Comment/question
There WERE remarried divorcees in the church in Pauls lifetime.
Response
You can say this a million times, but it doesn't make it so. There's
absolutely no "biblical" evidence of that. Paul was very clearly
speaking of widows who had been married more than once----Lawfully. Paul
already taught that if a woman married again while she had a living
husband, she would be called an adulteress. How long would she be known
as an adulteress? As long as she stayed with the other man or until her
original husband died............
Comment/question
The husband of one wife can only have one meaning,
That is: one wife in a life-time.
The office of bishop was reserved to a man who:
Was the husband of one wife in his life-time.
The widower who remarried was excluded from leadership:
This was also true of the deacon I Tim. 3:12.
Compare: Female Widow I Tim. 5:11,12
1Ti
5:9 Let not a widow be taken into the number under threescore years old,
having been the wife of one man,
1Ti 5:10 Well reported of for good works; if she have brought up
children, if she have lodged strangers, if she have washed the saints'
feet, if she have relieved the afflicted, if she have diligently
followed every good work.
1Ti 5:11 But the younger widows refuse: for when they have begun to wax
wanton against Christ, they will marry;
1Ti 5:12 Having damnation, because they have cast off their first faith.
Please Note: The (female) widow was denied support form the local church
if she was the “wife of more than one man”. Had she remarried she was
considered to have “waxed wanton against Christ” … having damnation
because they cast off their first faith... thus she was denied the
support of a widow.
Thus
there was an equal punishment regulation for the (male) widower who
remarried and became the husband of more than one wife… he was denied
the office of bishop, deacon, or other major office of leadership.
Response
How interesting! Thanks for putting that together. I know the RC church
does not allow widowers who remarry to serve as deacons, but it seems in
most all protestant churches, they apply this scripture to remarriage
while one has a living covenant wife or to polygamy. I never could
reconcile either view(the protestant application) in light of the
teachings of Jesus and Paul on the nature of second marriages (adultery)
and in regards to polygamy, because that too, is against the creation
intent of marriage by God. Neither is acceptable for leadership OR
laypersons.
There
are some who teach that because of the "wife of ONE husband" passage, it
proves that there were divorcees who remarried in the church. That
teaching is neither verifiable through scripture, nor through the
historical records writings of the early church. I believe what you
presented is accurate both scripturally as well as historically and
shows how the Lord values a first covenant, though He does allow another
to be entered into when a spouse has died.
Thanks again.
Comment/question
And
even (Jay) Adams admits in his writing that the NT is full of
remarriages...
Response
Yes, I
too would be interested to hear of all these remarriages after divorce
in the NT. The only two I know of that are clearly spoken of as
situations of remarriage while a one has a spouse still living, is
Herod/Herodias (John said this was an unlawful marriage because she was
Philip's wife---he lost his head for saying such), and the example Paul
gives in Romans 7:2-3, in which he teaches that a woman is bound til
death to her husband. If she "remarries" prior to that time, she will be
called an adulteress.
Comment/question
The question being debated is what the first century church
believed i.e. what Jesus and the apostles taught, and most biblical
scholars i.e. people who have studied these passages for themselves, do
not accept that they taught what you believe. By the second century it
is true that remarriage was generally not accepted, but there were
significant differences in the views about divorce and remarriage
between the 2nd and 5th centuries. Some thought remarriage was never
permitted because marriage was eternal i.e. not even death broke the
marriage covenant; some believed that divorce was required when their
was adultery, there were differences of opinion about the consequences
of an unbiblical remarriage, etc... The perspective taught by those on
this forum about divorce and remarriage was not the teaching of the
2nd-5th century church.
Response
I really would like you to back up what you say concerning
the early church. You keep spouting the "differences" of teachings, yet
those of us who HAVE studied what the early church taught/wrote about on
marriage can CLEARLY see that they did not have teachings all over the
map as you portray. They overwhelmingly taught that remarriage while one
had a living spouse (even a spouse who was committing adultery!) is
adultery----a continual state of adultery. They even acknowledged that
it didn't matter if the "laws of the land" said one was married, they
were not married, but living in adultery. These are the very same words
of Jesus.
One thing you did say was true: Tertullian did believe that if one's
spouse died that it was a form of adultery if the living were to marry
again. However, when we go to God's Word what do we find? He was clearly
in error because God's Word DOES give permission to remarry after the
death of a spouse.
You tout over and over about the "majority" of scholars, etc, yet the
plain truth of the matter is this: in the early church (the church right
after the ascension) we find in their writings that they ALL taught the
permanency of marriage until death and they ALL taught that to remarry
before this was to enter into an adulterous relationship (not a lawful
marriage). You can lean on the "scholars" of today, but truth be known
and in my opinion undisputable, the early church did not have the
problems trying to explain away the "uncomfortable" verses that today's
"scholars" have. They had an answer, "ADULTERY", and their answer is
exactly what our Saviour proclaimed to those He spoke with while He
walked this earth.
Comment/question
Shepherd of Hermas (The Shepherd 4:1:6 [A.D. 80]) advocated
that a man divorce a wife in the case of adultery.
Response
The Shepherd of Hermas taught that it was ADULTERY for such
a man to remarry himself---because the marriage bond endured for life.
His definition of divorce was separation of bed/board, not dissolution.
Comment/question
Tertullian (c. 200) believed that marriage within church
was eternal, and death did not break the marriage covenant, but he
accepted the divorce if it happened prior to conversion. (Treatises on
Marriage and Remarriage)
Response
Yes, Tertullian taught other unbiblical things concerning
marriage:
"The Montanists' most illustrious adherent was the great church father,
Tertullian. They practiced a rigid church discipline, banned
remarriage even after the mate had died, approved of
desertion of one's mate for the sake of chastity--all in an
effort to holiness. Serious sins after baptism could not be forgiven.
Montanism (begun in the mid second century) survived only into the fifth
century in northern Africa and into the sixth century in Phrygia."
Comment/question
While Origen (post A.D. 244) believed that all remarriage
was adultery, he didn't believe it was continual adultery. From
(Commentary on Matthew, 14:16 , in ANF,X:506)
Response
Could you provide exactly what Origen did say because in
what you said about Pastor of Hermas (or the website you attained this
info from)? You only provided the part that supports your assertions,
yet had you posted the ENTIRE belief of Hermas, it would be seen that he
did NOT believe remarriage for adultery was ok. It would be seen that
Hermas believed the bond of marriage was lifelong---even in the face of
adultery.
Comment/question
The Council of Elvira 300 A.D. (ibid., cannon 9) stated
that those divorced prior to conversion could remarry.
Basil the Great accepted remarriage for the inocent party (Second
Canonical Letter to Amphilochius 199:37 [A.D. 375]).
Ambrose did not accept the marriage of those married outside of the
faith {To Vigilius, Letter 19:7 (A.D. 385), in FC, XXVI:176}
Response
Interesting that the "evidences" you provide are those of
early Romanism..........hmm, I'll have to look into those a little
further.
Comment/question
Augustine saw remarriage of an innocent party as a less
serious sin than was the sin of someone who had divorced and remarried
without cause. (Adulterous Marriages 1:9:9 [A.D. 419]).
Response
The fact is that he still viewed the marriage of an
"innocent" to another as an adulterous relationship..........whether it
is a "lesser" sin or not is not the issue in light of what the
scriptures teach. We already know that one who puts away their spouse is
charged with guilt if the "innocent" one then enters into adultery
(Matthew 5:32).
Comment/question
What I could not find anywhere in any writings from the
early church was the advocation (or even suggestion) that divorce (from
remarriage) could be used as a form of repentance. As this is a teaching
not given in the bible, nor is it one for which there is support from
the early church, why do you believe this is justifiable?
Response
You must not have looked too hard, because there are MANY
writings by the ECFs who speak of the new "marriage" as not being a
marriage at all, but adultery. There are also numerous writings
concerning those in adulterous unions being prohibited from taking
communion (something the Roman Catholic church still practices today,
though only with the "unapproved" remarriages-----they too have
apostasized by expanding their "allowances" for marriages to be
dissolved and new ones contracted).
When I get the resource I have back which I loaned out, I will gladly
provide you with MANY writings which support what I have stated.
Comment/question
I didn't dispute his (Hermas) belief about remarriage, I
just pointed out his advocation for divorce in the case of adultery.
Response
Personally, I find that very dishonest, (name deleted). You
know very well that Hermas did not believe divorce due to adultery meant
the dissolution of the marriage, so I'm not quite sure why you posted
that unless you were trying to show (falsely) that one of the earliest
writings available supports your position that adultery gives right to
divorce and then a remarriage. As I said, Hermas very clearly wrote that
remarriage even in the case of adultery, is SINFUL---it is entering into
adultery.
Comment/question
The point is that that early church wasn't in unanimous
opinion on the divorce and remarriage issue as those on this forum
continue to insist.
Response
I think I used the word, "overwhelmingly"............pick
any biblical issue you can think of, you will find majorities and
minorities. Those FEW writings in the 1st 300 years AD which you found
are it. The multitude of the ECF are all in agreement that marriage is
lifelong---no matter what and that entering into another marriage is
entering into adultery----a continual state of---hence the rejection of
administering communion to those with living spouses who are remarried,
etc.......if one is remarried and the church believes it lawful, it
stands to reason that the persons involved are perfectly able to receive
communion, no?
Comment/question
I never presented the idea that the Shepard of Hermes
taught that remarriage was permitted, I simply pointed out where the
teachings in that book differed from what those on this forum presented.
And I did provide references to the source of both the quotes from the
Shepard of Hermes, and that of Origin, but here is a direct quote from
Origin. "The Saviour then commanded, 'What God hath joined together,
let not man put asunder,' but man wishes to put asunder what God hath
joined together, when, "falling away from the sound faith, giving heed
to seducing spirits and doctrines of demons, through the hypocrisy of
men that speak lies, branded in their own conscience as with a hot iron,
forbidding," not only to commit fornication, but 'to marry,' he
dissolves even those who had been before joined together by the
providence of God. Let these things then be said, keeping in view
what is expressly said concerning the male and the female, and the man
and the woman, as the Saviour taught in the answer to the Pharisees."
Response
Not quite sure what you are seeing with that quote from
Origen. Seems to me he is addressing those who are "forbidding to
marry", concerning the widowed. The teaching was around then about not
ever remarrying if one has a spouse who dies. Not sure how that quote
supports your view of divorce/remarriage............
Comment/question
But there is a lot of question about whether he (Augustine)
saw this as a sin that would cause a believer to go to hell as taught by
those on this forum.
Response
No, the fact is that Augustine saw a remarriage as
sin---whether one was the "innocent" party or the guilty party. Many
here on this thread say it is not sin. He refutes that position. He's
not a good choice for you to use to support the legitimacy of
remarriages.
Comment/question
I can also find references from some (not all) of the early
church fathers that indicate remarriage is a continuous sin; however, as
I stated, I can find no references that see the advocation of divorce as
an acceptable remedy for this "sin". Can you show me one biblical or
early church reference that endorses the idea that divorce (from
remarriage) is a means of repentance?
Response
Hmm, so you believe the ECF taught it ok to continue in
sin? Where do you think they drew the line, (name deleted)? If they saw
the union as NOT being a marriage in the sight of God, why do you seem
to need to have it written out word for word what repentance would
entail in such cases?
IF any coupling was not a LAWFUL marriage in God's eyes, what would
repentance look like? I think most of us do not have to have it in
writing to know how we are to repent. It is a very simple thing: when we
are in sin, we stop doing what we are doing. I'm pretty sure the Early
church understood that concept quite well.
Comment/question
Actually, I find this accusation wholly dishonest, as I
have already responded to the false accusation once only to have it
immediately presented again. I did not at any time imply or intend to
imply that the Shepard of Hermes supported remarriage, but only that it
advocated divorce in the case of adultery. Repeated again, my contention
is that it taught something different than is advocated by those on this
forum who present the "no remarriage ever" point of view. My quote was
to emphasize those difference as was every other quote I made in that
same post.
Response
Ok, (name deleted), for one thing, those in the "no
remarriage ever" camp, hold differing viewpoints on going before the
UNSAVED to secure a divorce. However, what we ALL hold to be true is
that a divorce obtained does not EVER dissolve the union God joined
together. This is EXACTLY what Hermas taught, so your using him as
"proof" of him teaching differently than the "no remarriage ever camp",
is not warranted. He did in fact teach the SAME thing as many of us
believe.
Comment/question
The only reason I can find for repeating the accusation a
second time is that you want to deflect the conversation from the real
issue.
Response
Oh no, I WOULD like the REAL issue dealt with, (name
deleted). I would like you to provide the scriptures which shows that
the relationships Jesus deemed adulterous are no longer so. You say they
are not adulterous, yet you have not shown scripture to prove that
assertion.
Comment/question
When I pointed out that this statement was "simply untrue"
you challenged that statement by saying "(name deleted), I really
would like you to back up what you say concerning the early church. You
keep spouting the "differences" of teachings, yet those of us who HAVE
studied what the early church taught/wrote about on marriage can CLEARLY
see that they did not have teachings all over the map as you portray."
Response
Sorry, but the fact remains that the teachings of the Early
Church are NOT all over the map as you suggest. The Early Church
OVERWHELMINGLY taught that marriage IS permanent---lifelong---til death
do us part----even in the cases of adultery. Is that what is being
taught in churches today? NO, absolutely not. The churches of today
OVERWHELMINGLY teach that one can come and go in marriage as they like
and that God will join as ONE FLESH, each and every union. Most churches
teach/believe/practice that man CAN separate what God has
joined..........and CAN then enter into a new union...............and it
is NOT adultery/adulterous.
Wow, how far the church has come. The pendulum has swung to the opposite
side and many say, "it is GOOD"...........does the Lord think it is
"GOOD"? I do not believe so.
Comment/question
Augustine specifically refers to a remarriage of an
innocent party as a lesser sin, and again the question I raised isn't
whether Augustine saw this remarriage as sinful (that is acknowledged),
but whether he saw this sin as something that would cause a believer to
go to HELL as you and other on this forum teach, and I would say that
the evidence does not support that contention.
Response
Again, I don't know why you would even used Augustine. He
too does not agree with what you believe. He sees the new marriage as
sin. You do not. What you are now trying to find is some way to say that
those in "lesser" sins are AOK. The truth remains that those who are in
Christ Jesus are called FROM their sin. They are never ok to STAY in
their sin because it is a "lesser" evil. We are not to practice ANY
evil.
Comment/question
While Origen (post A.D. 244) believed that all remarriage
was adultery, he didn't believe it was continual adultery. From
(Commentary on Matthew, 14:16 , in ANF,X:506)
Response
Not true.
"Just as a woman is an adulteress, even though she seem to be married
to a man, while a former husband yet lives, so also the man who seems
to marry her who has been divorced does not marry her, but, according to
the declaration of our Savior, he commits adultery with her"
Commentaries on Matthew 14:24 [248 CE].
I think it's pretty clear that Origen DID believe the remarriage was
continual sin, as he states clearly that it is not a marriage at all,
but adultery.
Comment/question
The Council of Elvira 300 A.D. (ibid., cannon 9) stated
that those divorced prior to conversion could remarry.
Response
Look what they taught:
Council of Elvira
"Likewise, women who have left their husbands for no prior cause and
have joined themselves with others, may not even at death receive
communion"
ie: remarriage=continual adultery
Canon 8 [300 CE].
"Likewise, a woman of the faith [i.e., a baptized person] who has left
an adulterous husband of the faith and marries another, her marrying in
this manner is prohibited. If she has so married, she may not at any
more receive communion--unless he that she has left has since departed
from this world"
Christians cannot divorce and remarry for adultery. If one DOES
remarry, they are in sin----continually.
ibid., Canon 9.
"If she whom a catechumen [an upbaptized person studying the faith] has
left shall have married a husband, she is able to be admitted to the
fountain of baptism. This shall also be observed in the instance where
it is the woman who is the catechumen. But if a woman of the faithful is
taken in marriage by a man who left an innocent wife, and if she knew
that he had a wife whom he had left without cause, it is determined that
communion is not to be given to her even at death"
remarriage in such cases=continual adultery---communion forbidden
http://theology1.tripod.com/readings/fathersofthechurch.htm
Comment/question
You have repeatedly claimed that the Early church
understood and interpreted the scriptures as you do and have used this
as "evidence" to suggest that the modern church has misinterpreted the
scriptures, but the reality is that the teachings unique to those on
this forum who teach "no remarriage ever" were simply not supported by
the early church. You say that "those in the "no remarriage ever"
camp hold differing viewpoints", but when the views of those like John
Piper are addressed who also believes in "no remarriage" but differs on
many of the details that those on this forum teach is teaching (and even
his faith) is questioned.
Response
What is the big difference in what you teach as truth and
what I believe is truth: the nature of the second union. Is it continual
adultery, or is the adultery a one time sin? I say they are not
marriages, but adultery in the sight of God. Scripture supports that
view. You say a new vow dissolves a previous one. You have no scripture
which supports your view.
The truth is, and you even helped support this with what you posted(and
what you failed to post which I had to dig up), the early church
OVERWHELMINGLY believed unlawful marriages were not true
marriages, but adultery----continual adultery.
The modern church OVERWHELMINGLY teaches that new marriages are NOT
adultery. Who has scripture on their side-----the Early Church or the
Modern Day Westernized Church? I think the lack of being able to provide
scriptures showing the legitimacy of second marriages speaks volumes as
to who did/are actually teaching truth on the matter.
As for Mr. Piper, I would not put him in the "no remarriage" camp. He
DOES believe remarriage is ok----after it has been entered into, so his
conclusions are no different than the rest of most of Western
Churchianity.
Comment/question
You continually insist that your understanding is based on
the understanding of the early church, but then present doctrines they
didn't teach.
Response
No, I have NEVER insisted that my understanding is based on
the ECF's teachings.........never, but good try. What I have stated is
that AFTER I came to my present belief through MUCH study of the
scriptures, with a concordance in hand, I THEN went to see what it was
that the ECF taught/believed about MDR. That is quite different than
what you said.
Not to be tit for tat here, but you are the one who consistantly refers
to the reformation church leaders (who I don't think you would want to
truly align yourself with if we were to paste here what they REALLY said
on this issue and their justifications for changing the
practices/teachings of the church) and the majority of
teachers/theologians of today and what THEY believe. You seem to be
quite incredulous that others would not join with them in their
beliefs/teachings because they are many, and you feel they are
"studied"..............
Yet, put them back in the 1st/2nd century church and they would have
been charged with Apostasy for what is being taught to today's
church............
Comment/question
BTW - Most of the rest of us believe that this was the
teaching of the Apostles i.e all the way back to the first century, but
I guess that is what this debate is all about.
Response
You believe the Apostles taught that marriage can be
entered into and exited at will and that God joins together every union.
Jesus taught in His Word that one who divorces and marries another/or
marries a divorced person, has unlawful relations with another man's
wife/woman's husband. You say such "marriages" are lawful in God's
sight, Jesus says that such relationships are adultery.
If I were to ask Jesus Himself if *Agnes*, the second woman married to
*Jim* was the lawful wife, or whether *Ruth*, the first wife was *Jim's*
lawful wife, I could expect to hear Him say that *Ruth* is *Jim's*
lawful wife and that *Jim* and *Agnes* are committing adultery. I say
this based purely on HIS WORDS found in THE WORD of GOD.
Now, we can go round and round about the Early Church Fathers, but the
simple truth for all to see, if they want to check out what the Early
Church said (on the link I provided), is that they viewed the second
union as ADULTERY---ongoing adultery, not a "real" marriage, continual
sin--hence the prohibition to receive communion. You teach the OPPOSITE
of even those you posted. They in NO way support what you speak---that
2nd unions (adultery) nullify the first lawful marriage that GOD joined
together.