I read, with interest, an article on the "Faithful Word" website, regarding the thought of getting back together with your first husband or wife after one or both of you have been remarried in the meantime.
The Faithful Word, on remarrying an original spouse
The author of this web site supports his or her position rather well - the arguments seem reasonably well thought-out, and based on the presuppostions brought to the consideration, it seems he or she is trying to be fair to the argument, and the consideration at hand.
As I see it in review (and I read it recently, though not just now, before I write this review, so please bear with me if I miss a finer point or two) but it seems there are a couple presuppositions that are made in this particular assessment of the situation which seem to be made incorrectly, and which I wish to challenge, or at least to try to challenge with some thoughts of my own.
The position presented is basically that the wedding vows initiate the marriage covenant. It is not sex that forms the marriage bond, and as such, the "adultery" that occurs when a remarriage takes place is an ACT of adultery, not a STATE of adultery. The adultery is the act of making a new marriage covenant, when there is one that is still in place previously, (logically, I would assume, because the divorce didn't end the first marriage covenant.) And so "adultery" occurs "in the act of making new wedding vows." The position presented on that web site says that the sex that occurs in the new marriage is not sinful; it was the initial act of making the wedding vows to the new spouse that was an act of sin, and it is that act of sin that needs to be repented of, and repentence from that doesn't mean busting up the new marriage to put the old one back together; instead, repentence means acknowledging that the sin of adultery had been committed in the making of the vows, but the new vows stand, and they should be maintained.
I've heard this argument before. It's the common one made from that side of the fence on the divorce-remarriage debate. But the position has its problems. First of all, it seems there some logical "quantum leaps" taken here (unintentionally, it seems obvious enough, but quantum leaps in logic, nonetheless).
First of all, the commonly understood definition of "adultery" by any biblical or non-biblical scholar is sex by one (or both) of the partners in the marriage with anyone outside of the marriage. It has been said before that the power to define the terms in an argument is the power to win the debate. And in this case, it seems in order for this argument to be made, you have to buy that author's position that adultery occurs with the making of wedding vows. That seems a real stretch. The reason that Jesus said that divorcing a spouse and making wedding vows to another person is entering into an ONGOING CONDITION OF ADULTERY (and that is what it says in the greek - not an act, but an ongoing condition) is because the point he was making was the fact that simply proposing new wedding vows to a new bride or groom doesn't automatically mean that God is putting His blessing on this new "marriage" simply because we invoke His name to do so. Jesus' point was made around an obvious assumption - the assumption that new wedding vows were made in order to legitimize the acts of sexual intercourse which would afterwards be "justified" in the mind of the new husband and wife because of the vows somehow making it right. Jesus' point was that the new vows didn't change anything - the ongoing living condition that would result after the new vows is simply a condition of living in an ongoing state of adultery.
Another common problem that I see in the author's logic is such as is in his analysis of the passage in John, chapter 4, where he is speaking of Jesus with the woman at the well. This paragraph I will quote from the website itself:
"...it was Jesus who said she had had five different husbands, and the man she was living with at the moment was not her husband at all (John 4:18). From this we know that simply living with someone and having sex with them does not make them a spouse, for marriage requires a binding contract. We also know that Jesus considered each one of her previous marriages to have been real marriages, for He called each of her five previous covenant partners 'husbands' even while recognizing that the last lover was not a 'husband.' "
First of all, the author says, "From this we know that simply living with someone and having sex with them does not make them a spouse, for a marriage requires a binding contract." This is true. But then he says, "We also know that Jesus considered each one of her previous marriages to have been real marriages, for He called each of her five previous covenant partners 'husbands' even while recognizing that the last lover was not a 'husband.' " This is not necessarily true, at all.
The new testament looks a fair bit different when you look at it in Greek than when you look at it in English. For instance, there are a few things to note that are significant before you even begin to look at the translations. In Greek, there is no different word for wife or woman, there is no different word for husband or man. The only way to tell which is implied is by context, and if the person is referred to as "the man" or "a man" or "her man." Similarly, it is "the woman" or "his woman." If it says, "her man" or "his woman" it is translated "husband" or "wife." Secondly, the expression "to have" or "had" in the context of discussion about husbands and wives is pretty much a synonymous term with "married." For instance, when the Sadducees approached Jesus with the story of the seven brothers, they used this expression - "the first one had her, the second one had her..." and it was understood in the context, and is translated so, that they were saying these brothers all married her. (Another curious little tidbit is that there is a word for widow in greek, but no word for widower; read that into 1 Corinthians 7 and it takes a different flavor, but that is a different topic.)
Anyway, look at what it says from the Greek, and then let me try to put a different "spin" on what it says (we all have 'em - like it or not, every translation has a "spin" on the text based on the presuppositions brought to the translating table). And so, based on this same text with Jesus and the woman at the well, but looking at it with the presupposition that remarriage is an ongoing condition of adultery, based on the greek... what it says is...
"... the woman answered him and said, 'I have no man.' Jesus said, 'you said correctly, for you do not have a man, for you have five men, and the one you are having now is not your man."
What it means (how it is interpreted, which is what any bible translation requires - an understanding of what it says, and what it means when it says it, when spoken in the words of another language) What I believe it means (with good reasons to say it, also...) is...
"Jesus said, 'you have spoken correctly, that you do not have a husband, for you have become married to five men, and the one to whom you are now married is not really your husband." That's a mouthful! And as controversial as it seems to be, I think there is ample justification to translate it this way. It all depends on the presuppositions you make theologically before you try to interpret the text in the original based on language and cultural considerations before you try to translate it into your current language.
If you make the presupposition that divorce ends the covenant (or, as in the case of The Faithful Word, here) you make the assumption that the new wedding vows break the old one) then you interpret "the one you now have" as a lover (as "The Faithful Word" does) rather than as a husband by law (as I and many others believe); if you make the assumption, based on the Greek text, that Jesus spoke of the ongoing new marriage as an ongoing condition of adultery, then you will translate Jesus' words here as "the one you are now married to" as a "husband," yet not one she is entitled to have in God's eyes, because it is an adulterous marriage. "The husband you have now is not your husband."
Like I said before, the power to define the terms is the power to win the debate. If we define adultery as making new vows rather than having sex outside of a legitimate marriage, then we can justify a whole bunch of stuff as now legitimate. But if we define adultery as sex outside of marriage, then we have to see in Jesus' words a statement that declares remarriages are not legitimate in God's eyes. And so, in this case, the question becomes, "if it is an ongoing condition of adultery, rather than a single act of adultery, then what does repentence look like?"
I have heard others, such as Craig S. Keener and Voddie Baucham propose the idea that the adultery that Jesus was speaking of was an act of adultery, and not a state of adultery, but the greek in these passages does not bear this out. The early church fathers, when they spoke of these sayings of Jesus in their writings all understood Jesus to be referring to an ongoing state of adultery, rather than a mere "single act" of adultery. And they were familiar with the common usage of the greek, and understood this, so much so that in their writings on the subject, they spoke even more clearly of this adultery as an ongoing condition, and they even went so far at times as to require church discipline until these new "marriages" were repented of and walked away from.
In fact, Craig Keener makes the very bad argument (in my opinion) that Jesus could not have been speaking of adultery in these cases as being an ongoing condition, because if he did, then it would mean that all these divorced and remarried people we see today are living in a state of adultery, but this just doesn't seem that it can be the case, and so we have to conlude from this that Jesus' point was really about an act of adultery, not an ongoing condition of adultery. This seems to be constructing an argument based on the conclusion you want to make. It seems to be bad logic. Defining remarriage as an act of adultery rather than a state of adultery (based on what you can do with the English translation) and redefining adultery to include the idea that marriage vows are adultery, rather than sex outside of marriage being the adultery changes the whole conversation.
As I said before, the power to define the terms is the power to win the debate. But careful consideration of the terms requires some tweaking from "The Faithful Word" on this post. As Walter Martin once said, "if words don't mean in context what they mean by definition, then we have lost the ability to communicate."
As always, your thoughts are welcome.
One of the objectives of the permanence view is to show a rationale of how a divorced person can be guilty of adultery. By their definition they can’t see how an unmarried person can commit adultery, nor how a married person can commit fornication. The resolution for them is to advocate the supposition that a divorce couple is not really divorce. They do that by suggesting “Marriage survives remarriage and precludes it.” or “divorce does not terminate a marriage in God's sight.” The problem with these suppositions is they invert the very words of Christ Himself (Luke 16:18).
ReplyDeleteThe problem with making up a phrase that’s not true is, it is excepted by many as if it was. To “still be married in God’s sight” is to still be married period, no matter what man thinks. If a supposedly divorce individual is still married, what would be the practical outcome of remarriage? Polygamy? Yes, they now have two spouses with sexual obligations to both. But that is not at all the language the Lord employs. To take liberty with the text and make it say what it don’t say is eisegesis interpretation, which has been a huge problem for the church for two millennia. We can not contradict the language of Christ and hope to come to understand His intent.
The problem in part arises from how we in the West define adultery - “sex between a married person and another not the spouse.” Western culture has traditionally placed the weight of bound ness within marriage, while historic biblical / Jewish culture placed it in covenant relationship. It is imperative, that if we want to come to a right conclusion, we must not follow the error of the permanence view of placing the potential for adultery to be in marriage only. If we understand that the potential for adultery is not dependent on marriage we will not have to make up suppositional phrases that is not only untrue, but harm people’s lives.
It is very helpful in resolving conflict to find a mutual point of agreement, then see who strays from that premise. Covenant relationship preceded marriage in biblical / Jewish culture so that a couple was already bound to each other. This is a key fact that will expose which view departs from this mutual premise that both views acknowledge. Although the permanence view acknowledges this in their teaching they resort back to a Western rationale for explaining the potential for adultery.
ReplyDeleteFidelity was an obligation that came before and was not dependent on marriage itself. The fact is, the potential for adultery is not predicated on marriage per se, but rather marriage is predicated in a covenant. Adultery is not principally unfaithfulness in marriage, but rather infidelity within the covenant. You don’t need marriage in order to commit adultery. So, if the marriage is terminated at divorce then their premise “that divorce does not terminate a marriage in God's sight” is wrong and there is another and better answer as to why a second marriage is adulterous.
To improperly define or redefine biblical words or language will lead to a rationale different than the writer intended. This is the error of the permanence view, they don’t accept the exception clause as within the context it’s found (marriage) and so they have to define fornication as something other than adultery. Consequently, the biblical rationale is changed. Fornication is not adultery so Matthew must be talking about premarital sex, so goes the logic. The problem with that is, there is no reference to premarital infidelity in the text to single it out, nor is there different biblical recourse for premarital infidelity than that of marital, as the permanence view persuades. Consequently, their limiting definition for fornication is deceptive.
If you follow the flow of thought in scripture you can see that covenant obligation is preceded by the promise of the covenantor. In biblical culture the agreement between the framing parties formed a covenant and if it was a marriage covenant it began the engagement period, followed by a betrothal ceremony and then sometime later (often lengthy) a marriage ceremony. Covenant obligation (fidelity) preceded the marriage and bore the same retribution for infidelity as within marriage itself (Deut. 22:22-23). Marriage is predicated in a covenant and a covenant is predicated on an agreement, and this constitutes a moral obligation. It is the violation of this moral obligation of fidelity that results in adultery.
Honest Seeker
ReplyDeleteYou make a very common mistake in this debate. You define adultery by it’s most well known case and consequently limit it’s meaning to that which fits your supposition. The writer of the article in which you find objection defines adultery from a Jewish / biblical culture where it’s understood that marriage is predicated in a covenant.
It is not correct to say as most permanence view advocates do, “divorce does not terminate a marriage in God’s sight,” but rather divorce does not terminate covenant obligation in God’s sight. This allows for all the words of Christ in Luke 16:18 and elsewhere to be both true and taken at face value. Jesus is confirming that the unmarried can commit adultery and that divorce by itself will not circumvent this reality. Covenant obligation precedes and succeeds marriage.
The adultery that Jesus spoke of in the gospels was not focused on sex but rather the formation of the second marriage relationship itself. Marriage is predicated in an inviolable covenant that is prohibited from being broken. Jesus is saying that remarriage itself is adulterous. Adultery can result in remarriage even if sex is not part of the equation.
Adultery is used in Jeremiah 3:6-10 to speak of the unfaithfulness of God’s covenant people Israel. There, their idolatry was worship, worship that was to be reserved solely for God. Israel was to have an exclusive relationship with the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Any relationship with a false deity or idol would be adulterous. Worship is adultery in this case.
To enter another intimate relationship outside of the primal marriage covenant constitutes adultery because of it‘s exclusive nature. Remarriage itself is adulterous. It‘s at this point that reconciliation was prohibition by God (Deut. 24 1-4). Covenant obligation survived divorce but did not survive remarriage.
I agree with your assessment “the power to define the terms is the power to win the debate.” Your view is convincing to the mind that restricts the definition of adultery to the case in which you choose to confine it. Your limiting definitions makes your view plausible, but it is also what causes others to be misinformed. Your word play throughout your argument is subjective in interpretation and alters scripture considerably. The subversion of the Word of God is a very serious offense!
Neal:
ReplyDeleteSorry to take so long to respond to your posts here. I've been busy doing some travelling, but I popped in here to see if there was any activity, and found your posts, to which I felt a desire to respond.
Maybe you can clarify what your thoughts are here. Your posts in April left me feeling like you were making a distinction without a difference. And now, by the time I get done reading your post in May, that you pretty much agree with me, don't you?
My understanding of what Jesus was saying in the gospels is that entering into a new marriage with a new party is nothing more than entering into a state of adultery, as it violates the requirements of the first covenant, part of which is fidelity.
My understanding is that divorce does not end the covenant (as I think you believe, from what you have written, if I understand you properly). This is the reason why the new marriage situation is not a real covenant in God's eyes, but merely entering into an ongoing condition of adultery. I think we can clarify the terms to death, and sometimes it is necessary to define them carefully enough to understand what the original authors' intents were (as in this case with the gospels).
But in the end, aren't we pretty much saying the same thing here? If the covenantal obligations don't end with the divorce of the first marriage (part of which is the obligation to fidelity) then isn't entering into a second marriage a violation of those covenental obligations? If so, isn't this Jesus' point? The second marriage isn't a covenant, but entering into a condition of adultery, because God doesn't bless what is violating that original covenant?
Your thoughts are welcome. Quite frankly, I'm not sure I understand, from a practical perspective, where we disagree to the point it seems to almost be evoking some emotion from you about it. But it seems important enough to you to write several posts, and for this reason I would ask you maybe to consider what I'm questioning here, so you can straighten out what I've missed of your thinking. I think we all need to value the truth, no matter the cost, and you've taken some trouble here to express views you consider important.
So help me out here. Fill me in on what I'm missing. I'd like to understand your view. Thanks for contributing.
God bless. (And I believe God is pleased with your passion for truth. Even if we still disagree in the end, though I'm not sure we do...)
Honest Seeker
ReplyDeleteI was trying to get you to see that you were not still married to your first wife as some teach. Marriage does not survive divorce. Secondly I was trying to get you to see that adultery occurs in remarriage because of the exclusive nature of covenant relationships not primarily because of sex. Jesus said plainly that remarriage itself is adulterous. Thirdly I was trying to get you to see that although covenant obligation survives divorce it doesn’t survive remarriage. Consequently the adultery is not ongoing and forgivable. You are doing something unprecedented in scripture by divorcing your second wife in order to resolve adultery. If may fit your logic but it is never instructed in God’s Word. To advocate that Jesus teachings were saying that from this point on a second marriage after divorce would no longer be a binding marriage exceeds the text, as well as the rest of the New Testament. No New Testament writer ever instructed an individual to leave their second spouse. No New Testament writer affirms that the Old Testament binding that occurred in a second marriage now has no legitimacy. Permanence view teachers advocate these things not because the bible affirms them, but because the premise they created logically leads to these conclusions. Be careful about reading into scripture.
All through the Old and New Testaments remarriage was binding even if adulterous. All of the Authors of scripture wrote with the reality that remarriage superseded the former marriage. Not one of them (including Jesus) ever instructed a remarried individual to depart a second marriage to resolve adultery.
There is no remaining obligation to the former covenant that causes adultery to be perpetual in the next sexual union. The truth is, the only thing that can absolve adultery is God’s forgiveness. Not some stringent, extra-biblical instruction to break another covenant. Because one is no longer bound to their previous spouse after remarriage the consequent adultery ends when there is true repentance. The consequent adultery can be forgiven through repentance, thereby having a marriage that is no longer sinful and therefore can be blessed of God. True repentance often requires the undoing of a past wrong, but in some cases the wrong can not be rectified either because it will exacerbate the sin or the past actions can not be undone. In these cases God will judge the heart and grant forgiveness accordingly.
Phil Johnson speaking on legalism writes “ If we add rules that Scripture doesn't make—especially if we try to impose our manmade rules on other people's consciences as a standard of spirituality—we are guilty of the same sin as the Pharisees and worthy of the same harsh rebukes Christ leveled at them.”
The New Testament text in which Jesus addresses divorce does not address a solution after the fact of remarriage. It doesn’t even prohibit remarriage but rather exposes it’s consequence. It revealed to the Pharisees and the nation of Israel that their obstinacy had always been sinful. That was Jesus’ point, for hundreds of years God’s people had been adulterating the covenant of marriage. The only solution He gives is, to stay married. He doesn’t compel those remarried to divorce. It is imperative that the Church and for Christians in general not to offer solutions that add to God’s Word. We mustn’t impress upon the conscience of those who come to realizes their sin that they are to follow a new formula for forgiveness. God bless
Neal;
ReplyDeleteYou make some interesting and well-framed points. But before I address them, I think I need to mention something about your tone in your response. I will also respond to your content, but in a separate post, which will immediately follow.
When you make comments like the quote by Phil Johnson, about "imposing our manmade rules on other people's consciences as a standard of spiriatuality, and imposing our manmade rules on other people's consciences as a standard of spiriatuality," or when you use terms like "word play" and "subversion," it sure looks like your message is very much loaded with judgement about my motives - as if I'm deliberately out to deceive people into believing something with the intention of manipulating them or controlling them. I don't make any assumptions about your motives as being anything other than helpful in attempting to discover, define and articulate truth for others because "the truth will make you free." I would ask that you would give the same benefit of the doubt about my motives here. I'm not subverting the word of God; subversion necessarily implies intent. My only intention is to present what I believe is truth. It is not to impose unnecessary burdens on people.
You do realize, I assume, that those on websites like "the Christian Left" and the like would use all kinds of arguments to justify a homosexual lifestyle. If someone were to try to present an argument from scripture that living in that lifestyle is unholy and displeasing to God, those on that website would accuse them of being like Pharisees, creating burdens for others that God never intended them to bear; they might be accused of legalism, citing that God is a God of love, mercy and forgiveness, and that we should not be harsh in imposing our measure of right and wrong on others, when God has no intention of doing so. Meanwhile, those who think that lifestyle is wrong and present an argument as such are really not necessarily being pharisaical at all, but simply trying to help others to see the error of their ways and the consequence of sin.
Neal, we all recognize the danger of reading into scripture; we all recognize (or should) that we should not impose burdens on others that do not come from God, or impose solutions that add to God's word. Please try to keep the discussion here oriented around the basic "benefit of the doubt" that these things don't need to be said, and try to focus on the fact that this position is only really "imposing a burden on others" if it is wrong. If the position is wrong, that becomes self-evident. I'm not trying to impose any "new formula for forgiveness." To me, this isn't even about "forgiveness" (contrary to what many have tried to insist is my motive. Quite frankly, I get tired of people telling me what my motives are. They don't know my heart. Neither do you.) The fact of the matter is that it is bad logic and not helpful to use the weight of bearing the consequences of a position to prove or disprove the truthfulness of that position. If we simply believed things because we liked them better, we would all end up in a world of hurt. The position needs to be evaluated based on whether or not it is true.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteNeal;
ReplyDeleteIn response to the CONTENT of your posts, I think you raise some interesting points, but I don't know that they all add up. While I will not accuse you of word play or subversion, I have to question if your arguments themselves are also subjective in interpretation.
Unfortunately, there is much that is simply not addressed in scripture. You say that all through the old and new testaments, remarriage was binding even if adulterous. There isn't that much in the old testament about it. Depending on what you see as the reason for the injunction against the remarriage to the original spouse in Deuteronomy 24, there are many different cases that could be made as to the reason for the injunction, as you know, and each of these cases assuming or interpreting much based on the best historical and cultural information we have about the culture at the time.
Regarding new testament teaching, Paul was silent on that particular issue of not remarrying the original spouse, and actually pretty much silent on the issue of remarriage as adultery, or whether, even if it was, if someone should stay in that adulterous condition. There is no other teaching on that particular issue in the new testament, unless you try to draw from the inferences from some spurious texts like the woman at the well and such. To draw that conclusion from your observations of what Jesus meant in his comments as quoted in Matthew 19 and Mark 10 is to do so based on your previous conclusions about what Jesus meant when he made those remarks from the cultural contexts, is it not. And quite honestly, many of the conclusions about what the biblical texts teach about these issues are predicated on the English translations of these texts, which makes them pregnant with possibilities for being misinterpreted, depending on the translations. These texts can be seen much differently when looked at in the original languages. You seem to be trying to see what Jesus said in the context of the culture he was speaking into, and that is good. But again, those positions are gotten from extra-biblical sources, and they need to be, and they also seem to require redefinition of some of the text to fit. Let me elaborate an example, to follow.
There is a particular problem I have with the permanence view, and you might have the same problem with what they do with the text. But if you do, I am also left with the same problem with your position, effectively, and so I would ask what you do with the text. The issue I have with the way they treat the texts of Matthew 19 and Mark 10 is that they take the present tense of the verb ("is committing adultery") and say that it has to be understood as an aorist tense verb ("commits an act of adultery"). And the reason they typically offer for this line of argument (when they do it) is that it must be that Jesus was saying that remarriage is committing an act of adultery, rather than entering into an ongoing condition of adultery, because if he was saying that it was an ongoing condition of adultery, then it would mean all these remarriages are ongoing conditions of adultery, and since we know this can't be the case, then Jesus must have been meaning an act of adultery rather than an ongoing condition of adultery. The problem with that argument is they have to read something into the text that is different than what it actually says.
ReplyDeleteI will also say that to state that no new testament writer ever instructed someone to leave their second spouse is (arguably) an argument from silence; and depending on what assumptions you make about the culture at the time regarding divorce rates and the like, there are many reasonable hypotheses which need to be considered as to how these silences need to be considered. You can't quickly (and without objection from the other side) use an argument from silence to prove your point. Looking at the instances of John the Baptist losing his head, Jesus with the woman at the well and his remarks in Matthew 19 and Luke 10 about remarriage as adultery, when looked at in the original language, can certainly seem to imply the "remarriage as adultery" position as much as any other. And as I mentioned before, Paul might even be seen as disturbingly silent on this issue in 1st Corinthians... again, depending on how you interpret what he says in the text, and depending on the cultural assumptions you bring to the table before you begin to interpret what he says about divorce rates at the time and the like.
So I will leave your posts up here, because I think you have written them well, based on the presuppositions you bring to the table when you make your arguments. And it seems your intentions are noble in presenting your position. I agree with the importance of not imposing burdens on others. And in the end, it seems each one must make his or her conclusions before God, and act on them according to his or her conscience. But if you wish to address it further, I welcome your comments. And if you want me to elaborate on some of what I'm saying, feel free to ask. I think it's always helpful to be challenged by an opposing view; otherwise, how would we all think things through?
God bless.
By the way, Neal....
ReplyDeleteI saw a response you made to a post on the "TeamPyro" blog...
http://teampyro.blogspot.ca/2011/01/on-divorce.html
Part of which I'd like to quote here regarding the permanence view, because of the power of the way you phrased the point you made there:
"A few of these men concede that a spouse can be involved in gross sexual immorality that warrants a divorce, but teach that the innocent party should not remarry. This position should be shown to be erroneous so that the innocent doesn’t suffer needlessly, attempting to live their whole life without a companion.... Ironically, most in the permanence view would instruct the man in this example to continue his second marriage while instructing his former wife to remain companionless. I see no biblical justness in that.
I agree with Dean's frustration with John Piper's position, while not his sentiments about John personally. He is a humble and godly man who has followed a wrong supposition."
First of all, as a "by the way," I agree with your take on Piper, and your desire to exhonorate his character as a man before God, regardless of your take on his view on divorce and remarriage. I think we all need to be careful to separate out the positions from the character and motives of the men who teach the positions. We all see through a glass darkly, and I know I've sure been wrong before. (I may later conclude that I was wrong now, also).
Regarding the primary reason for my quoting you here, though, is that you made a statement in that quote that was powerful in the way you said it:
"Ironically, most in the permanence view would instruct the man in this example to continue his second marriage while instructing his former wife to remain companionless. I see no biblical justness in that."
"Biblical justness" is a striking phrase. I think that needs to be kept in mind in the whole discussion, no matter where it leads. This discussion can never be a simply mechanical one, without always bearing in mind how the conclusions we draw from scripture on any issue (including this one) reflect God's justice, love and mercy.
Biblical justness. That's a good phrase. Really good.
Honest Seeker
ReplyDeleteYour post have ministered grace, integrity and a sense of a man pursuing God. I have responded to them by the various teachings found within the permanence view of which you may or may not agree with. I apologize if what I communicated seemed to impugn your motives. I was trying to focus on actions and teachings that alters God’s Word. I would disagree with your assessment that “subversion necessarily implies intent.” As a fallible man, I can subvert God’s Word even if my motive and intent is to honor Him. To alter his Word is to subvert it.
I quoted Phil because of statements like this “It is necessary therefore to warn those who have remarried while a former spouse lives that they are in a continuing state of adultery according to the scriptures, and must repent of it by confessing that sin and vacating that relationship.”
Again I understand this may be someone’s strong conviction but it exceeds scripture and they are people who feel compelled to comply. You may be aware of a web site that has testimonies of people leaving their spouses in order to resolve adultery. From your post this is what I understand you to have done. Your motive I believe to be pure, while your action sinful. I think I understand the logic that puts you in the dilemma you’ve dealt with having read a number of permanence view advocates. I believe their advocacy to “vacate that relationship” constitutes legalism for it is unprecedented in scripture.
I agree that we need “to help others to see the error of their ways and the consequence of sin.” Subsequently we need to point them to the one who is sufficient to absolve them (us) of guilt when His Spirit works penitence in our heart.
As far as my statement "new formula for forgiveness," again I should of clarified that this is not what you have advocated personally, but rather others within the permanence view. 1 Cor. 6:9and10 is referenced to without the benefit of verse 11. They make “vacating the relationship” salvific. An adulterer can not inherit the kingdom of God.
Lastly you say I don’t know your heart, but your words help me to perceive it. I hear a man who seeks to honor the Lord. I believe you to be my brother in Christ. I’m praying for you.
Mark 10:12 "Whoever may divorce the wife of him and marry another is in adultery with her." (Greek translation, Interlinear Bible-Hebrew, Greek, English)
ReplyDeleteIf one commits an act of murder, he/she enters the condition or state of being a murderer. One does not have to be a serial murderer in order to remain in this state. This state is continuous and unchanged, unless, UNLESS there is exoneration. Praise God for the free pardon of sin of ever state, whether murder, homosexuality, adultery or any other state of sin.
DeletePaul writes, And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are JUSTIFIED in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God. 1 Cor. 6:11
The state of sin last until God forgives it, then He cast it as far as the east is from the west and remembers it no more, (but others will remind you).
Greetings H.Seeker,
ReplyDeleteI stumbled upon your website while doing some research (for personal reasons) about this issue. If you are still out there (in blog world, lol) I would be very much interested in hearing if any/all of your conclusions/convictions on this issue has changed since your last post, one year afterwards.
Feel free to respond to me at bdawd@hotmail.com.
Thanks!