Divorce and Remarriage

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by n david

Aquila, do you truly believe ALL remarriage is a sin. Because that's what my issue boils down to.

If you believe ALL remarriage is sin, then it's a sin. There is no teary prayer of forgiveness, then get back up and continue living in the sin.

Sin is sin is sin. Period. There is no level or degree of sin. There is no sin which gets a wink and a nod from God or the church.

You're saying it's okay to live in sin as long as you repent. So the guy who's sleeping with his neighbor's wife because he has a human weakness for beautiful women can leave her bed, go to church and cry some tears, ask forgiveness and then get up from the altar and go back to her bed? And that's OKAY?!?

God forbid!

The difference between our approaches is that I believe marriage to establish an indissoluble union. Be it one's only marriage, second marriage, third marriage, or fourth marriage. All are indissoluble unions. All adulterate the first. Divorce doesn't break any of the unions. All are binding. Divorce only allows the two to part ways. It doesn't sever or dissolve the indissoluble union or unions established.

The only way to repent is the cease establishing indissoluble unions that adulterate the first.

[Aquila]

Something can be both sin and binding. The only resolution is to sanctify that which is binding. And not defile the bond again by adulterating it with another.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I never said I don't believe in remarriage. Open your mind to complex logic.

You know that's what gets people upset with you. You flip flop and believe we have some sort of short term amnesia. You said all remarriage is sin. Emphasis on all. You posted enough huey, to solidify that fact of your belief. Now, you are caught in a crack, and see that what you been saying makes you look stupid, and hypocritical. Chris, from what we have all gathered from your postings is that you believe all remarriage is sin. Including the supposed remarriage of your own. You pray for some special grace which that you believe if you were to divorce from your current one it would be another sin. Yet, that isn't how this works. You aren't married according to your teaching. It is sin, and therefore comes under adultery against your ex-wife. That's the teaching you teach. Sorry, boy, but I know why too many people who teach absolutely no remarriage for ANYONE for any reason. Preacher or saint. So, Mr man, you aren't the first nor will you be the last I have ever gone round and round with. In Colombia there is a preacher who wouldn't let you and your girlfriend set a foot under his ministry unless you broke up with your current girl. He would also tell you to go back to your ex-wife it it was possible. Bro, you as per usual haven't a clue on what and why you are holding a discussion. You just love the blood.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

You know that's what gets people upset with you. You flip flop and believe we have some sort of short term amnesia. You said all remarriage is sin. Emphasis on all. You posted enough huey, to solidify that fact of your belief. Now, you are caught in a crack, and see that what you been saying makes you look stupid, and hypocritical. Chris, from what we have all gathered from your postings is that you believe all remarriage is sin. Including the supposed remarriage of your own. You pray for some special grace which that you believe if you were to divorce from your current one it would be another sin. Yet, that isn't how this works. You aren't married according to your teaching. It is sin, and therefore comes under adultery against your ex-wife. That's the teaching you teach. Sorry, boy, but I know why too many people who teach absolutely no remarriage for ANYONE for any reason. Preacher or saint. So, Mr man, you aren't the first nor will you be the last I have ever gone round and round with. In Colombia there is a preacher who wouldn't let you and your girlfriend set a foot under his ministry unless you broke up with your current girl. He would also tell you to go back to your ex-wife it it was possible. Bro, you as per usual haven't a clue on what and why you are holding a discussion. You just love the blood.

Do you have any position that wasn't established in the mid 1900's when the UPCI was formed?

Let me share again what Esaias shared with us earlier. The reference is in relation to elders being the husband of one wife, but we can draw out of it additional information regarding the views of marriage and remarriage commonly held in the first and second century church...

Schaff's Popular Commentary:

The husband of one wife. The emphasis of the numerical adjective shows that the command is restrictive rather than injunctive, but both this verse and 1Ti_3:4 appear to take marriage for granted. It is obvious that in a community much exposed to the suspicions or the slanders of the heathen, this would be a safeguard against many of the perils to which a celibate clergy have always been exposed. What the nature of the restriction was is a more difficult question. Two, perhaps three, solutions present themselves:—(1) That the bishop is not to have more than one wife at a time, and that the permission of polygamy by Jewish teachers (Joseph. Ant. xvii. 1, 2; Justin Mart. Tryph. p. 363 100) and among the Greeks made this restriction necessary, that the higher morality of the Christian society might not be impaired in its official representative. Against this is to be set the fact that polygamy was never recognised as permissible for any Christian disciple, and that it was therefore unnecessary to make it a special condition of any ministerial office. (2) That it forbids all second marriages. The prima facie meaning of the corresponding phrase in 1Ti_5:9, ‘the wife of one husband,’ is in favour of this view, as is the fact that second marriages were regarded by Christians generally in the first two centuries as more or less disreputable, just short of actual sin, or as (e.g. Athenagoras) some did not shrink from saying, a ‘decent adultery,’ and the traditional rule of the Eastern Church as to the unlawfulness of such marriages in the clergy. The bishop was not to be exposed to the stigma that attached to such unions, connected as they often might be with want of power to control sensuous desire, or with the schemes of the fortune-hunter. (3) A third explanation is, perhaps, more satisfactory. The most prominent fact in the social life both of Jews and Greeks at this period was the frequency of divorce. This, as we know, Jewish teachers, for the most part, sanctioned on even trifling grounds (Mat_5:31-32; Mat_19:3-9). The apostle, taking up the law which Christ had laid down, infers that any breach of that law (even in the one case which made marriage after divorce just permissible) would at least so far diminish a man’s claim to respect as to disqualify him for office. This case would, of course, be included in the more general rule of the second interpretation, but the phrase ‘the husband of one wife’ has a more special emphasis thus applied. St. Paul would not recognise the repudiated wife as having forfeited her claim to that title, and some, at least, of its rights.

Let's isolate point (2)…

That it forbids all second marriages. The prima facie meaning of the corresponding phrase in 1Ti_5:9, ‘the wife of one husband,’ is in favour of this view, as is the fact that second marriages were regarded by Christians generally in the first two centuries as more or less disreputable, just short of actual sin, or as (e.g. Athenagoras) some did not shrink from saying, a ‘decent adultery,’ and the traditional rule of the Eastern Church as to the unlawfulness of such marriages in the clergy.

You'll note that while the early church believed second marriages to be disreputable, or a form of ‘decent adultery', they were considered no less binding. And for this reason, elders were expected not to be exposed to such stigma. And so, while mercy and grace was provided for those in such marriages, those seeking the office of bishop were to be free of having such unions.

Yes, there is a higher standard for those holding office in the church.

[berkeley]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I never said I don't believe in remarriage. Open your mind to complex logic. There are two very real realities co-existing. A marriage is an indissoluble union. This union is solidified when one becomes one flesh with another. In the context of a single monogamous marriage, it is a blessed thing. In relation to a prostitute or even a second marriage, it is a sin. It is adultery because one becomes one flesh with another, adulterating the first union.

I believe that second marriages are very real and just as indissoluble as the first. However, if it follows a divorce and the first spouse still lives, it is a sinful circumstance that adulterates the first union. So... even if those in a second marriage divorced... the divorcee is still bound until death to the second spouse, just as they are with the first spouse. Divorce doesn't resolve the issue.

The only way to stop the sin is to bring forgiveness for the divorce and remarriage to the table, and repent - meaning to determine never to divorce and remarry again.

That’s. Not. Repentance.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by berkeley

That’s. Not. Repentance.

That's a very narrow view only popularized in the recent couple centuries or so. Prior to this, the oldest traditions viewed marriage as indissoluble. Even disreputable subsequent marriages that adulterated the first. And so, the only repentance to resolve the issue was... to never divorce and/or remarry again.

[berkeley]

Read my signature. I’m done.

[Aquila]

To understand this theological position one might have to put on a more historical hat that draws on the more Greek and Latin perspectives of the text predating the Great Schism and stretching down to the first and second centuries of Christendom... instead of leaning on the position papers of the "bang-clang", 'Merikun, Penny-cost-alism of the 1940's.

My perspective would have more in common (though not complete agreement) with the ancient Catholic or Greek Orthodox perspectives. I believe that their take on it is closer to expressing the reality of the language in the text.

Marriage = Indissoluble & Holy
Divorce = Sin
Remarriage = Indissoluble & Sin (adulterous)

Repentance wouldn't be to commit the sin of divorce all over again by divorcing one's second wife, because even the second union is just as indissoluble as the first. Repentance demands that one stop the pattern of divorce and remarriage. This ceases to adulterate the union any further with third, fourth, or fifth additional unions.

And while such sin can be forgiven and covered by the blood, and the second union even sanctified in God's sight... it disqualifies one from the office of bishop/elder.

Forgiveness is possible, but consequences are irreversible.

[JoeBandy]

Originally Posted by Aquila

To understand this theological position, one might have to put on a more historical hat that draws on the more Greek and Latin perspectives of the text predating the Great Schism and stretching down to the first and second centuries of Christendom... instead of leaning on the position papers of the "bang-clang", 'Merikun, Penny-cost-alism of the 1940's.

Aquila I like you and I can relate to several of your post. But lately I am beginning to think that you work for paidforumposting.com

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by JoeBandy

Aquila I like you and I can relate to several of your post. But lately I am beginning to think that you work for paidforumposting.com

You mean I could get paid to put up with this?!!!!