Divorce and remarriage

[n david]

From the UPCI local license application:

"Do you believe and teach that persons who have been divorced and remarried before they were filled with the Holy Ghost should be made to separate or else be put out of fellowship with the assembly?"

So, if I'm understanding this correctly, a sinner who divorced and remarried before ever coming to a church and receiving the New Birth experience ... once they receive the New Birth experience, they're expected to separate or be shunned???

Am I reading this right?

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by n david

From the UPCI local license application:

"Do you believe and teach that persons who have been divorced and remarried before they were filled with the Holy Ghost should be made to separate or else be put out of fellowship with the assembly?"

So, if I'm understanding this correctly, a sinner who divorced and remarried before ever coming to a church and receiving the New Birth experience ... once they receive the New Birth experience, they're expected to separate or be shunned???

Am I reading this right?

It is asking this to weed out those who hold such extreme views. The UPCI is possibly the most understanding and empathetic organization I have ever seen regarding this issue.

[Tithesmeister]

Originally Posted by n david

From the UPCI local license application:

"Do you believe and teach that persons who have been divorced and remarried before they were filled with the Holy Ghost should be made to separate or else be put out of fellowship with the assembly?"

So, if I'm understanding this correctly, a sinner who divorced and remarried before ever coming to a church and receiving the New Birth experience ... once they receive the New Birth experience, they're expected to separate or be shunned???

Am I reading this right?

Originally Posted by Originalist

It is asking this to weed out those who hold such extreme views. The UPCI is possibly the most understanding and empathetic organization I have ever seen regarding this issue.

The UPCI ordains pastors and evangelists that have been married more than once. I know one that is (I believe) on his fourth marriage. His father was a well known UPCI evangelist and also pastored. I know independent apostolics that have been married multiple times and still preach. It certainly helps if your father was an influential pastor or evangelist though.

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by Originalist

It is asking this to weed out those who hold such extreme views.

Weed out the Bible believers.
That is easier to try to justify now that they are using all sorts of corruption versions.

What were the marriage-divorce-remarriage doctrines of the oneness believers c. 1920-1940?
That would be a helpful study.

Remember, there are some extra considerations.
Is there a covenant spouse, alive, for either the man or woman? Often the questions are over-simplified.

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

Weed out the Bible believers.
That is easier to try to justify now that they are using all sorts of corruption versions.

What were the marriage-divorce-remarriage doctrines of the oneness believers c. 1920-1940?
That would be a helpful study.

Remember, there are some extra considerations.
Is there a covenant spouse, alive, for either the man or woman? Often the questions are over-simplified.

Who says the extreme view is the Biblical one? Enough evidence has been shared in this thread to cast severe doubt on the so-called "conservative" views.

"Covenant spouse alive"? That is the point. A bill of divorcement ends the covenant. They are n longer a spouse biblically.

[james34]

1516

Erasmus publishes the first Greek New Testament.

1519

Erasmus writes a new interpretation on marriage, divorce and remarriage in his Annotations on I Corinthians 7. It was a theological, homiletical interpretation, not exegetical (inviting human reasoning instead of letting the text speak for itself)! It contained humanistic overtones (putting man’s need for happiness in front of obedience to God). Erasmus taught that love should come before any law on marriage and held that it was not loving of the church to insist that couples be made to continue in unhappy relationships. The church should deliver those who suffer in bad marriages.

The two new revolutionary propositions were:

1. It should be permissible to dissolve certain marriages.

2. The ‘innocent party’ should be allowed to remarry.

These two views were considered heretical by the theologians of the day
1532

King Henry VIII wanted to divorce his wife Catherine and marry Ann Boleyn. He popularized Erasmus’s new views on divorce and remarriage and eventually broke away from the Catholic Church due to his desire to divorce and remarry. He started the Church of England, now known as the Episcopal Church.

1550

Council of Trent. Catholic Church meets to renounce the exegetical results of Erasmus’s studies and of the reformers as well. The Catholic Church held to two types of divorce:

1. Separation of bed and board (still one flesh till death).

2. Annulment – insisting that the marriage had been unlawfully contracted to begin with.

1648

Westminister Confession: official Protestant Reformation statement of new doctrines.

The Protestant Reformers latched onto Erasmus’s interepretation of the marriage and divorce tests. Luther added the thinking that since in the Old Testament adulterers were stoned, he reasoned that the modern adulterer could be considered as “dead” which would free the other party to remarry.

From this point on, we have our modern-day teaching that adultery (and now “desertion” and even “irreconcilable differences”) can break one-flesh and all parties are free to remarry. This teaching has destroyed the family as God designed and planned it to be. For 1650 years, there was no remarriage, now look at the state of marriage in modern times after only 350 years of a false teaching! The church is responsible for this lie in the earth. May God remove the blindness and bring a deep repentance.

SUMMARY:

350 Augustine

An early church father, taught that marriage was indissolvable till death, therefore remarriage, in the event of a divorce, was out of the question.

For the first 500 years, this was the early church position and essentially was an undisputed teaching

[Tithesmeister]

Originally Posted by james34

1516

Erasmus publishes the first Greek New Testament.

1519

Erasmus writes a new interpretation on marriage, divorce and remarriage in his Annotations on I Corinthians 7. It was a theological, homiletical interpretation, not exegetical (inviting human reasoning instead of letting the text speak for itself)! It contained humanistic overtones (putting man’s need for happiness in front of obedience to God). Erasmus taught that love should come before any law on marriage and held that it was not loving of the church to insist that couples be made to continue in unhappy relationships. The church should deliver those who suffer in bad marriages.

The two new revolutionary propositions were:

1. It should be permissible to dissolve certain marriages.

2. The ‘innocent party’ should be allowed to remarry.

These two views were considered heretical by the theologians of the day
1532

King Henry VIII wanted to divorce his wife Catherine and marry Ann Boleyn. He popularized Erasmus’s new views on divorce and remarriage and eventually broke away from the Catholic Church due to his desire to divorce and remarry. He started the Church of England, now known as the Episcopal Church.

1550

Council of Trent. Catholic Church meets to renounce the exegetical results of Erasmus’s studies and of the reformers as well. The Catholic Church held to two types of divorce:

1. Separation of bed and board (still one flesh till death).

2. Annulment – insisting that the marriage had been unlawfully contracted to begin with.

1648

Westminister Confession: official Protestant Reformation statement of new doctrines.

The Protestant Reformers latched onto Erasmus’s interepretation of the marriage and divorce tests. Luther added the thinking that since in the Old Testament adulterers were stoned, he reasoned that the modern adulterer could be considered as “dead” which would free the other party to remarry.

From this point on, we have our modern-day teaching that adultery (and now “desertion” and even “irreconcilable differences”) can break one-flesh and all parties are free to remarry. This teaching has destroyed the family as God designed and planned it to be. For 1650 years, there was no remarriage, now look at the state of marriage in modern times after only 350 years of a false teaching! The church is responsible for this lie in the earth. May God remove the blindness and bring a deep repentance.

SUMMARY:

350 Augustine

An early church father, taught that marriage was indissolvable till death, therefore remarriage, in the event of a divorce, was out of the question.

For the first 500 years, this was the early church position and essentially was an undisputed teaching

When the Bible doesn’t support your doctrine, and in fact contradicts your doctrine, just look around for someone who has an opinion that supports your doctrine. An extra-biblical source. That’s how false doctrine flourishes.

Then make comments like “ he was an early church father”. This is designed to make your sources seem legitimate.

Three fifty A D.? That’s about when the “early church fathers” began touting another false doctrine. The doctrine of tithing that was the precursor of the greatest scam in the history of the world.

I prefer the church fathers who were about three centuries “earlier” than Augustine. Why not go to the primary source?

Unless, of course you don’t like what they say, for whatever reason.

[james34]

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister

When the Bible doesn’t support your doctrine, and in fact contradicts your doctrine, just look around for someone who has an opinion that supports your doctrine. An extra-biblical source. That’s how false doctrine flourishes.

Then make comments like “ he was an early church father”. This is designed to make your sources seem legitimate.

Three fifty A D.? That’s about when the “early church fathers” began touting another false doctrine. The doctrine of tithing that was the precursor of the greatest scam in the history of the world.

I prefer the church fathers who were about three centuries “earlier” than Augustine. Why not go to the primary source?

Unless, of course you don’t like what they say, for whatever reason.

What God hath joined together let mot man put asunder.

Just obey that much.

[Tithesmeister]

Originally Posted by james34

What God hath joined together let mot man put asunder.

Just obey that much.

“Except it be for fornication” according to Jesus.

Are you . . .

More wise?

More conservative?

More qualified?

Have a better idea?

Than Jesus?

Think about it. Fornication is the exception. But, not according to you!

And you really believe you are rightly dividing the word?

[james34]

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister

“Except it be for fornication” according to Jesus.

Are you . . .

More wise?

More conservative?

More qualified?

Have a better idea?

Than Jesus?

Think about it. Fornication is the exception. But, not according to you!

And you really believe you are rightly dividing the word?

So God changed?