I wouldn't say that this particular observation I've made is a universal thing, by any means. In the whole "should I remarry my original spouse" debate, there are always many sublte shades of differences in the opinions about the issues. They are complex and there are well-meaning, clear-thinking people on all sides of the debate.
But an ironic theme I see when I read the books or visit all the websites that speak to the issue of remarrying an original spouse after divorce and remarriage, is that typically the sites that have an Arminian leaning in their theology (that a Christain can lose his or her salvation) tend to push toward the idea that a marriage is an indissoluble covanent; whereas the Calvinistic sites (those who believe that salvation is eternally secure and cannot be lost) tend to see marriage as a covanent that can be broken.
If a Christian marriage between a husband and wife is a representation of the relationship between Christ and his church, why is it that those who say someone cannot lose his or her salvation see that the marriage covanent can, in fact, be broken? How is it that those who see that Christ could, in the end, divorce us (the Arminians) say that nevertheless, we cannot divorce our mates on earth, because in God's eyes, that covanent is still in place, (though we pretend it's not) and this covanent cannot be broken, no matter how we try to pretend it is?
It's just an observation I've made. And, as always, your thoughts are welcome.
Hi! Thank you for your comment on my post!
ReplyDeleteHere are some thoughts... While I am 'comfortable' right now with the position I take regarding divorce & remarriage (that view being held by Voddie Baucham & John Piper), it is definitely not a view of 100% certainty. My husband has similar concerns about the real issue being that of a continuous state of adultery. And we have friends who do hold that view (and are currently waiting for their spouses to return).
One of the "answers" that John Piper gives regarding why he believes marriages should stay intact, is God's view of vows, in general. He gives examples of Joshua & the Gibeonites, where Joshua did not seek the Lord's counsel when the men came to seek refuge. He welcomed them in and vowed to be their friend, when the Lord has instructed him to destroy the Gibeonites. When the true identities of the men were discovered, Joshua repented before the Lord, yet remained true to the promise he had made.
So, a more defining question would be, "Was it a real vow (marriage) to begin with?" Those that argue that the second marriage should be dissolved, because it is continuous adultery, are really arguing that the second/third/etc marriage is no marriage to begin with. It's simply an extramarital relationship that one happens to be involved in. And this is the hinge that causes a person to fall to one side or another: the legitimacy of the vow being made. Gothard says 'It's not divorce, because it's not really a marriage.' Piper believes it is in fact a legitimate vow, as wrong as it was. Maybe we need to first thoroughly search the scriptures to discover God's view of oath-keeping, promise-breaking, etc. Granted, marriage is a covenant far greater, more important, than others that will be made, but God may give us guidelines in which to approach the issue of D&R.
Scripture is sufficient for all of life. We don't need an explicit command, because God also gives us patterns and principles to discover his heart and intention.
Here is more of John Piper's explanation (video sermon & text):
http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/sermons/what-god-has-joined-together-let-not-man-separate-part-2#/watch/full
Blessings!
(And if you want to continue this via email... ardito_christine@yahoo.com)
Thanks for your response. And yes, I saw yesterday, as I was looking over Piper's position paper that he was saying this - he seems to believe that since the second vow was made, it must be kept, even at the cost involved.
ReplyDeleteYour point is good, and I will add it to my "to-do" list of things to look into. I understand his concern about keeping the vows we make. The problem that comes to mind for me, and one I posted on someone else's blog yesterday, is this:
A) I made a previous vow, which, though I promised to keep it, I walked away from it and broke it. But in God's eyes, since He joined it together, according to Gothard AND to Piper, God STILL sees it as a marriage. That union is not simply a marriage because of one-flesh relationship; if someone has sex with a prostitute, he is one flesh with her, but that is not a covenant relationship; this first one is different because it was blessed by God as a one-flesh relationship as a result of sealing a covenant with that other person. So according to both of them, this relationship is still intact.
B) I later made another vow, which I should not have made.
The question seems to me to be: is it a greater sin to break the second vow which I should never have made in the first place, or to refuse to return to the first one, which God says cannot be broken?
I think you are right - this has to do with promises and covenants. If the vow is broken, is the covenant still in place? The most obvious answer to me, at first, anyway, seems to be that since the grammar in the greek calls it a continuous state of adultery, it must be because God continues to see the first one as my husband or my wife (depending on my gender, ya know) and continues to see the second one as an adulterous relationship. And the argument seems validated that, though we entered into a relationsip we thought was blessed by God, it must not have ever been blessed by Him, because he calls it a state of adultery.
To me, two wrongs don't make a right. But I'm thinking the second wrong needs to be seen as never blessed by God even though I assumed it was; this makes the second wrong right. And then, it would seem that making the first wrong right would be to reconcile if possible, or at least remain single to testify with my life that the first one is still, in God's eyes, a marriage because it was the covenant he blessed.
It just occurred to me that a better way to look at it might be like this:
ReplyDeleteIf I made a vow to kill someone, and later recognized I never should have made the vow in the first place, does God judge me for breaking a vow I made, or does he reward me for repenting of the wrong vow and doing the right thing? (Or perhaps both - maybe I do get judged for breaking a vow, but it might stll be the "least bad" decision to make in the end, and the one most blessed by God because it is the least displeasing to him.
Just another thought.
“Piper teaches what you do and there is a big problem with this: he teaches the one who is forsaken who has not remarried, but their spouse has---must remain unmarried, honoring the vows they took before the Lord. In other words, THEY are still bound to their covenant spouse (Piper teaches that only DEATH dissolves the union joined by God).
ReplyDeleteI dialogued with his ministry for quite some time about this and the man I dialogued with, Dan, told me at the end of the conversation---the 2nd marriage probably IS adultery, but God's Grace allows for it to continue. I was astounded to hear such a thing. A relationship IS sin and one can remain in it? Where do we find such a thing in scripture?
If a remarriage is adultery, that means one or both belong to SOMEONE else---to stay in such a relationship would be no different than people fornicating/living together staying in their relationship....or two homosexuals that are married in the eyes of the civil laws of this land saying they "repent" of their marriage, yet stay in it. In God's eyes they do not belong to each other.
I have heard from both sides of this (those in remarriages that defend staying in them and those in remarriages that say God called them to repentance and they forsook the relationship).
Which are right? Both? I do not believe so. God's Word has to be foremost in our decisions. If Jesus and Paul both call these new unions "adultery" and the peoples involved: adulterers and adulteresses, then it is NEVER ok to stay in such a relationship.”
--Cindy W
http://www.cadz.net/mdr.html
Cindy,
DeleteI see you on almost every made site...do run Cadz? Are you divorced and remarried and if not what is your attraction to this topic that causes you to go from post to post?