Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 4
Posted: 12/21/2005 4:09:08 AM EDT
From The New American Bible.

Mark 10:2 The Pharisees approached and asked, "Is it lawful for a husband to divorce his wife?" They were testing him. 3 He said to them in reply, "What did Moses command you?" 4 They replied, "Moses permitted him to write a bill of divorce and dismiss her." 5 But Jesus told them, "Because of the hardness of your hearts he wrote you this commandment. 6 But from the beginning of creation, 'God made them male and female. 7 For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother (and be joined to his wife), 8 and the two shall become one flesh.' So they are no longer two but one flesh. 9 Therefore what God has joined together, no human being must separate." 10 In the house the disciples again questioned him about this. 11 He said to them, "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her; 12 and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.

Matthew 5: 31 It was also said, 'Whoever divorces his wife must give her a bill of divorce.’32 But I say to you, whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) causes her to commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

Luke 16:18 "Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and the one who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery.

Brief commentary:

See Deut 24:1-5. The Old Testament commandment that a bill of divorce would be given to the woman, assumes the legitimacy of divorce itself. It is this that Jesus denies. (Unless the marriage is unlawful): this "exceptive clause," as it is often called, occurs also in Matthew 19:9, where the Greek is slightly different. There are other sayings of Jesus about divorce that prohibit it absolutely (see Mark 10:11-12; Luke 16:18; cf 1 Cor 7:10, 11b), and most scholars agree that they represent the stand of Jesus. Matthew's "exceptive clauses" are understood by some as a modification of the absolute prohibition against divorce. It seems, however, that the unlawfulness that Matthew gives as a reason why a marriage must be broken refers to a situation peculiar to his community: the violation of Mosaic law forbidding marriage between persons of certain blood and/or legal relationship (Lev 18:6-18). Marriages of that sort were regarded as incest (porneia), but some rabbis allowed Gentile converts to Judaism who had contracted such marriages to remain in them. Matthew's "exceptive clause" is against such permissiveness for Gentile converts to Christianity; cf the similar prohibition of porneia in Acts 15:20, 29. In this interpretation, the clause constitutes no exception to the absolute prohibition of divorce when the marriage is lawful.

I felt it appropriate to include some of the commentary notes, because no doubt someone will try note the differences in the ‘exclusion clause’ as it is translated in the Authorized Version (KJB).
The KJB version which reads:

Matthew 5:32 but I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery

Clearly there is a difference between the translations. Although Tyndale was a primary translator of original Greek and Aramaic texts into English only a few years before the Authorized Version was published in 1611, and much of his work appears unchanged in it, he is not acknowledged officially as ‘the’ translator. In fact, no one knows for sure all the names of those that completed the work.

As the name implies, the Authorized Version, later to be called the King James Bible was ‘authorized’ by James of England, head of the church of England and a staunch anti-Catholic. That lead me to the question as to whether the authorized version’s translation of the exclusion clause for divorce was made under any duress, given that this church was founded after King Henry the VIII, a once-defender of the Catholic Faith, was denied a divorce by The Church. Henry was later excommunicated and formed the church of England with the king of England as its head.

But then again most divorce procedings do not come about due to fornication anyway. So even with the KJB exclusion intact, it still begs the question, "Are there aldulterers in the pews of your church?"
Link Posted: 12/21/2005 4:26:42 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/21/2005 4:26:58 AM EDT by Brohawk]

Originally Posted By TWIRE:


But then again most divorce procedings do not come about due to fornication anyway. So even with the KJB exclusion intact, it still begs the question, "Are there aldulterers in the pews of your church?"



What better place for sinners, than to be in church where they can hear the Word and be led to repentance?

After all, the church isn't for the perfect, but for those in need of forgiveness and salvation (that would be all of us ).

Many self-righteous people have made divorce the second unforgivable sin, after blasphemy of the Holy Spirit.

Are divorce and adultery unforgivable? Obviously, not.

That doesn't mean that they should be trivialized. They are serious transgressions and should be dealt with in genuine repentance. Sin is not to be winked at or ignored.

Also, Jesus taught that if a man looks at a woman with lust, he has already committed adultery in his heart. Thus, it's not just the act, but the condition of the human heart that needs to be addressed.

In answer to your question, yep, there are adulterers in the church. That is, if our sins were to stay with us. However, thankfully, they don't. Some of us have repented and received forgiveness.

There are many characteristics of my pre-Christian life that are no longer part of my lifestyle.

When God forgives us, he doesn't hold back. He doesn't keep a record to use against you later. He says he will remember our sins no more. He casts them into the sea of forgetfullness. Thus, our past sins, which we have been forgiven for, only exist in our memories, not His.

You could plug in any other sin into your question and get the same answer. It's just that some people like to pick out this one to beat people up with.
Link Posted: 12/21/2005 6:26:40 AM EDT
Tagged.

[mandantory protestant cheap shots]


I'm one of those people who has examined the concept of 'annulment' and find it to be an utter farce - so when we speak of divorce, I lump those with annulled marriages right in the same boat.

(Please don't use this thread to show me the error of my ways - I've examined every aspect of annulment, and one more go-around isn't going to change my opinion that it is pure BS)


So when I speak of 'divorce', yes, I speak also of the 'catholic' version.


[/mandantory protestant cheap shots]



Moving on:


I have several close friends who are twice-married (or more).

My dad has been divorced 3 times. (None were his idea)

My mom is on her 5th marriage.

My parents were married from 1974 until 1990 or so.

It greatly bothers me that they both took a casual attitude towards the subject.

Personally, one of my greatest fears in marriage is the sense of betrayal that must accompany the realization that someone is breaking a vow you shared with them. I've felt that before, though the vow in question was not of marital nature, and I know I don't want to feel it again.


Anyway, I think there *are* second marriages that God will bless. But I think they're rarer than we like to admit. I firmly, truly believe that God intended us to have one spouse, one sexual partner, one person to share life with on a level beyond friends and other family, surpassed only by our relationship with God through Jesus. I believe Scripture supports this.


I also believe people can be forgiven for past indiscretions.


Earlier in the year, I dated a very nice young lady who had been divorced. She was, on many levels, a better all-around person than the myriad single women out there who are still young, shallow, and self-centered.


But every time I tried to consider the idea of marrying her, the words of Jesus in Matthew Chapter 5 would enter my head.

As such, she will be the last (and was the first) divorced person I date. For me, I consider that a matter of individual conscience.


Isn't it amazing how so many of life's issues come down to a matter of how to deal with sin?

Amazing that so many people deny the very concept, yet all of our problems are born out of it's consequences......


Link Posted: 12/21/2005 6:31:00 AM EDT

Lets look at some other Catholic bibles:

Douay-Rheims Bible Mat 5:32 But I say to you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, excepting the cause of fornication, maketh her to commit adultery: and he that shall marry her that is put away, committeth adultery.

Latin Vulgate Mat 5:32 ego autem dico vobis quia omnis qui dimiserit uxorem suam excepta fornicationis causa facit eam moechari et qui dimissam duxerit adulterat

Revised Standard Version Mat 5:32 But I say to you that every one who divorces his wife, except on the ground of unchastity, makes her an adulteress; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

New Jerusalem Bible Mat 5:32 But I say this unto you, that everyone who divroces his wife, except for an illict marriage, makes her an adulteress; and anyone who marries a divorced woman committs adultry.


    FORNICA'TION, n. L. fornicatio.

    1. The incontinence or lewdness of unmarried persons, male or female; also, the criminal conversation of a married man with an unmarried woman.

    2. Adultery. Matt. 5.

    3. Incest. 1Cor. 5.

    4. Idolatry; a forsaking of the true God, and worshipping of idols. 2Chron. 21. Rev. 19.




As you can see there seems to be some variation between different Catholic bibles also. I'm sure we agree that adultry/fornication is a sin. I'm not sure we'll agree it's the exception for allowing divorce.

In my church there are former adulterers who have since been saved and remarried. I go to a small church and I'm very confident that no, there are no adulterers in the pews of my church.

Shok
Link Posted: 12/21/2005 7:04:16 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/21/2005 7:06:19 AM EDT by TWIRE]
I didn't post this as a discussion on annulment. Although I see a place for annulment, I am NOT studied on the process and I'm not sure I am comfortable with its application.

One of the thoughts that crossed my mind was the previous thread You Religious People are Hypocrites!" in which (I thought) that most agreed that in order to be forgiven, a sinner must repent. And in order to repent one must turn away from their wrongdoing. Or as I quoted in my post:

"Interior repentance is a radical reorientation of our whole life, a return, a conversion to God with all our heart, an end of sin, a turning away from evil, with repugnance toward the evil actions we have committed. At the same time it entails the desire and resolution to change one's life, with hope in God's mercy and trust in the help of his grace."

So if a person is divorced and remarried, scripturally isn't that person continuing to commit adultery? How can the that person repent and be forgiven if this second liason has been deemed biblically sinful? And along those lines if it is sinful, how can 'second marriages' be performed in a church anyway?

Let's suppose it wasn't adultery. Suppose we go with 'Thou shalt not steal.' Let's hypothetically have a church member, the head of the finance committee or church bookkeeper. This hypothetical person lives fairly extravagantly and is known to have stolen from the coffers. And if asked will respond, "Yes, I siphon off money for my own expenses." I realize the situation is not exactly parallel, but would someone in that situation be afforded the same legitamacy as a church member as a known adulterer?

I'm also NOT saying that divorced people don't belong in church! From a personal perspective, I am aware of the 'beam(s)' in my eye (so to speak, and, no, its not divorce), and frankly sometimes I feel like my communion with the Lord in worship is all I have to hang on to. To attend, worship and ask for mercy and help is part of the plan
Link Posted: 12/21/2005 7:32:22 AM EDT

sometimes I feel like my communion with the Lord in worship is all I have to hang on to. To attend, worship and ask for mercy and help is part of the plan


Congratulations!

You, I, and every other Christian on the face of the earth have soemthing in common.


Like I said, divorce/remarriage isn't my thing. I say that because by the Grace of God, I haven't been there/done that.

Having siad that, I have a really hard time condemning someone who divorces and remarries.

As to whether the divorce and remarriage constitutes a perpetual state of adultery, that I can't answer. I've heard it explained that it was only 'adultery' insofar as it prevented the divorcee from reuniting with the former spouse.

It's one of those issues where I have to admit 'i don't know'.


Link Posted: 12/21/2005 7:39:09 AM EDT
I didn't see the thread on anullment. My first marriage was anulled by the Church [Catholic] and by the state. The state quite a bit easier than the Church. My exhusband initiated the anullment by the state, I with my Church.

My anullment was based on a provision [and I would have to look it up to tell you the exact scriptures since I am not that well versed in exact passages] that since my husband was not a believer and he divorced me for another non believer I was free to remarry.

With that said I pray often that my decision to remarry was God founded and I hope and believe that God will forgive me if it wasn't his intensions.

Patty
Link Posted: 12/21/2005 7:42:09 AM EDT

I pray often that my decision to remarry was God founded


I honestly think there's a world of difference between people who do as you said, and people who just casually remarry.


Link Posted: 12/21/2005 8:08:25 AM EDT

I see what your saying about people divorcing for reasons other than adultry.

    Psa 50:18 When thou sawest a thief, then thou consentedst with him, and hast been partaker with adulterers.


Causing someone to sin is as bad as sinning yourself. Divorcing your wife for the wrong reason makes the women an adulterer and therefor makes both of them adulterers. In addition if the women remarries the new husband is adulterer and so the ex-husband is an adulterer times two. Just one case of adultry is enough to get you stoned in those days.

Why did Moses require written divorce? Why did Jesus go even further? I believe people, then and now, take the marriage covenant too lightly and divorce too lightly. If a man is divorces his wife for the wrong reason and remarries knowing that divorcing his first wife was a sin but does not repent then yes he is an adulterer.

Shok
Link Posted: 12/21/2005 8:32:16 AM EDT

Originally Posted By arowneragain:

I pray often that my decision to remarry was God founded


I honestly think there's a world of difference between people who do as you said, and people who just casually remarry.



Big +1

A relative of my wife married a twice-divorced man a couple of years ago. My wife (despite pregnancy!) was invited to be in the wedding party. The ceremony was to be performed by the groom's father who is a minister, and I believe, he also performed the other two ceremonies! I simply could not justify attending, which in my mind would condone this marriage and trivialize what is supposed to be a sacremental union. Needless to say, I caught a little flak over that, but luckily NOT from my wife. I think we both consider marriage to be a deep, forever commitment. She was in an unfortunate position with family pressures and such that she couldn't refuse participation. And incidently, my wife is not Catholic (yet).
Link Posted: 12/21/2005 9:21:36 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/21/2005 9:23:18 PM EDT by Dramborleg]
My study of scripture reveals the following:

For divorce to mean ANYTHING at all you must first be a Scriptural member of the Body of Christ.

If you/them/he/she/it are not part of the above and sit in a church pew then divorce is meaningless as you are not Christian and if the Word is True, you are damned. You have no hope either here or in that world which is to come.

Had an old school preacher that basically told us in a sermon, if you are not going to be a Christian... then you best start robbing banks and hosting orgies as you will only enjoy sin for a season... and a short season at that so you best get cracking

Which in a sense is the bottom line. The divorce idea only applies to Christians who are married to other Christians.

The Apostle Paul makes this ultimately clear in the following statement:

1Co:7:12: 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.
1Co:7:13: And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him.
1Co:7:14: 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.
1Co:7:15: 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.

So, if I were to marry say a Shintoist, or a Mormon or even a Catholic... all of which are not scriptural Christians... and a divorce was to occur (heaven forbid) then it would not be held against me. I would be free to remarry and hopefully to a Christian.

Paul is extremely plain spoken in the scripture cited above.

Christian + Christian = No Divorce

Christian + Whatever = Divorce with no eternal consequences for the Christian.

Very simple frankly.

Its all there in scripture.

Dram out

Link Posted: 12/21/2005 9:23:49 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Brohawk:
Also, Jesus taught that if a man looks at a woman with lust, he has already committed adultery in his heart. Thus, it's not just the act, but the condition of the human heart that needs to be addressed.




Oh God....... Forgive me.......
Link Posted: 12/22/2005 4:22:52 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/22/2005 4:26:24 AM EDT by TWIRE]

Originally Posted By Dramborleg:
So, if I were to marry say a Shintoist, or a Mormon or even a Catholic... all of which are not scriptural Christians...



You never quit.

You need to define for all how a Catholic does not fit definition of a 'scriptural Christian,' I could even accept the statement if it read 'which I (Dram) believe are not scriptural Christians. Either way it goes back to an earlier thread where despite a DIRECT question you would not admit that you believed all Catholics are damned. But thanks to this latest post you have finally admitted it.

Let's review:

"If you/them/he/she/it are not part of the above and sit in a church pew then divorce is meaningless as you are not Christian and if the Word is True, you are damned."

"...or even a Catholic... all of which are not scriptural Christians"

I have not altered your text. You have finally admitted your beliefs, revealed the true Dram.


Originally Posted by Eric the Hun:

Egads!

What a conceit!

Link Posted: 12/22/2005 4:42:35 AM EDT

Originally Posted By bvmjethead:

Originally Posted By Brohawk:
Also, Jesus taught that if a man looks at a woman with lust, he has already committed adultery in his heart. Thus, it's not just the act, but the condition of the human heart that needs to be addressed.




Oh God....... Forgive me.......



+1.
Link Posted: 12/22/2005 4:50:24 AM EDT
Link Posted: 12/22/2005 4:55:25 AM EDT
Ya! What Brohawk said!
Link Posted: 12/22/2005 6:01:13 AM EDT

Paul is extremely plain spoken in the scripture cited above.



The same Paul told believers not to discard their unbelieiving spouses, too. He did NOT give a license to dump unbelieiving spouses.

Link Posted: 12/22/2005 6:02:58 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/22/2005 6:06:32 AM EDT by Dramborleg]
There was a question on adulterers in the pews.

I answered it with scripture.

Provided a clear and concise biblical framework and inserted an analogy.

I am not hijacking this thread.

You are Twire.

I listed three "religions" that are blatantly and patently non-scriptural as examples.

Do you actually want me to say you are damned?

That is not up to me.

Joh:12:48: He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.

Take it up with the Word friend Twire, that right there is your judge.

I am just a simple 1st Century Christian quoting scripture.

Ac:9:5: And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.

Kinda hard to kick those sharpened wooden stakes eh Twire?



Now to get back on the track before Twire and his hijack attempt on his own thread.

Do you have ANYTHING to add to my commentary?

Dram out
Link Posted: 12/22/2005 6:05:06 AM EDT
Sorry Arowneragain,

Please read the scripture cited.

Free pass.

Pull the cord and bail.

IF, you have to or are the one kicked out.


Please dont make statements that you have not posted scripture to back up.

Dram
Link Posted: 12/22/2005 6:13:52 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Dramborleg:
Sorry Arowneragain,

Please read the scripture cited.

Free pass.

Pull the cord and bail.

IF, you have to or are the one kicked out.


Please dont make statements that you have not posted scripture to back up.

Dram




Sorry, bud; I shoulda quoted scripture:



1 Corinthians 7:


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.

16 For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? or how knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife?



Free Pass?

Baloney!

I'm not ABOUT to treat a woman like she was never married just because her 'mulligan' husband wasn't a believer!

If she's dumb enough to marry him, she owes it to him to stay there, through all his nonbelieving crap, and patiently lead him to the Lord.
Link Posted: 12/22/2005 7:08:05 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/22/2005 7:10:26 AM EDT by TWIRE]

Originally Posted By Dramborleg:
There was a question on adulterers in the pews.

I answered it with scripture.

Provided a clear and concise biblical framework and inserted an analogy.



No, you really didn't answer the question. Let's be direct. In the most holy church of Dramborleg, is a divorced and then remarried person guilty of adultery.



I am not hijacking this thread.

You are Twire.



I don't think any reasonable person would read this thread and your post and come to the same conclusion.

Sorry, you can't come into a thread on divorce, say that non-Christians are damned, that I am a non-Christian, and claim that you were staying on subject.




I listed three "religions" that are blatantly and patently non-scriptural as examples.

Do you actually want me to say you are damned?



You already have.

Do you want me to start another thread on why Dram doesn't believe Catholics are Christians so that you can flesh out your answer? Or do you want to list the criteria that you believe damn Catholics in this one? You choose.



John:12:48: He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.

Take it up with the Word friend Twire, that right there is your judge.


How does that quote apply to me? Apply to the original subject of this thread?

Let me answer. It doesn't apply. Who's hijacking?



I am just a simple 1st Century Christian quoting scripture.



Simple, yes. Was it a characteristic of 1st Century Christians to announce the damnation of their brothers in the Lord? I think not.



Act:9:5: And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.

Kinda hard to kick those sharpened wooden stakes eh Twire?


I've only noticed one prick in this thread and I don't think I would soil the bottom of my boot kicking it.



Do you have ANYTHING to add to my commentary?

Dram out


As for your contention that divorce from a non-believing spouse is allowed, I will admit that its arguable. If you bothered to read Pattymcn's post, that was the very criteria for her annulment. But as arowneragain pointed out. A non-believing spouse is not to be 'dismissed' on that basis alone. Paul stated that the believer in the marriage sanctifies the non-believer (obvious paraphrase, the chapter and verse escape me at present).

Link Posted: 12/22/2005 7:22:35 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/22/2005 7:25:02 AM EDT by Dramborleg]
This is for Arowneragain:


Reading comprehension is vital:

1Co:7:15: 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.


Yep, if they leave there is no problem.


Your personal feelings mean nothing in this situation, save only to you.


If it seems a sin to you, then in seeming so, it in fact IS sin.


So, dont you do it if you think it is sin.


Happy now?


Dram out
Link Posted: 12/22/2005 7:29:19 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/22/2005 7:31:27 AM EDT by arowneragain]

Originally Posted By Dramborleg:
Reading comprehension is vital:

1Co:7:15: 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.


Yep, if they leave there is no problem.


Your personal feelings mean nothing in this situation, save only to you.


If it seems a sin to you, then in seeming so, it in fact IS sin.


So, dont you do it if you think it is sin.


Happy now?


Dram out




Hold on, Dram,


I originally said:



Originally Posted By arowneragain:

Paul is extremely plain spoken in the scripture cited above.



The same Paul told believers not to discard their unbelieiving spouses, too. He did NOT give a license to dump unbelieiving spouses.





My orginal statement is 100% correct and 100% supported by the Scripture I quoted.

Paul very clearly told Believers NOT to put away their unbelieving spouses.


You seem to imply that I said there was a 'problem' if an unbeliver departed.

That is incorrect.

I said that Paul told Believers not to abandon the unbeliever.

It is true that he said 'no harm no foul' to the Believing spouse who was abandoned.



edited superfluous statement for clarity...



Link Posted: 12/22/2005 7:42:46 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/22/2005 8:57:19 AM EDT by Dramborleg]
Twire,

I have merely given examples of non-scriptural churches or man made institutions who have written their own laws and regulations.

Dont like it?

Oh well.


It is plain and true historical fact.


Not supposition on my part.


Those who purport to be the leaders of those groups, save the shintoists, trumpet the fact that they make their own laws.

Brazenly and openly and in full view of the public.


You are either of God and the Word or you are not.


And for you the following scripture:

Ro:10:2: For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge.

Though this was written of the Jews, it equally applies equally well to you and your co-religionists.
_____________________________________________________________________________
As a sidebar, that is the great thing about the Word, it applies to so many different things all at once. Truly a blessing from God. I know of no other book ever written that one can apply so freely to ones life and receive guidance. Awesome
______________________________________________________________________________
I will never seek to forbid you from proclaiming the name of Christ Jesus, as that is forbidden me as a Christian.

But as a Christian I WILL correct you and your fellows at every turn. That is vital to prevent the spread of inherent error. And I have done so repeatedly. Though you arrogantly disagree, and disparage me at every turn, that is your right to do so. Arrogance from you is a hallmark in our discussions, sadly.

Its funny that it is possible to have spirited debate with others who claim Christianity and have no problems.... yet when it comes to cath people, the disparaging personal comments begin.

Hmmm.... funny how that works, eh?


So... back on track to the subject yet again.

Yes, they are sanctified if they STAY. But if they LEAVE, then they are GONE. And Paul says what?

1Co:7:15: 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.


Not under bondage friend Twire.

And what is this annulment of which you speak. There is none contained, that I know of, in the Word.

What is this thing to a Christian?


Dram out
Link Posted: 12/22/2005 7:47:04 AM EDT
Arowneragain,

If the situation occurs... under whatever conditions one might suppose that there is a separation and the spouse leaves.

That is a divorce.

Of course a Christian should not arbitrarily divorce his wife, Christian or no.

But if they leave for some reason. He/she is free from stain.

Period.

That is my whole contention.

I took it as read that a Christian is not to go around dumping his wife for nothing.

Or just for a change of "scenery" as it were. That is inherent in my assertion.



Next question.
Link Posted: 12/22/2005 7:51:32 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/22/2005 7:52:40 AM EDT by arowneragain]
Dram,

Maybe we're 'talking past each other' here.

You say the remaining, believing spouse is 'free' if the *other* spouse leaves.

I say the same spouse is prohibited from being the one to leave.

We're talking about two entirely different situations.




edit:

disregard the above - It was typed while you were posting your last response - nevermind!
Link Posted: 12/22/2005 8:07:16 AM EDT
Um, first. How is a Catholic not Christian? I got that from my baptist mother in law. Personally, I think I follow God's word better than she. Second, I married my husband with the utmost belief that this was forever. And, from what he told me, I believed he felt the same. Fast forward a dozen years, he's cheated, lied, and played me. Does that make me an adulter for leaving him. I truly believe God wouldn't want me or my children to remain in such a relationship. Am I doomed to live the rest of my life alone, because I would be committing a sin to remarry?
Link Posted: 12/22/2005 8:18:20 AM EDT
Personal journey:

1. BC Period: I got married. After about a year and a half we divorced. (Main cause: Adultery on her part. I wanted us to work out the problems and salvage the marriage, but she was unrepentant and refused to stop seeing him."

2. Subsequently became a Christian. My divorce, along with all my other sins, were wiped off the slate. Isn't making a fresh start great? Note: No where does Jesus say "Everything will be forgiven except divorce."

3. In my new life, as a born-again Christian, I remarried. While legally this was my second marriage, I believe it is the first one in the eyes of God.
Link Posted: 12/22/2005 8:22:01 AM EDT

Originally Posted By txwxgirl:
Um, first. How is a Catholic not Christian? I got that from my baptist mother in law. Personally, I think I follow God's word better than she.



Ma'am, you're opening a can of worms with that question.

Suffice to say that many, but not all, Protestants believe that due to the number of doctrinal and practical errors within the RCC, those who are members thereof are not truly 'saved'.

Personally, I think this applies to *part* of the membership of the RCC - but no differently than it applies to *part* of all Protestant churches. Being a 'false Christian' is a concept that transcends church affiliation, IMHO.

Having said that, this thread is a poor place to ask that question. There was a thread last week that dealt with that issue, but it was locked. Maybe you could find it on page 2.....

<­BR>

Second, I married my husband with the utmost belief that this was forever. And, from what he told me, I believed he felt the same. Fast forward a dozen years, he's cheated, lied, and played me. Does that make me an adulter for leaving him. I truly believe God wouldn't want me or my children to remain in such a relationship. Am I doomed to live the rest of my life alone, because I would be committing a sin to remarry?


There's a pretty good explanation here.

An excerpt thereof:



What is the conclusion to be drawn from our study of Matthew 5: 32 and Matthew 19: 9 (also borrowing from Romans 7: 2, 3), who is eligible for marriage according to God's law? From the affirmative, there are three marital circumstances that are acceptable to God.

1. Those who have never been married may marry, so long as they themselves marry an eligible partner, all things equal and understood (Heb. 13: 4).

2. Those who have been previously married but whose former companion is dead (Rom. 7: 2-4).

3. Those who have been previously married but whose former companion was guilty of fornication and was put away by them for this reason (Matt. 19: 9).

From the negative, we make the following necessary deductions relative to those who may not marry with God's approval:

1. Those who have a living former companion who was not put away because of their fornication (Matt. 19: 9).

2. Those who marry anyone who has a former still living mate who was not put away because of fornication (Matt. 19: 9).

3. Those who were put away unjustly or because of their own fornication (Matt. 5: 32).

The simple biblical rule is that if the putting away was not for the cause of fornication, then all that follows is wrong (Matt. 5: 32). If the putting away is scriptural, then only the putting away person has the right to marry another, again, all things equal and understood (the putting away person must not have caused their mate to have committed fornication, for instance, see addendum 5).




It would appear that you fall into category 3(a) above.


FWIW, I have a hard time with 3(b) in the above list (the prohibition against those who were put away unjustly) but if we take it as being 'correct', it is a harsh reminder to choose a spouse wisely.


Thank you, Lord, for not yet allowing me to choose unwisely.


Link Posted: 12/22/2005 8:23:22 AM EDT
How is a catholic not Christian?

That is a totally different subject.

Not the subject of THIS discussion.

If you wish to start another thread, I will be happy to join in.

But, be warned, that Va-gunnut doesnt like us discussing this, as it makes HIM uncomfortable.

And if I am correct, if he does not feel comfortable enough to discuss this in his living room, then it is not allowed on this Religion board. That is my interpretation of his philosophy here.

I will not voice my opinion on his "philosphy" or criteria that is fit for discussion here.

He is Site Staff and cannot be appealed.

And I am not going to get banned because he doesnt like certain things, I will just avoid them.


The usual catholic apologists like to get personal in their discussions of faith, and Va-gunnut finds that a bad thing.

So, only a neutered and gutless discussion could be the possible outcome of a thread on the subject that you would like to entertain.

I am for a knock down and drag out, no holds barred debate on faith. But, sadly that will not be on this board.


Have a great day
Link Posted: 12/22/2005 8:29:29 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/25/2005 8:06:50 AM EDT by JohnTheTexican]
Link Posted: 12/22/2005 8:31:21 AM EDT
Thanks ya'll. Got my question answered. Not trying to hijack the thread.

here's my "catholic" response.
I know I did the right thing, but I still feel guilty about it.
Link Posted: 12/22/2005 8:34:15 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/22/2005 8:37:25 AM EDT by arowneragain]

Originally Posted By JohnTheTexican:
A hypothetical:

Jane divorces Tom and marries Dick. This is Dick's first marriage. After a few years, Dick and Jane get divorced. After a few more years, Dick marries Sally. This is Sally's first marriage.

When Jane married Dick, according to Mark 10:2 she committed adultry and Luke 16:18 says he did too. So does that make the marriage unlawful under Matthew 5:31? And if so, does that make Dick and Jane's divorce and Dick's subsequent marriage to Sally non-adulterous?



You're asking if a series of wrongs make a 'right'?

I believe the answer would be 'no'.

God rarely lets people off on technicalities.....


Which brings up a related question: Is the adultery in marrying a divorced person a one-time thing or a continuing offense? In other words, is the sin in it the act of marrying the divorced person or is it in being married to a divorced person? And if it's the latter, how can the adulterous couple claim to have repented the sin if they stay together?



My understanding (the link I posted a few posts earlier supports this) is that it is a continuing offense - which makes your last question a rather profound one, no?



edit:

excerpt from link:


"…And whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery…" (kai ho hean apolelumenen gamesas moichatai). "And" (kai) introduces clause two and "whosoever" again expresses the universality, no exception. Notice that the contemplated act of adultery is called "marry" (Rom. 7: 3, 4). Hence, there can be a marriage but no marriage bond. The innocent put away is not allowed marriage to another. If one marries her, he "committeth adultery." "Adultery" (moichatai) is third person, singular in number, present tense, and indicative mood (The Analytical Greek Lexicon, pg. 272). The present tense in the indicative mood indicates continuing action; hence, the one marrying an innocent put away person keeps on committing adultery (one can live in this sin, cp. Col. 3: 5-7). Since the marriage relationship itself is biblically unlawful, the conjugal relationship (marriage) must cease.



YMMV.

Link Posted: 12/22/2005 8:34:57 AM EDT
I friend of mine (a Christian) got divorced from his wife, also a Christian.

Later, he married another woman, also a Christian.

Then he felt like he had made a mistake, so he divorced the second wife and remarried the first.

The basic lessons are:

1. Becoming a Christian doesn't make you perfect and incapable of exercising bad judgment.

2. We are helpless and hopeless without God's grace to cover us.

Needless to say, he created a lot of problems for himself and others doing this.


Also, it's so easy to get married. If getting married was as complicated as getting divorced, people might put more thought into it and not rush in.
Link Posted: 12/22/2005 8:35:45 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/25/2005 8:07:03 AM EDT by JohnTheTexican]
Link Posted: 12/22/2005 8:42:09 AM EDT

Originally Posted By JohnTheTexican:


Sounds like someone was reading Deuteronomy 24:4:




Not lately; to be honest, the issue of divorce is one I mainly leave to others - Matthew 5:32 stops me in my tracks. I've never been married. Coming from a 'divorced' home the very idea of divorce scares me to death.

Link Posted: 12/22/2005 10:57:32 AM EDT
More specifically.

If two believers are married and subsequently get a divorce, and the grounds for that divorce are anything other than fornication, have these two believers committed adultery?

Let's say your response is no. If one of the two mentioned above gets remarried, do they commit adultery?
Link Posted: 12/22/2005 11:10:24 AM EDT

Originally Posted By TWIRE:
More specifically.

If two believers are married and subsequently get a divorce, and the grounds for that divorce are anything other than fornication, have these two believers committed adultery?

Let's say your response is no. If one of the two mentioned above gets remarried, do they commit adultery?



It's a fact that Christians do get divorced. In my thinking, it's not a Christian thing to do, but it happens.

I can't condone it, and wouldn't counsel it for reasons of convenience. If a woman is being abused and her life is in danger, I'd be negligent to tell her, "Go back to him and stick it out." That's not an easy situation any way you look at it.

I believe that divorce is a sin.

I believe that Yahweh forgives sin, but His forgiveness is not a cheap "Get Out Of Jail Free" card. Repentance is not optional.

If a person confesses the sin of divorce and seeks forgiveness, they are indeed forgiven. Not sort of, partially, or "forgiven, but..."

After the slate is wiped clean by the blood of Jesus, who are we to continue to hold that one particular sin against a person, especially when such judgment is usually rendered by people with a lumber yard stuck in their eyes.
Link Posted: 12/22/2005 11:36:02 AM EDT
Good question Twire.

2 Christians get a divorce for hating eachothers guts, wife beating, drunkeness, husband beating, reckless spending, etc.

If you truly cannot live with the other person, ie they are threatening to kill you or permanently harm you physically, you should leave. Specifically if they cannot (mentally ill) or will not (evil) halt the behavior and seek Gods forgiveness.

In the specific case of the person threatening your life, they are an apostate Christian and unrepentant. They are then living apart from Christ, and as Christians we are to separate ourselves from unrepentant people.

The victim should leave. Now, if the person is apostate and no longer willing to be a Christian... they are then, in my eyes, no different than any un-saved individual and have no hope. They are no longer Christian. They have publicly turned their back on Jesus Christ and his power to save and help them.

Buh-bye now.

But that is a specific case. Death/Bodily harm.

Now for your run of the mill stuff:

She got fat
She is a slob
She is a spendthrift
She hates your friends
etc
etc

Sorry pal, you picked her. You are stuck. AND you need to get her to Christian counseling to see if she can get back on track.

Its a life long commitment.

Use Christ like patience to try and help her.


So, in the end, you gotta stay and work it out if she stays a Christian.

Its pretty darn clear. Crippled, blind, whatever. You chose to link your life with another Christian and she is not apostate/turned away from Christ, you must stay.

Dram out
Link Posted: 12/22/2005 11:57:40 AM EDT
Thanks for the answers Brohawk and Dram. I would agree on both counts. Divorces happen, no way to deny it. Even among Christians.

Let's go a step deeper into the muck. Is a Christian capable of enacting thoses deeds listed that would warrant dissolution of a marriage? Can a Christian 'lose his witness' and commit those acts against their spouse? Is that what you define as apostate? Was this person ever really a Christian? And (I guess depending on those answers) is the offended party free to marry?
Link Posted: 12/22/2005 12:34:56 PM EDT

Originally Posted By TWIRE:
Is a Christian capable of enacting thoses deeds listed that would warrant dissolution of a marriage? Can a Christian 'lose his witness' and commit those acts against their spouse? Is that what you define as apostate? Was this person ever really a Christian? And (I guess depending on those answers) is the offended party free to marry?



Careful!

Here's where you get into larger theological problems.


I just deleted what was headed for a 5000-word lecture on why that's a dangerous question to ask amongst those of different faiths - short version, because the answers will depend heavily on the church's views on salvation.


For example, a church who believes salvation occurs at death will answer that question differently than one who believed salavtion can be gained and lost throughout life, who will in turn answer differently than a church who believes salvation is a one-time thing.


FWIW, I'm leery of saying that a divorce pre-conversion is any different than a divorce post-conversion; I think they're seen the same way by God, for reasons I won't get into here due to time limits.

I could start a thread on this narrow subject that would go on for dozens of pages - but I'd rather not.


Suffice to say that as you get deeper into questions such as this, you really begin to see how all doctrinal positions are inextricably intertwined with each other (or run the risk of conflicting).




<--has pondered this before, more than once.



Link Posted: 12/22/2005 1:19:15 PM EDT
Twire,

Glad to have a nice discussion

____________________________________________________________________________

Let's go a step deeper into the muck. Is a Christian capable of enacting thoses deeds listed that would warrant dissolution of a marriage? Can a Christian 'lose his witness' and commit those acts against their spouse? Is that what you define as apostate? Was this person ever really a Christian? And (I guess depending on those answers) is the offended party free to marry?
____________________________________________________________________________

Of course a Christian can "lose his way".

M't:13:3: And he spake many things unto them in parables, saying, Behold, a sower went forth to sow;
M't:13:4: And when he sowed, some seeds fell by the way side, and the fowls came and devoured them up:
M't:13:5: Some fell upon stony places, where they had not much earth: and forthwith they sprung up, because they had no deepness of earth:
M't:13:6: And when the sun was up, they were scorched; and because they had no root, they withered away.
M't:13:7: And some fell among thorns; and the thorns sprung up, and choked them:
M't:13:8: But other fell into good ground, and brought forth fruit, some an hundredfold, some sixtyfold, some thirtyfold.


As Christ Jesus illustrated above with the story of the seeds and the sower, it is clear what happens to people with respects to Christianity.

Obviously some people become Christians and for whatever reason, they fall away.

Was their initial conversion sincere? I would easily venture to say yes.

The course is never easy to run. I myself will tell everyone here that I fail abysmally all the time. But, I have been given the ability to seek forgiveness, which I most assuredly need.

So, of course a Christian may commit those deeds.

It is the sincere repentance from these misdeeds and the forgiveness aspect that is the "difference" that will set a Christian vs Christian situation apart.

If one asks humbly for forgiveness and repents of thier misdeeds, turning aside from the path of unrighteousness... then forgiveness is a must. An imperative if you will.

But honestly, what specific misdeeds are you talking about?

I cannot really answer the question without a set of definite circumstances.

Dram
Link Posted: 12/22/2005 1:25:34 PM EDT

Originally Posted By arowneragain:

Originally Posted By TWIRE:
Is a Christian capable of enacting thoses deeds listed that would warrant dissolution of a marriage? Can a Christian 'lose his witness' and commit those acts against their spouse? Is that what you define as apostate? Was this person ever really a Christian? And (I guess depending on those answers) is the offended party free to marry?



Careful!

Here's where you get into larger theological problems.




LOL! No doubt, very large can of worms!

I certainly didn't post those queries in the hope of finding 'the' answer. Just 'some' answers. My overriding suspicion is that most church bodies have some way of resolving that conflict between a proclaimed believer and his un-Christian actions.

As it says in Matthew 19:6..what God has joined let no man put asunder. So if two Christians are joined in matrimony and that marriage fails, did God ever join them or not? Was this marriage blessed or not? I know you are fully appraised of my Church's method and do not approve. I even stated my reservations on that particular practice.

Curious how this philosophical problem is resolved in other Christian churches.
Link Posted: 12/22/2005 1:40:24 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/22/2005 1:50:07 PM EDT by TWIRE]

Originally Posted By Dramborleg:

Of course a Christian can "lose his way".

M't:13:3: And he spake many things unto them in parables, saying, Behold, a sower went forth to sow;
M't:13:4: And when he sowed, some seeds fell by the way side, and the fowls came and devoured them up:
M't:13:5: Some fell upon stony places, where they had not much earth: and forthwith they sprung up, because they had no deepness of earth:
M't:13:6: And when the sun was up, they were scorched; and because they had no root, they withered away.
M't:13:7: And some fell among thorns; and the thorns sprung up, and choked them:
M't:13:8: But other fell into good ground, and brought forth fruit, some an hundredfold, some sixtyfold, some thirtyfold.


As Christ Jesus illustrated above with the story of the seeds and the sower, it is clear what happens to people with respects to Christianity.

Obviously some people become Christians and for whatever reason, they fall away.

Was their initial conversion sincere? I would easily venture to say yes.

The course is never easy to run. I myself will tell everyone here that I fail abysmally all the time. But, I have been given the ability to seek forgiveness, which I most assuredly need.


All fall short...no doubt.


So, of course a Christian may commit those deeds.

It is the sincere repentance from these misdeeds and the forgiveness aspect that is the "difference" that will set a Christian vs Christian situation apart.

If one asks humbly for forgiveness and repents of thier misdeeds, turning aside from the path of unrighteousness... then forgiveness is a must. An imperative if you will.

But honestly, what specific misdeeds are you talking about?

I cannot really answer the question without a set of definite circumstances.

Dram



I don't think which misdeeds led to the dissolution are the real question. I guess what I'm asking is how does one turn away from the misdeed of the divorce itself. If two Christians marry and are divorced and then remarry another, in order to 'turn away from the path of unrighteousness' wouldn't you have to either undo the first or the second marriage somehow, lest you remain in an adulterous state? Or as another post put it, is the remarried person in a constant state of adultery?

There may be too many 'what ifs' to answer specifically, but my previous post mentioned that I was just curious as to how other churches resolved this discrepancy.
Link Posted: 12/22/2005 2:05:19 PM EDT
AHHHHHHHHH.....

Now I now what you are saying. I just did not get where you were going with the question.

If two Christians divorce and each remarries.

It is a no-go.

If you are a Christian and divorce someone for other than adultery or actual death threats/serious beatings... you are in the wrong.

I see no wiggle room.

I suppose if you leave to assume a life of chastity, but that leaves your spouse open to sin because you left her/him.

Bottom line for me:

Infidelity = OK
Murderous/evil unrepentant individual = OK
Just about near everything else... its a NO-GO.

The idea is, if there are two actual Christians, they will be seeking to please God and further their walk.

You cannot be Christian if you:

Purposely anger/pick on/put down/disrespect your Christian spouse without asking forgiveness and repenting/turning away from your misdeeds.

It is not possible to remain a Christian and continue in these methods of behavior that would cause a divorce.

You would have left the path and become nothing. Jesus death for you has become pointless.

Two Christians cannot do things to eachother purposely to cause a rift to tear them apart without leaving the path.


So if you divorce the old lady because she became a fat, money blowing, slob.... you have failed.

And if you remarry, you are sinning with the woman you are married to, and if your ex is remarried... you are responsible for her sin too.

Christians cant cut and run when the going gets tough.


Dram


Man this is an ugly subject. But, due to the nature of society today... it is rather an important one.

Link Posted: 12/22/2005 3:20:43 PM EDT
Remarkably, I agree with you 100%!

Link Posted: 12/22/2005 4:48:03 PM EDT
Wonderful

I just hope you will understand that I really dont have a hatred for catholics Twire.

My best and life long friends are just that.

My moms side of the family is a mixed bag but mostly catholic.

I do not look down on catholics, nor consider them any less valuable than any soul ever created.

I understand that according to the catholic church of today, via you and Loony and Jusadbellum, that the church no longer says you must be catholic to get to heaven. That they are not the only road to heaven.

Now this is greatly at variance with the 1950's era knowledge that I received from my own mother. Born and raised an utterly strict catholic, she said totally the opposite applied when she grew up. Many things you have said, I passed on to my now 1st century Christian mom and she was frankly flabbergasted. Floored actually.

I just wonder, if I may, why is it that my utterly simplistic view of Christianity may, in the modern catholic view, allow me to get to heaven. My view that tries to reflect the native and original church structure in its infancy... if that view will get me to heaven... and it is shorn of all "gingerbread" if I may be so bold. If that will get me to heaven in your view, why the need for all the "gingerbread" that you espouse and believe in?

Would not the merest basics of Christianity suffice to connect me to Christ Jesus?

Believe

Repent

Be buried in Baptism

Ask Christ for forgiveness when I have sinned

Partake of the Lords Supper on the first day of the week

Sing songs of praise accapella (in the manner of the church) when I gather with the saints (other Christians)

Would not these things suffice for even you?

My whole contention Twire, is why is this not sufficient for all?

What need have you for anything other than that?

There sir is the bone of our contention....


No hatred. Just incredulity on my part that we, any of us, should need aught other than these simple things in our worship of the Divine.


Have a happy holiday season Twire,

God Bless us all, as we surely do need it.

Dram out
Link Posted: 12/22/2005 5:05:29 PM EDT
Link Posted: 12/22/2005 7:05:00 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Dramborleg:
Arrogance from you is a hallmark in our discussions, sadly.

Its funny that it is possible to have spirited debate with others who claim Christianity and have no problems.... yet when it comes to cath people, the disparaging personal comments begin.



Pot, meet kettle.
Link Posted: 12/22/2005 7:55:20 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Dramborleg:
Wonderful

I just hope you will understand that I really dont have a hatred for catholics Twire.

My best and life long friends are just that.

My moms side of the family is a mixed bag but mostly catholic.

I do not look down on catholics, nor consider them any less valuable than any soul ever created.

I understand that according to the catholic church of today, via you and Loony and Jusadbellum, that the church no longer says you must be catholic to get to heaven. That they are not the only road to heaven.

Now this is greatly at variance with the 1950's era knowledge that I received from my own mother. Born and raised an utterly strict catholic, she said totally the opposite applied when she grew up. Many things you have said, I passed on to my now 1st century Christian mom and she was frankly flabbergasted. Floored actually.

I just wonder, if I may, why is it that my utterly simplistic view of Christianity may, in the modern catholic view, allow me to get to heaven. My view that tries to reflect the native and original church structure in its infancy... if that view will get me to heaven... and it is shorn of all "gingerbread" if I may be so bold. If that will get me to heaven in your view, why the need for all the "gingerbread" that you espouse and believe in?

Would not the merest basics of Christianity suffice to connect me to Christ Jesus?

Believe

Repent

Be buried in Baptism

Ask Christ for forgiveness when I have sinned

Partake of the Lords Supper on the first day of the week

Sing songs of praise accapella (in the manner of the church) when I gather with the saints (other Christians)

Would not these things suffice for even you?

My whole contention Twire, is why is this not sufficient for all?

What need have you for anything other than that?

There sir is the bone of our contention....


No hatred. Just incredulity on my part that we, any of us, should need aught other than these simple things in our worship of the Divine.


Have a happy holiday season Twire,

God Bless us all, as we surely do need it.

Dram out



Well stated.

I have no point of reference prior to Vatican II since I'm only 40 years old. For years I didn't know that it was actually called the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council. The old school Catholics (like the ones you speak of) always seem to bemoan what was 'lost' from Catholicism in this period (1962-65). Surely there were some things lost, I will admit. But moreso two positive points have stood out for me that are direct results of that council. First, the encouragement for individual study of the Bible, and secondly a visceral call to participate in the world in an ecumenical sense, stressing the unity between Christians rather than what separates us. Read The Decree on Ecumenism if interested.

I have no argument that those 'basics' you listed are sufficient.

I will admit that there have been times in my life when I felt that this faith of my fathers was a burden to carry in life. But as I have grown in knowledge and faith through study of scripture and our sacred tradition, I have come to consider the tenets of Catholicism not as an encumbrance but as a brace or support in my journey. Those things that you see as excessive baggage, I see as a toolbox full of gifts from God that will aid and enrich my efforts to walk with Him.

As I stood in line at our communal reconciliation service (awaiting what was sure to be a whopper of a penance, LOL!) I looked around at some of the older folk there, chit-chatting as they waited to see the priest, and felt a sense of frustration. Such a wondrous gift squandered on folks who were only there to socialize! But that's more fuel for debate in some other thread. And I won't even step into the story i was going to tell about the divorced, female Methodist minister I ran across!

Have a blessed Christmas celebration.
Link Posted: 12/22/2005 8:30:39 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/22/2005 8:39:08 PM EDT by loonybin]

Originally Posted By Dramborleg:
I just wonder, if I may, why is it that my utterly simplistic view of Christianity may, in the modern catholic view, allow me to get to heaven. My view that tries to reflect the native and original church structure in its infancy... if that view will get me to heaven... and it is shorn of all "gingerbread" if I may be so bold. If that will get me to heaven in your view, why the need for all the "gingerbread" that you espouse and believe in?

Would not the merest basics of Christianity suffice to connect me to Christ Jesus?

Believe

Repent

Be buried in Baptism

Ask Christ for forgiveness when I have sinned

Partake of the Lords Supper on the first day of the week

Sing songs of praise accapella (in the manner of the church) when I gather with the saints (other Christians)

Would not these things suffice for even you?

My whole contention Twire, is why is this not sufficient for all?

What need have you for anything other than that?

There sir is the bone of our contention....


No hatred. Just incredulity on my part that we, any of us, should need aught other than these simple things in our worship of the Divine.




Praise the Lord! Honest, sincere, polite questions! Thankyouthankyouthankyou!!

Keep in mind I'll answer them looking at things from a Catholic viewpoint, so I'm not trying to be argumentative or offensive. Just explaining:


Would not the merest basics of Christianity suffice to connect me to Christ Jesus?

Sounds like what C.S. Lewis wrote about. Might I suggest reading Mere Christianity, which he wrote, if you haven't already? Of course, the question still remains, what constitutes the "merest basics of Christianity?"


Believe

Yep, necessary.


Repent

Yep, necessary.


Be buried in Baptism

Holy cow (no, I'm not Hindu), we believe that, too! It's necessary because through Baptism we receive sanctifying grace, which is what is necessary to attain Heaven. Sola Gratia!!!


Ask Christ for forgiveness when I have sinned

Once again, Catholic, except we find instruction from Jesus and also the apostles to do so by confessing them to one of the presbyters/elders (also called priests). When we do this, we receive forgiveness for our sins, and more sanctifying grace. However, since you are not Catholic, you do not have access to a priest to do so, so you are doing the best you can.


Partake of the Lords Supper on the first day of the week

That's what we do at the Mass and we receive more sanctifying grace when we partake of the Eucharist. The Lord's Supper is when Christ instituted the Eucharist, and since a priest is necessary to have the Eucharist, you are not actually partaking of the Lord's Supper. You're having a memorial service with bread and wine/grape juice, but not the Lord's Supper. Thus, you would not be fulfilling one of the "merest basics," and have no way of doing so at the present time. You're doing the best you can, but it is lacking what only the Holy Spirit can work through a priest's hands (because that's how Jesus set it up).


Sing songs of praise accapella (in the manner of the church) when I gather with the saints (other Christians)

While I prefer a capella chant done in Old Slavonic like the Byzantine Rite and the Serbian Orthodox Church do, singing is not necessary and is not one of the merest basics. If it were, then my mother would have no chance of ever attaining heaven, as she can't sing to save her life!


Would not these things suffice for even you?

unto whomsoever much is given, of him much shall be required: and to whom they have committed much, of him they will demand the more. (Luke 12:48)


My whole contention Twire, is why is this not sufficient for all?

What need have you for anything other than that?



Please take what I am about to say as simply an explanation. I already know you don't agree with it, so please don't take it as an attack or something you need to argue with:

Jesus revealed the fullness of Truth to the apostles, and they handed it down, unchanged, through the centuries. He founded a Church, which is His Mystical Body, and set Peter as the visible head of His Church (the prime minister, as it were. Is. 22:15,20-23). This fullness of Truth resides in the Catholic Church, and other religions have varying degrees of the Truth, some more than others. God judges each person based on the light they have been given, and if they don't grasp all the Truth through no fault of their own, then God holds them accountable for the Truth that they can grasp. While you might be able to squeak into Heaven with the "merest basics," you are missing out on so much that God has revealed to us and given us for our salvation, peace, and joy. We must have God's grace to attain Heaven, and that grace comes to us through wonderful gifts from God, called the Sacraments (not to be confused with the gifts of the Holy Spirit, which we receive through the Sacrament of Baptism). We have seven of them through which we receive that grace. You choose to avail yourself of only two gifts -- Baptism and Matrimony (assuming you're in a sacramental marriage -- and we won't tangent to the other thread) -- while we have access to all of them. You might be able to get the job done with a couple tools, but we have more tools available to us and the job creator's representative to show us which tools to use and how, so why not use them all?

An analogy that limps considerably: you might be able to survive passing through the desert on bread and water that you receive from your guide, but why limit yourself to that when you have that same guide offering you a seven course meal during your journey? You're saying that the other food is not from your guide when He is the one who gave it to us. It is more difficult to make it on just the bread and water and I am not sure if you will or not. I don't know if I'll make it or not, but at least I have more access to the sustenance I need for my journey, and I want you to partake of the seven course meal with me and thus be made stronger by more sustenance!


There sir is the bone of our contention....
And we should weep at the division.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 4
Top Top