Adultery vs Fornication

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by peter83

yes but he did not say that they can re-marry, neither is possible that he would say something different than the rule which he sets on the previous verse.
He first put the basis for aLL married couple (which is Lord's commandment) and then continue to supplement and deal with the other circumstances .

Uh, he indeed did imply the latter class can remarry. The moral obligation to remain single did not apply to them. Else, his comment makes no sense.

[peter83]

Originally Posted by Originalist

Uh, he indeed did imply the latter class can remarry. The moral obligation to remain single did not apply to them. Else, his comment makes no sense.

his command (not the Lord) was to not divorce them because are non-Christians. he did not say divorce and re-mary. no New Testament verse which suggest remarriage and not a single word like "divorce".
see the text. and then saw me.

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by peter83

his command (not the Lord) was to not divorce them because are non-Christians. he did not say divorce and re-mary. no New Testament verse which suggest remarriage and not a single word like "divorce".
see the text. and then saw me.

He clearly absolves them of the same moral obligations he imposed on those who might initiate a separation. It is clear, grammatically and otherwise.

[peter83]

Originally Posted by Originalist

He clearly absolves them of the same moral obligations he imposed on those who might initiate a separation. It is clear, grammatically and otherwise.

yes he absolves them in the command of the Lord, that is the content!! "7:10 10 And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband:
11 But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.
everything else fits here. no way that Paul would haver a different opinion from the Lord. amen.

[Ehud]

Originally Posted by Antipas

For the remarried... Confess it, get it forgiven, accept whatever sanctions the church determines, and move forward.

It's a simple plan that brings God's mercy and grace to bear on couples bound in a sinful circumstance. But one has to acknowledge this sin before this can be covered and put under the blood.

Good morning, Antipas!

You may have specified elsewhere, and I overlooked it, so my apologies if I am asking you to repeat yourself. When you say one has to acknowledge this sin before it can be put under the blood, do you mean this as literally as it sounds? As in, are you stating that recognition of this specific instance of sin must be made in order to be right with the Lord?

This is hypothetical, but not farfetched -- I am unsure if I am allowed to remarry. I seek the advice and consent of my pastor. My pastor says I am good to go. His instructions are contrary to the stance you hold, and thus I am now in sin. If I go my entire life never hearing your side, will I die lost?

Thank you in advance for your time.

[n david]

Originally Posted by Antipas

accept whatever sanctions the church determines

Paul writes about shunning or avoiding those who continue in blatant, unrepentant sin; however, I have yet to find any Biblical support for the modern tradition of "sanctions" or sitting a person down (as though they're in time out) for a period of time so they may prove themselves before being allowed to minister again.

Paul says if a person has been caught in a trespass, restore them. He doesn't write that the church and Pastor should sit them for 3-6 months while they prove themselves. He simply says the spiritual should restore the person.

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by Ehud

I am unsure if I am allowed to remarry. I seek the advice and consent of my pastor. My pastor says I am good to go.

Pastors are themselves under a lot of peer pressure, and social-financial pressure, to take this position of "good to go" even in situations that Bibllically would call for "standing" for the true covenant marriage. (Yes, even if the covenant spouse is now seemingly 'happily' 'remarried'.) Either alternative precludes the other.

Understand, there are specifics that have to be determined. I am just cautioning you that this is one of the weaker areas of modern pastoral ministry.

[Ehud]

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

Pastors are themselves under a lot of peer pressure, and social-financial pressure, to take this position of "good to go" even in situations that Bibllically would call for "standing" for the true covenant marriage. (Yes, even if the covenant spouse is now seemingly 'happily' 'remarried'.) Either alternative precludes the other.

Understand, there are specifics that have to be determined. I am just cautioning you that this is one of the weaker areas of modern pastoral ministry.

Good afternoon, Steven!

First, if I came off as having disagreed with Antipas and his conclusion, I did not mean to do so. I was actually trying to avoid taking a position, but may have inadvertently failed in my attempt.

The picture I was trying to paint was of someone who was trying to do what was right and was seeking counsel from their pastor. Just to clarify a bit further, I would add to my analogy that if the hypothetical person *knew* he had done wrong, he would readily admit it. That's why my question was whether or not Antipas was saying this wrong needed to be specifically confessed in order to be forgiven (which is how I read the statement), not whether the person was actually right or not.

The reason I ask is that I have a hard time placing people in hell when they make a sincere attempt to do what is right, but simply fail. Many right/wrong aspects of life seem to be inherent in us, but divorce and remarriage isn't necessarily one of them. As can be seen from the nearly 20 pages of this thread, the specifics aren't exactly universally agreed upon. Granted, one side has to be right and the rest wrong, but my question is more of a tangent as to how that wrong gets corrected.

Sorry for any confusion in my posts. (I'm sure this one has probably added to it as well.) I often type like I talk and that can be a jumbled mess at times! Ha!

[Antipas]

Hmmm...

The Pauline exception is drawn from I Corinthians 7:10-15. The first part of this passage is to believers with believing spouses. And Paul states that it isn't his command, but the Lord's...

I Corinthians 7:10-15
10 And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband:
11 But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.

Paul appears to be in perfect agreement with Jesus that divorcees should remain unmarried and that ideally they should seek reconciliation. And in practice, the faithful Christian will never desire a divorce.

In the rest of the passage, below, Paul issues what some call the Pauline Exception...

I Corinthians 7:12-15
12 But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away.
13 And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him.
14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.
15 But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace.

Obviously the question arose in the early church regarding married couples wherein one partner had become a Christian and the other remained unsaved. Paul advises believers to remain with their unbelieving spouses if they are pleased to remain with them.

However, if the unbeliever departs the union, the believer is not to protest or stand in the way. The believer is to peacefully allow them to leave the marriage, i.e. divorce.

The text that the Pauline Exception is drawn from states that the abandoned believer "is not under bondage in such cases".

It is my understanding that the Pauline Exception states that if the unbeliever departs, the believer is no longer bound to the marriage and may freely remarry.

If not being "under bondage" means something else, what might it mean? I'm curious about the different perspectives among us. I'm curious because I believe that marriage is an indissoluble bond. If we can uncloud the waters and explain Paul's words without turning them into another "exception", I'm truly interested to see the possibilities. Because I've been on the fence regarding this exception since I originally heard it.

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by Antipas

Hmmm...

The Pauline exception is drawn from I Corinthians 7:10-15. The first part of this passage is to believers with believing spouses. And Paul states that it isn't his command, but the Lord's...

I Corinthians 7:10-15
10 And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband:
11 But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.

Paul appears to be in perfect agreement with Jesus that divorcees should remain unmarried and that ideally they should seek reconciliation. And in practice, the faithful Christian will never desire a divorce.

In the rest of the passage, below, Paul issues what some call the Pauline Exception...

I Corinthians 7:12-15
12 But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away.
13 And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him.
14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.
15 But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace.

Obviously the question arose in the early church regarding married couples wherein one partner had become a Christian and the other remained unsaved. Paul advises believers to remain with their unbelieving spouses if they are pleased to remain with them.

However, if the unbeliever departs the union, the believer is not to protest or stand in the way. The believer is to peacefully allow them to leave the marriage, i.e. divorce.

The text that the Pauline Exception is drawn from states that the abandoned believer "is not under bondage in such cases".

It is my understanding that the Pauline Exception states that if the unbeliever departs, the believer is no longer bound to the marriage and may freely remarry.

If not being "under bondage" means something else, what might it mean? I'm curious about the different perspectives among us. I'm curious because I believe that marriage is an indissoluble bond. If we can uncloud the waters and explain Paul's words without turning them into another "exception", I'm truly interested to see the possibilities. Because I've been on the fence regarding this exception since I originally heard it.

Overall, I think modern Christianity is too liberal on divorce and remarriage. However, I do see the danger of carrying the "indissoluble bond" teaching to an extreme that consigns a victim to a life of loneliness and temptation to sin sexually. On the one hand, Paul tells one group to marry to avoid unlawful sex. Then a few verses later he is telling another group, "That does not apply to you. You better not get married! But God help you if you fornicate!!" The second group faces the same passions that caused Paul to admonish the first group to avoid by getting married. But the second group is just out of luck?