Divorce and Remarriage (The Exception Clause)

[Jordan Kurecki 652]

9 minutes ago, Pastorj said:

The doctrine of Marriage starts in Genesis and goes throughout. The Apostle Paul would not contradict Jesus or the Old Testament. That is bad doctrine.

This is a very good point worthy of consideration. 

[swathdiver 1,758]

4 hours ago, Pastorj said:

The doctrine of Marriage starts in Genesis and goes throughout. The Apostle Paul would not contradict Jesus or the Old Testament. That is bad doctrine.

I'm not sure we disagree.  However, things said by Paul contradict things said by Jesus until taken in context.  But I'll stand by my statement that if one wants to know what God's plan for marriage is in this age, it's to be found in 1 Corinthians 7.  Of course, other things related to marriage are found throughout the scriptures

 

Edited September 21, 2018 by swathdiver

[Jordan Kurecki 652]

 

On 8/30/2018 at 9:24 PM, Jordan Kurecki said:

Does “Not Under Bondage” Mean Divorce Is Permitted?

The word rendered “bondage” (1 Cor. 7:15) is the Greek term douloo, which means “to make a slave of.” Observe how the word is translated in Titus 2:3 — “enslaved to much wine.”

Biblically speaking, marriage is never viewed as slavery! The “bondage,” i.e., enslavement, does not refer to the marriage union. If the unbeliever departs, that is not the Christian’s responsibility. The brother or sister is not enslaved to maintain a togetherness (note the allusion of 1 Cor. 7:5) at the expense of fidelity to the Lord.

Interestingly, douloo (under bondage) in verse 15 is, in the Greek Testament, a perfect tense form, dedoulotai. The perfect tense denotes a present state resulting from past action. Its force here is this: “was not bound [past action] and is not bound [present state].” The sense of the verse thus is:

Yet if (assuming such should occur) the unbeliever separates himself, let him separate himself: the brother or sister was not [before the departure] and is not [now that the departure has occurred] enslaved ....

Whatever the “bondage” is, therefore, the Christian was not in it even before the disgruntled spouse left. But the saint was married (and is) to him, hence, the bondage is not the marriage!

Let the reader substitute the word “marriage” for “bondage,” giving the full force to the perfect tense (i.e., “has not been married, and is not married”) and the fallacy of viewing the bondage as the marriage itself will be apparent.

First Corinthians 7:15 does not expand upon the Savior’s teaching with reference to divorce and remarriage, as much as some wish that it were so.

https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/683-what-is-the-meaning-of-not-under-bondage-1-cor-7-15

I thought this was worth re-quoting. I think it refutes the notion that 1 Cor 7 allows remarriage.

Edited October 1, 2018 by Jordan Kurecki

[Pastorj 277]

19 hours ago, Jordan Kurecki said:

 

I thought this was worth re-quoting. I think it refutes the notion that 1 Cor 7 allows remarriage.

Jordan,

Your interpretation goes contrary to Jesus, therefore is wrong. I will find some time this week to go through 1 Cor. 7. Just been busy.

[Jordan Kurecki 652]

2 minutes ago, Pastorj said:

Jordan,

Your interpretation goes contrary to Jesus, therefore is wrong. I will find some time this week to go through 1 Cor. 7. Just been busy.

Actually I think my position harmonizes with Christ, if you divorce and marry someone else you commit adultery, with the exception that you already mentioned earlier of fornication during the betrothal period. 

[*Light* 337]

22 hours ago, Jordan Kurecki said:

 

I thought this was worth re-quoting. I think it refutes the notion that 1 Cor 7 allows remarriage.

Not to throw the baby out with the bathwater, but that website you cited teaches the false doctrine that Christians can LOSE their salvation.

[Jordan Kurecki 652]

On 10/2/2018 at 12:33 PM, (Omega) said:

Not to throw the baby out with the bathwater, but that website you cited teaches the false doctrine that Christians can LOSE their salvation.

Didn't realize that, I think they also teach baptismal regeneration it seems. However, that doesn't mean the comments on 1 Cor 7...even Catholics are right about the Deity of Christ and the Trinity. 

 

[*Light* 337]

I understand that Jordan, which is why I made the disclaimer of having no intention to prove that the author of that thesis was somehow guilty of eisegesis regarding 1 Corinthians chapter 7. But he (Wayne Jackson) is the same author who holds to the false doctrine that Christian's can lose their salvation. I would never be concerned about you not having the ability to rightly divide the word of truth. I know that you most certainly can as it is evident in your posts. Keep on truckin in your pursuit for the absolute and irrefutable truths contained in sacred scripture. I look forward to your future posts! I'm here to learn from my brethren. :)

God Bless!

 

[Corinne 5]

After looking at these passages presented, I've come to this conclusion:

Marry a believer

* a getting to know or courtship period is necessary, people sometimes are unpredictable or give false information, so making sure a mate is saved is a vital aspect before tying the knot

If in a marriage with a non-believer, either:

* stay if he's acceptable and treats you nicely

* leave if he's abusive or unbearable, however stay separated but don't remarry

Now, Jordan stated that a man should accept a cheating spouse, but what man does that? I've seen how men stop loving cheating wives, it affects men more than women who are more prone to forgive cheating husbands. Still, a painful betrayal in both cases