitals, nursing homes, etc. is unscriptural and does not follow the scriptural example.”

      IT IS RESTRICTED TO A UNITED CHURCH

      A. The Bible in I Cor. 11:18 is very strong in condemning divisions around the Lord’s table. For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it.
      19 For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.
      20 When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper.

      There were no less than four divisions in the Corinthian church.
      I Cor. 1:12: "Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ."

      Because of these divisions, it was impossible for them to scripturally eat the Lord’s Supper. Division in the local church is reason to hold off observing the Lord’s Supper. But there are also other reasons to forego taking the Lord’s Supper. If there is gross sin in the membership we do not take it. Here is scriptural evidence for this: 1Co 5:7 Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us:
      8 Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. 9 I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:
      10 Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world. 11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.

      B. At this point, I want to ask these questions: Are there not doctrinal divisions among the many denominations? Is it not our doctrinal differences that cause us to be separate religious bodies?

      IT IS RESTRICTED BY DOCTRINE

      A. Those in the early church at Jerusalem who partook "continued stedfastly in the apostles’ doctrine" Acts 2:42. And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.

      B. Those that do not hold to apostolic truth are not to partake. This means there is to be discipline in the local body. How can you discipline those who do not belong to the local body? You can’t. The clear command of scripture is to withdraw fellowship from those who are not doctrinally sound.

      II Thes 3:6: "Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us."
      Rom. 16:17: "Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them."
      To commune together means to have the same doctrine.
      II Thes. 2:15: "Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle."
      II John 10-11: "If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds."

      C. Some Baptists in our day have watered down this doctrine by practicing what they call “Close Communion.” By this they mean that they believe that members of another Baptist church may take communion with us because they are of the same beliefs. Once again, this is unscriptural.

      The welcome to the Lord's Table should not be extended beyond the discipline of the local church. When we take the Lord’s Supper there is supposed to be no gross sin among us and no divisions among us. We have no idea of the spiritual condition of another church’s members. If there is sin or division in the case of this other church’s members, we have no way of knowing it. We cannot discipline them because they are not members of our church. This is why we practice “Closed” communion, meaning it is restricted solely to our church membership. 
      So then, in closing I would like to reiterate the three different ideas concerning the Lord’s Supper and who is to take it. 
      Closed Communion = Only members of a single local church. 
      Close Communion = Members of like faith and order may partake. 
      Open Communion = If you claim to be a Christian, or simply attending the service, you may partake. 
      It is no small thing to attempt to change that which was implemented by our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. 
      Mt. 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen. 
      Many of our Baptist churches have a real need to consider the gravity of the act of observing The Lord’s Supper. It is not a light thing that is to be taken casually or without regard to the spiritual condition of ourselves or our church.
      1Co. 11:27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.

       28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.

       29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.

       30 For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.

Do You Believe That Divorce And Remarriage Is Acceptable ?


think again

Recommended Posts

  • Members

(this may not be on the correct sub forum but i could not find any better one.)

I was wondering what most IFB believed when it came to the issue of divorce and remarriage.

I understand that there are hundreds of "circumstances" but it seems to me that the Bible makes it all very clear. However many of the baptist that i know like to ignore it. so how do you all on this forum beleive what do you think  mark 10 and the others mean

 

thanks for all the input 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 53
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
Mar 10:10 And in the house his disciples asked him again of the same matter. 11 And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. 12 And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.
 
Mat 5:28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
 
Like all other aspects of life, we measure up short compared to God's standards. 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

Does God, hence the Bible allow it? Yes.  Does He endorse it? No.

 

In the OT, of course, we know the Lord allowed divorce because of hard hearts, but it wasn't meant to be.

 

In the NT, we see many mentions of the subject

 

Matt 5:32 "But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery."

 

Matt 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."

 

1Cor 7:15 "But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace."

 

Divorce is aceptable in cases of fornication, or sexual sin. Notice, it isn't for adultery, becausew adultery can be acted out in the heart, wile fornication is of the body,  We can't divorce because our spouse gave someone the googly eyes, and assume they are committing adultery in their heart-it must be actual physical sexual misconduct with another person.

 

Divorce is also allowed in cases of a believer being abandoned by an unbelieving spouse-it says they are not under bondage, which would tell me that the believer can remarry, whereas, before in the same chapter, when dealing with both spouses being believers who divorce, they can, but should remain unmarried, or reconcile with their spouse.

 

Now, again, having said this, the Bible is not pro-divorce, but it does allow it in certain cases, even in the New Testament. However even in such cases as fornication, it doesn't have to occur-it is better for spouses to reconcile and come into godly union with one another-this is to be far preferred, but if it can't be for some reason, then divorce is acceptabel, and in the case of fornication, I beleve the party who did NOT commit it, is free to re-marry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

 
Like all other aspects of life, we measure up short compared to God's standards. 

I am assuming that you condone remarriage because of Gods grace.

let me take it a step farther

should a christian continue to remain married to his/her second spouse while there first one is alive?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

Two wrongs don't make a right. While I personally believe that a divorced person is not to remarry, the fact remains that God states that He 'hates divorce'. To divorce the second party would be to do what God hates - again.
The OT law states in Deuteronomy 24:1-4 that a woman was not to return to a former husband if divorced a second time - or even if the second husband dies. I understand that we are not under that law to OBey it precisely, but all Scripture is given for our use, and I believe we can glean useful principles thereout.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I am assuming that you condone remarriage because of Gods grace.

let me take it a step farther

should a christian continue to remain married to his/her second spouse while there first one is alive?

 

1 Corinthians 7:27 Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

 

1 Corinthians 7:27 Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife.

 

 I agree that our minds ought to always be of this thinking: I am married, I am married for life. When I do weddings, I always try to stress that with the couple, but we have a world that sees divorce and remarriage as almost a natural right, so much so that pre-nups are almost mandatory anymore. When you go into a marriage almost assuming you'll get divorced, what chance do you have? Its the ever-present open door.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

 

1 Corinthians 7:27 Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife.

 

 

May I add? - 27 Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife.

28 But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Two wrongs don't make a right. While I personally believe that a divorced person is not to remarry, the fact remains that God states that He 'hates divorce'. To divorce the second party would be to do what God hates - again.
The OT law states in Deuteronomy 24:1-4 that a woman was not to return to a former husband if divorced a second time - or even if the second husband dies. I understand that we are not under that law to OBey it precisely, but all Scripture is given for our use, and I believe we can glean useful principles thereout.

so you believe that remarriage is not right (committing adultery).

is not living with your second spouse living in adultery? should we continue in sin that grace may abound? God forbid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

1 Corinthians 7:27 Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife.

 

just throwing this out there not saying for sure this is right: but I have heard it taught that when you make a vow before God and to your spouse to be married for life then God sees that for life and He sees you as still married to you (first) wife even though you have a paper that claims diferently.

Do you believe that in Gods eyes you are still married?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

so you believe that remarriage is not right (committing adultery).
is not living with your second spouse living in adultery? should we continue in sin that grace may abound? God forbid.


According to Deuteronomy, it's exactly what they should continue doing, therefore implying that the remarriage is a one-time sin, but once it's done, it's done. The remarried party is now - oops - married to the second dpouse, and it's certainly not adultery to live with one's spouse!

You know, this topic has been hashed and rehashed. You can search and find out what the other threads all said if you're interested. Why don't you try expanding your interest here to other subjects?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
this verse would seem to imply that remarriage is not sin. It does not say, loose, as in never married. It says loosed, as in you were bound, but are now loosed.

I think the key is in the beginning of the verse... Seek not to be loosed. We should not look for excuses why our spouse is not for us. But, if divorce does happen, there is no sin in remarrying.

Any prOBlem in marriage can be faced without having to draw up divorce papers. However, not all people will omit divorce as an option if they feel their spouse scarred them mentally or physically. Hurt goes a long way... Especially if one is not willing to let the Lord be the One in control
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

just throwing this out there not saying for sure this is right: but I have heard it taught that when you make a vow before God and to your spouse to be married for life then God sees that for life and He sees you as still married to you (first) wife even though you have a paper that claims diferently.

Do you believe that in Gods eyes you are still married?

 

Let's hear from the mouth of Jesus what He thought.

 

"Jesus saith unto her, Go, call thy husband, and come hither. The woman answered and said, I have no husband. Jesus said unto her, Thou hast well said, I have no husband: For thou hast had five husbands; and he whom thou now hast is not thy husband: in that saidst thou truly."  John 4:16-18

 

Now, in Jesus own words, those five husbands of the woman at the well were NO LONGER her husbands. "thou HAST HAS five husbands..." She had no husband, and Jesus didn't even consider the guy she was apparently living with as her husband, either.

 

So what are we to take from this? We can insist it doesn't work into the subject, but nothing is in the BIble for no reason. Simply, in Jesus' eyes, this woman was no longer married to those fiver earlier husbands. He didn't say, 'Thou hast five husbands'. It was past-tense.

 

You seem to really be in pain over this subject and I understand-I suffered with it a lot after my wife left me for another man. But after a few years, and seeing her live with two different men as her husbands, and then taking a ring from one of them to want to marry him, I believed I had done all that was required of me, biblically, AND more, in trying, even after her fornication, to try to work things out, I agreed to a no-fault divorce, so there was no money changing hands, no child support, because we shared them back and forth, mostly as the kids wanted, because they were old enough to have a say, and no extended, hateful legal proceedings.  She has gone on to live a life embracing paganism and certain 'alternative lifestyles', and I believe that she was prOBably never saved in the first place, or she is at least acting like it, and I see that now as having been left by an unbelieving spouse, and so, through the fornication and unbeliving spirit of my first wife, I was free to remarry.

 

Understand, all things are under the blood. Even if I had left my wife for a you nger woman, dumper her unceremoniously, and remarried outside of God's will, I could still repent of my sin and be forgiven, its still under the blood, and, as was said earlier, to divorce the second is just to do wrong a second time. A second marriage can be sanctified the same as the first, if it is given up to Christ.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Let's hear from the mouth of Jesus what He thought.

 

"Jesus saith unto her, Go, call thy husband, and come hither. The woman answered and said, I have no husband. Jesus said unto her, Thou hast well said, I have no husband: For thou hast had five husbands; and he whom thou now hast is not thy husband: in that saidst thou truly."  John 4:16-18

 

Now, in Jesus own words, those five husbands of the woman at the well were NO LONGER her husbands. "thou HAST HAS five husbands..." She had no husband, and Jesus didn't even consider the guy she was apparently living with as her husband, either.

 

So what are we to take from this? We can insist it doesn't work into the subject, but nothing is in the BIble for no reason. Simply, in Jesus' eyes, this woman was no longer married to those fiver earlier husbands. He didn't say, 'Thou hast five husbands'. It was past-tense.

 

You seem to really be in pain over this subject and I understand-I suffered with it a lot after my wife left me for another man. But after a few years, and seeing her live with two different men as her husbands, and then taking a ring from one of them to want to marry him, I believed I had done all that was required of me, biblically, AND more, in trying, even after her fornication, to try to work things out, I agreed to a no-fault divorce, so there was no money changing hands, no child support, because we shared them back and forth, mostly as the kids wanted, because they were old enough to have a say, and no extended, hateful legal proceedings.  She has gone on to live a life embracing paganism and certain 'alternative lifestyles', and I believe that she was prOBably never saved in the first place, or she is at least acting like it, and I see that now as having been left by an unbelieving spouse, and so, through the fornication and unbeliving spirit of my first wife, I was free to remarry.

 

Understand, all things are under the blood. Even if I had left my wife for a you nger woman, dumper her unceremoniously, and remarried outside of God's will, I could still repent of my sin and be forgiven, its still under the blood, and, as was said earlier, to divorce the second is just to do wrong a second time. A second marriage can be sanctified the same as the first, if it is given up to Christ.

 

The common confusion over this subject is when believers attempt to apply the law and ordinances of the OT to their Christian lives or when they mix the law and ordinances with the instructions to born again believers in the Epistles. These laws are profitable for our admonition (acknowledgement and understanding) but not for our practice.

 

We have no more business applying the OT rules on marriage to our lives now than we have applying the OT rules on acceptable foods.

 

Everytime the Lord quoted the OT law and prophets in the Gospels it was to demonstrate to the religious leaders their utter and complete failure to abide by them and nothing more.

 

If our heart is right we will have no care for this earthly life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Speaking on marriage and divorce, if an unsaved man and woman are living together, and they have children out of wedlock, and the man eventually becomes saved, but the woman does not, the question is what should the man do. If the man marries the woman, that would be being unequally yoked, and could lead to temptations to divorce in the future. If the man leaves the woman rather than getting married to her, what would he have to do with his children? Some people strangely believe in this situation the man should marry the woman, even though there is an unequal yoke.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Speaking on marriage and divorce, if an unsaved man and woman are living together, and they have children out of wedlock, and the man eventually becomes saved, but the woman does not, the question is what should the man do. If the man marries the woman, that would be being unequally yoked, and could lead to temptations to divorce in the future. If the man leaves the woman rather than getting married to her, what would he have to do with his children? Some people strangely believe in this situation the man should marry the woman, even though there is an unequal yoke.

 

IMO, this is an example of confusing not OT law but human law with NT instructions for believers.

 

Since there are no documents indicating marriage in the Bible (OT or NT) and no vows indicated (OT or NT) or even a hint at a marriage ceremony "ordained" or explained by God, then in God's eyes they have been married all along.

The only indicator of the union of marriage I see in the Bible is when the man takes her into his bed, that is the marriage ceremony in God's eyes. When a man takes a woman to bed without the intent to commit to her as husband, God calls it fornication and hates it.

 

Might as well keep going as is or sign the manmade paper saying they are married (the right thing to do by human government, which God did ordain)

If the man got saved his concern over the souls of his family will drive him to witness. If the wife rejects it won't be long before she separates herself from him anyway, or may stay, rejecting, but happy with the dude. All of which is right according to the NT.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

I have a lot of sympathy with Wretched's view. If we go down mkrishna's route, we end up with all sorts of bizarre scenarios. For example, we might say that if one of an unsaved couple who got married at a drive-thru wedding venue and have kids got saved, they ought to stay with the family for the sake of not committing the sin of divorce. But if the same unsaved couple didn't have any papers, the saved person would be perfectly free to dump his family, and maybe ought to do so for the sake of not being unequally yoked. Even though the devastation caused to the kids and their mother would be the same either way.

 

Can you imagine: three kids in the house and the mother bedridden with some long-term illness and the father comes home and says, "I have been reborn in Christ and am now a new man! And the first thing I'm gonna do is leave all of you--have a nice life!".

 

Mind you, doesn't Christian in Pilgrim's Progress do that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

this verse would seem to imply that remarriage is not sin. It does not say, loose, as in never married. It says loosed, as in you were bound, but are now loosed.

I think the key is in the beginning of the verse... Seek not to be loosed. We should not look for excuses why our spouse is not for us. But, if divorce does happen, there is no sin in remarrying.

Any prOBlem in marriage can be faced without having to draw up divorce papers. However, not all people will omit divorce as an option if they feel their spouse scarred them mentally or physically. Hurt goes a long way... Especially if one is not willing to let the Lord be the One in control

in verse 25 it says" concerning virgins" so personally I dont believe it is talking about second marriage .

How do you say there is no sin in remarrying when you read mathew 5 and mark 10

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

According to Deuteronomy, it's exactly what they should continue doing, therefore implying that the remarriage is a one-time sin, but once it's done, it's done. The remarried party is now - oops - married to the second dpouse, and it's certainly not adultery to live with one's spouse!

You know, this topic has been hashed and rehashed. You can search and find out what the other threads all said if you're interested. Why don't you try expanding your interest here to other subjects?

I would have to disagree with your view here.

If a gay couple would ask to join your church no doubt you would say that they were not living right even though they have a marriage licences

you would expect them to change. why do you not expect those with somebody else's  spouse to do the same ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Who's Online   1 Member, 0 Anonymous, 10 Guests (See full list)

×
×
  • Create New...