Adultery vs Fornication

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by peter83

you know what i mean ,i never say that is his opinion. I say that was not the perfect will of God (the divorce) "form the beginning was not so". Moses jsut gave them this law to protect women because of their "hurd hearts".
And for Paul i said that he setts the base upon which he continue give advises:
10 And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord,
12 But to the rest speak I, not the Lord:

so what i am telling you is that :NO WAY PAUL SAY ANY DIFFERENT THAN THE LORD

Paul isn't saying anything different from the Lord. From the beginning it was not so that unbelieving spouses should depart from believing spouses. But they do. And when they do, the abandoned one is under no obligation morally to remain single.

[Antipas]

Originally Posted by Originalist

You are correct. Not all who disagree with this interpretation is trying to justify sin. They simply have a different interpretation.

But let's return to what I actually wrote...

Many believe this position is very harsh. And for those who wish to justify sin... I'm sure it seems harsh.

You will note that I said that for those who do wish to justify sin, there is no doubt in my mind that this position will seem harsh.

[Antipas]

I believe that it is safe to say that God never willed for couples to divorce, let alone remarry another. And that being such, our interpretation of the issue should reflect this perfect will of God.

Can anything be said to contradict the above statement?

[Antipas]

If marriage is an indissoluble bond that is terminated only upon death, the practice of divorce and remarriage currently embraced in American culture is "serial polygamy". The church does well to call attention to this sin and seek to lead the way into bringing confession, repentance, and guidance on the issue.

serial polygamy
1.The practice of marrying and divorcing a succession of individual spouses.

[Ehud]

Originally Posted by Antipas

I believe that it is safe to say that God never willed for couples to divorce, let alone remarry another. And that being such, our interpretation of the issue should reflect this perfect will of God.

Can anything be said to contradict the above statement?

Good afternoon, Antipas!

Your statement and question are very much like the exchanges I have with my buddy at church. I believe it boils down to how the topic is approached. If we are discussing best practices, I doubt you will get much argument. The real question is where is the line on what is actually permitted? Some might take that to mean we are just trying to see how much we can get away with and still be okay, but that isn't necessarily the case. If we attempt to heap perfection on the heads of remarried couples in hopes of getting them to repent, we better be quite sure they have something to repent over. So if the rule isn't as clear cut as it may seem, we should be very careful in its application so as not to turn others away from the Lord.

Not sure if that was the type of response you were looking for, but it's the first thing that came to mind.

[Antipas]

Originally Posted by Ehud

Good afternoon, Antipas!

Your statement and question are very much like the exchanges I have with my buddy at church. I believe it boils down to how the topic is approached. If we are discussing best practices, I doubt you will get much argument. The real question is where is the line on what is actually permitted? Some might take that to mean we are just trying to see how much we can get away with and still be okay, but that isn't necessarily the case. If we attempt to heap perfection on the heads of remarried couples in hopes of getting them to repent, we better be quite sure they have something to repent over. So if the rule isn't as clear cut as it may seem, we should be very careful in its application so as not to turn others away from the Lord.

Not sure if that was the type of response you were looking for, but it's the first thing that came to mind.

I agree.

It definitely isn't the unpardonable sin. So I see no reason to heap unbearable condemnation on the heads of those who have already remarried another. However, I would present to any remarried couple that it wasn't God's perfect will that they remarry another, and encourage some confession and contrition on the issue. From there, it is between them and the Lord.

A more practical application of this would be for churches to not perform weddings involving divorcees.

Those divorcees who wish to remarry another should be handled with care and respect. However, the Scriptures should be upheld. The couple should be advised that God's will is that they reconcile with their spouse. If they cannot for whatever reason (some reasons genuinely are not within their control), and they still wish to marry another, they can be directed to the local courthouse.

Another practical application of this could be not to ordain divorcees. Paul's admonition that a bishop or deacon be the "husband of one wife" could be understood to disqualify one who has engaged in serial polygamy through divorce and remarriage. This one might be touchy too. Because some remarried divorcees might already be in leadership. Certainly a church should move slowly in this direction, allowing for grace and mercy to guide as they return to a position of honoring marriage as an indissoluble union.

[Tithesmeister]

Originally Posted by Antipas

If marriage is an indissoluble bond that is terminated only upon death, the practice of divorce and remarriage currently embraced in American culture is "serial polygamy". The church does well to call attention to this sin and seek to lead the way into bringing confession, repentance, and guidance on the issue.

serial polygamy
1.The practice of marrying and divorcing a succession of individual spouses.

It seems to me that your definition of serial polygamy is a more fitting definition of serial monogamy. If I have a relationship with one woman (in or out of the covenant of marriage) that is by definition a monogamous relationship. If I end that monogamous relationship and begin another monogamous relationship, and I do so several times (or a series of times) that would be by definition serial monogamy.

Monogamy is the practice of having one sexual partner (or one spouse) at a time.*


Serial polygamy would be if I married three wives, then divorced them all and married three more and repeated this a series of times. (series and serial, same base word).

The bottom line is that I believe your definition of serial polygamy is a misnomer.

*Definition from Merriam Webster

[Antipas]

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister

It seems to me that your definition of serial polygamy is a more fitting definition of serial monogamy. If I have a relationship with one woman (in or out of the covenant of marriage) that is by definition a monogamous relationship. If I end that monogamous relationship and begin another monogamous relationship, and I do so several times (or a series of times) that would be by definition serial monogamy.

Monogamy is the practice of having one sexual partner (or one spouse) at a time.*


Serial polygamy would be if I married three wives, then divorced them all and married three more and repeated this a series of times. (series and serial, same base word).

The bottom line is that I believe your definition of serial polygamy is a misnomer.

*Definition from Merriam Webster

Yes, what you're describing is indeed serial monogamy.

I'll explain what makes this circumstance "serial polygamy" instead of serial monogamy.

What would make divorce and remarriage to another "serial polygamy" is the belief in an indissoluble bond that can only be terminated upon death. It is this bond that causes a divorcee to commit adultery upon marrying another.

Luke 16:18
Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.

If one establishes multiple indissoluble bonds with multiple women it is "serial polygamy" seeing that they are bound to their spouse for life, regardless of any sequential changes of earthly legal status.

[Antipas]

Many Christians may not realize that they have been practicing serial polygamy.

But this sin came along with the various exceptions, questions, moral justifications, etc. that became common with the more liberal modern church.

No, it isn't the unpardonable sin, but it is a sin none the less that should be confessed. I believe that Christians should seek to steer the church back to honoring the indissoluble bond between man and wife. I know the discomfort this might cause good and honorable brothers and sisters who have divorced and remarried others. But God is merciful. If we confess our sins He is faithful and just to forgive us, and though the sin be as red as scarlet, those couples who have committed the sin of this serial polygamy can be made white as snow. In fact, many of the holiest men and women of Scripture were in polygamous unions outside of God's perfect will.

[Tithesmeister]

Originally Posted by Antipas

Yes, what you're describing is indeed serial monogamy.

I'll explain what makes this circumstance "serial polygamy" instead of serial monogamy.

What would make divorce and remarriage to another "serial polygamy" is the belief in an indissoluble bond that can only be terminated upon death. It is this bond that causes a divorcee to commit adultery upon marrying another.

Luke 16:18
Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.

If one establishes multiple indissoluble bonds with multiple women it is "serial polygamy" seeing that they are bound to their spouse for life, regardless of any sequential changes of earthly legal status.

I’m not sure where you are getting your definition of polygamy. Let’s think about it. If I marry, and then divorce and re-marry, and my first marriage is (as you say) not dissolved, that would simply be polygamy. (I would have two wives). So where would the serial polygamy occur?

If a bishop is to be a husband of one wife; does that mean he has never divorced?

I don’t believe so, but I know many who believe that. Abraham had several wives as did many of the patriarchs of the Bible. I believe that Paul was talking about having only one wife as in not two or maybe seven hundred (Solomon). I don’t think he meant never having been married prior to this marriage. Maybe I’m wrong.

There seems to me to be some skewed definitions being applied here. I appreciate y’all exercising an abundance of caution in your theology, but words have meanings. We should apply the definitions correctly or we may wind up with the wrong answer.

Check the definition of fornication. It seems important because it is the exception that Jesus allowed.