Divorce and remarriage

[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.

[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?

[Tithesmeister]

Originally Posted by james34

So God changed?

I’ve never said God changed. But there are many instances when God changed . . .




His mind!

Are you implying that God cannot change His mind?

[Nicodemus1968]

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister

I’ve never said God changed. But there are many instances when God changed . . .




His mind!

Are you implying that God cannot change His mind?

What are your thoughts on;

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

[Tithesmeister]

Originally Posted by Nicodemus1968

What are your thoughts on;

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

Well, Brother Nicodemus, my thoughts are these. Jesus told her that, if she knew . . .

[10] Jesus answered and said unto her, If thou knewest the gift of God, and who it is that saith to thee, Give me to drink; thou wouldest have asked of him, and he would have given thee living water.

Jesus knew that she’d had five husbands, and that the man she was living with was not her husband. But he said that if she knew who he was, and if she asked Him, He would give her the living water.

This tells me that in spite of her five former husbands, and that she was obviously living in sin, she was eligible for salvation and eternal life.

Going back to husband numbers 1-5 was not mentioned. Jesus would have given her eternal life, if she asked. It’s something to think about. It’s NOTHING like the doctrine being touted by some on here.

That’s my thoughts.

[Nicodemus1968]

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister

Well, Brother Nicodemus, my thoughts are these. Jesus told her that if she knew . . .

[10] Jesus answered and said unto her, If thou knewest the gift of God, and who it is that saith to thee, Give me to drink; thou wouldest have asked of him, and he would have given thee living water.

Jesus knew that she’d had five husbands, and that the man she was living with was not her husband. But he said that if she knew who he was, and if she asked Him, He would give her the living water.

This tells me that in spite of her five former husbands, and that she was obviously living in sin, she was eligible for salvation and eternal life.

Going back to husband numbers 1-5 was not mentioned. Jesus would have given her eternal life, if she asked. It’s something to think about. It’s NOTHING like the doctrine being touted by some on here.

That’s my thoughts.

A women that was living in a sinful life was told that she is eligible for salvation.

I completely agree!

Jesus knew her past, present, and future, and even though she was in that relationship, the Holy Ghost wasn’t withheld from her.

The reason I bring this up, the Lord told her the one your with now is NOT your husband. This doctrine that some believe in this thread, uses this verse to prove that Jesus (God Himself) doesnt recongize the man she is with as a God ordained Husband. Meaning, the 4th and or 5th husband must still be alive, which will disquailify this relationship because the death of the spouse has not occured.