Matthew 19:9 Divorce and Remarriage loophole?
Comments
-
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
We've been turning several stones in this discussion. What about the WCF's permission of divorce on grounds of adultery? Wouldn't this be a damnable heresy in that divorce involves unforgiveness, and we must forgive before God will forgive us?
Divorce is not equal to unforgiveness. So no. Jesus allows for this in the passage this thread is about.
Not to mention, the entire mention of divorce by the WCF is void of meaning since it was an OT allowance terminated by the New Covenant.
You have yet to prove this with Scripture.
How can you divorce and forgive? Forgiveness means you do not divorce.
The Old Covenant no longer applies. Only the New Covenant applies to the Church. There is no provision for divorce by a believer in it.
-
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
We've been turning several stones in this discussion. What about the WCF's permission of divorce on grounds of adultery? Wouldn't this be a damnable heresy in that divorce involves unforgiveness, and we must forgive before God will forgive us?
Divorce is not equal to unforgiveness. So no. Jesus allows for this in the passage this thread is about.
Not to mention, the entire mention of divorce by the WCF is void of meaning since it was an OT allowance terminated by the New Covenant.
You have yet to prove this with Scripture.
How can you divorce and forgive? Forgiveness means you do not divorce.
Those words are not synonymous. God forgave David yet his child still died.
The Old Covenant no longer applies. Only the New Covenant applies to the Church. There is no provision for divorce by a believer in it.
Prove your position with Scripture, the New Covenant contains provisions for divorce by Christ's and Paul's words.
-
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
We've been turning several stones in this discussion. What about the WCF's permission of divorce on grounds of adultery? Wouldn't this be a damnable heresy in that divorce involves unforgiveness, and we must forgive before God will forgive us?
Divorce is not equal to unforgiveness. So no. Jesus allows for this in the passage this thread is about.
Not to mention, the entire mention of divorce by the WCF is void of meaning since it was an OT allowance terminated by the New Covenant.
You have yet to prove this with Scripture.
How can you divorce and forgive? Forgiveness means you do not divorce.
Those words are not synonymous. God forgave David yet his child still died.
The Old Covenant no longer applies. Only the New Covenant applies to the Church. There is no provision for divorce by a believer in it.
Prove your position with Scripture, the New Covenant contains provisions for divorce by Christ's and Paul's words.
It does not. The New Covenant replaced the Old, and divorce did not find its way into the New. Paul speaks of unbelievers divorcing believers. But never believers divorcing unbelievers or believers.
-
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
We've been turning several stones in this discussion. What about the WCF's permission of divorce on grounds of adultery? Wouldn't this be a damnable heresy in that divorce involves unforgiveness, and we must forgive before God will forgive us?
Divorce is not equal to unforgiveness. So no. Jesus allows for this in the passage this thread is about.
Not to mention, the entire mention of divorce by the WCF is void of meaning since it was an OT allowance terminated by the New Covenant.
You have yet to prove this with Scripture.
How can you divorce and forgive? Forgiveness means you do not divorce.
Those words are not synonymous. God forgave David yet his child still died.
The Old Covenant no longer applies. Only the New Covenant applies to the Church. There is no provision for divorce by a believer in it.
Prove your position with Scripture, the New Covenant contains provisions for divorce by Christ's and Paul's words.
It does not. The New Covenant replaced the Old, and divorce did not find its way into the New. Paul speaks of unbelievers divorcing believers. But never believers divorcing unbelievers or believers.
Now you are trying to split hairs, divorce is either allowed in certain situations or it is not, and you still ignore the words of Christ.
-
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
We've been turning several stones in this discussion. What about the WCF's permission of divorce on grounds of adultery? Wouldn't this be a damnable heresy in that divorce involves unforgiveness, and we must forgive before God will forgive us?
Divorce is not equal to unforgiveness. So no. Jesus allows for this in the passage this thread is about.
Not to mention, the entire mention of divorce by the WCF is void of meaning since it was an OT allowance terminated by the New Covenant.
You have yet to prove this with Scripture.
How can you divorce and forgive? Forgiveness means you do not divorce.
Those words are not synonymous. God forgave David yet his child still died.
The Old Covenant no longer applies. Only the New Covenant applies to the Church. There is no provision for divorce by a believer in it.
Prove your position with Scripture, the New Covenant contains provisions for divorce by Christ's and Paul's words.
It does not. The New Covenant replaced the Old, and divorce did not find its way into the New. Paul speaks of unbelievers divorcing believers. But never believers divorcing unbelievers or believers.
Now you are trying to split hairs, divorce is either allowed in certain situations or it is not, and you still ignore the words of Christ.
If Christ abolished the Old Covenant, at least the civil and ceremonial law according to the Reformed, then divorce does not exist as an option in the New Covenant. And nowhere does Jesus or the NT writers import it. Divorce doesn't exist in any valid biblical sense. And nowhere do we see Christians not forgiving and divorcing instead. Only unbelievers do this.
-
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
We've been turning several stones in this discussion. What about the WCF's permission of divorce on grounds of adultery? Wouldn't this be a damnable heresy in that divorce involves unforgiveness, and we must forgive before God will forgive us?
Divorce is not equal to unforgiveness. So no. Jesus allows for this in the passage this thread is about.
Not to mention, the entire mention of divorce by the WCF is void of meaning since it was an OT allowance terminated by the New Covenant.
You have yet to prove this with Scripture.
How can you divorce and forgive? Forgiveness means you do not divorce.
Those words are not synonymous. God forgave David yet his child still died.
The Old Covenant no longer applies. Only the New Covenant applies to the Church. There is no provision for divorce by a believer in it.
Prove your position with Scripture, the New Covenant contains provisions for divorce by Christ's and Paul's words.
It does not. The New Covenant replaced the Old, and divorce did not find its way into the New. Paul speaks of unbelievers divorcing believers. But never believers divorcing unbelievers or believers.
Now you are trying to split hairs, divorce is either allowed in certain situations or it is not, and you still ignore the words of Christ.
If Christ abolished the Old Covenant, at least the civil and ceremonial law according to the Reformed, then divorce does not exist as an option in the New Covenant. And nowhere does Jesus or the NT writers import it. Divorce doesn't exist in any valid biblical sense. And nowhere do we see Christians not forgiving and divorcing instead. Only unbelievers do this.
Matthew 19:9
-
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
We've been turning several stones in this discussion. What about the WCF's permission of divorce on grounds of adultery? Wouldn't this be a damnable heresy in that divorce involves unforgiveness, and we must forgive before God will forgive us?
Divorce is not equal to unforgiveness. So no. Jesus allows for this in the passage this thread is about.
Not to mention, the entire mention of divorce by the WCF is void of meaning since it was an OT allowance terminated by the New Covenant.
You have yet to prove this with Scripture.
How can you divorce and forgive? Forgiveness means you do not divorce.
Those words are not synonymous. God forgave David yet his child still died.
The Old Covenant no longer applies. Only the New Covenant applies to the Church. There is no provision for divorce by a believer in it.
Prove your position with Scripture, the New Covenant contains provisions for divorce by Christ's and Paul's words.
It does not. The New Covenant replaced the Old, and divorce did not find its way into the New. Paul speaks of unbelievers divorcing believers. But never believers divorcing unbelievers or believers.
Now you are trying to split hairs, divorce is either allowed in certain situations or it is not, and you still ignore the words of Christ.
If Christ abolished the Old Covenant, at least the civil and ceremonial law according to the Reformed, then divorce does not exist as an option in the New Covenant. And nowhere does Jesus or the NT writers import it. Divorce doesn't exist in any valid biblical sense. And nowhere do we see Christians not forgiving and divorcing instead. Only unbelievers do this.
Matthew 19:9
Yes, and I've already proven the "except clause" is void of meaning. Because the innocent wife, and the man she marries, commit adultery even though she was divorced by an adulterous husband.
And this was OT law now defunct, replaced by the New Covenant where we have no mention of Divorce as an option for Believers. Any divorce is pure fiction, not worth the paper in is written on. ANy divorce = unforgiveness on the part of the one demanding it.
-
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
We've been turning several stones in this discussion. What about the WCF's permission of divorce on grounds of adultery? Wouldn't this be a damnable heresy in that divorce involves unforgiveness, and we must forgive before God will forgive us?
Divorce is not equal to unforgiveness. So no. Jesus allows for this in the passage this thread is about.
Not to mention, the entire mention of divorce by the WCF is void of meaning since it was an OT allowance terminated by the New Covenant.
You have yet to prove this with Scripture.
How can you divorce and forgive? Forgiveness means you do not divorce.
Those words are not synonymous. God forgave David yet his child still died.
The Old Covenant no longer applies. Only the New Covenant applies to the Church. There is no provision for divorce by a believer in it.
Prove your position with Scripture, the New Covenant contains provisions for divorce by Christ's and Paul's words.
It does not. The New Covenant replaced the Old, and divorce did not find its way into the New. Paul speaks of unbelievers divorcing believers. But never believers divorcing unbelievers or believers.
Now you are trying to split hairs, divorce is either allowed in certain situations or it is not, and you still ignore the words of Christ.
If Christ abolished the Old Covenant, at least the civil and ceremonial law according to the Reformed, then divorce does not exist as an option in the New Covenant. And nowhere does Jesus or the NT writers import it. Divorce doesn't exist in any valid biblical sense. And nowhere do we see Christians not forgiving and divorcing instead. Only unbelievers do this.
Matthew 19:9
Yes, and I've already proven the "except clause" is void of meaning. Because the innocent wife, and the man she marries, commit adultery even though she was divorced by an adulterous husband.
You have done no such thing. You have only shown you don't follow the actual passage and which party committed the sin, this throws off your entire interpretation.
And this was OT law now defunct, replaced by the New Covenant where we have no mention of Divorce as an option for Believers. Any divorce is pure fiction, not worth the paper in is written on. ANy divorce = unforgiveness on the part of the one demanding it.
No, simply not true. If it was not applicable it would not have been written after Christ's death.
-
Jesus replaced the Old Covenant on the cross, not before. And then it began phasing out ending at the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70.
We are not under the Old Covenant, and especially the divorce laws tolerated by Moses.
God told us not to let any man put his marriage law asunder. “Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.” (Matthew 19:6) (KJV 1900)
-
@Dave_L said:
Jesus replaced the Old Covenant on the cross, not before. And then it began phasing out ending at the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70.We are not under the Old Covenant, and especially the divorce laws tolerated by Moses.
God told us not to let any man put his marriage law asunder. “Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.” (Matthew 19:6) (KJV 1900)
That's great but you still have to deal with verse 9 and why it was written to Christians in the NT era as part of the NT. You refuse to deal with that because it doesn't match your theology.
So either the Bible is wrong, or your theology is wrong and my guess is that it is your theology and not the Bible.
-
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
Jesus replaced the Old Covenant on the cross, not before. And then it began phasing out ending at the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70.We are not under the Old Covenant, and especially the divorce laws tolerated by Moses.
God told us not to let any man put his marriage law asunder. “Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.” (Matthew 19:6) (KJV 1900)
That's great but you still have to deal with verse 9 and why it was written to Christians in the NT era as part of the NT. You refuse to deal with that because it doesn't match your theology.
So either the Bible is wrong, or your theology is wrong and my guess is that it is your theology and not the Bible.
The Pharisees challenged Jesus about divorce according to Moses. Jesus pointed out how wrong they were. Jesus abolished Mosaic Law on the cross. Even if the Reformed were right about the moral law continuing, which they are not, they still need to justify Divorce continuing as part of the civil law they admit Christ abolished.
You cannot show where any NT authority imported Divorce into the New Covenant. It was a relief valve for hard unregenerate hearts under the Old Covenant. It is not for born-again Christians who forgive all offences, having New Spiritual hearts.
But why are you trying so hard to undo marriages which God tells us to protect, not letting anyone put them asunder? You're approach destroys marriages when they reach their weakest point. This should not be.
-
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
Jesus replaced the Old Covenant on the cross, not before. And then it began phasing out ending at the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70.We are not under the Old Covenant, and especially the divorce laws tolerated by Moses.
God told us not to let any man put his marriage law asunder. “Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.” (Matthew 19:6) (KJV 1900)
That's great but you still have to deal with verse 9 and why it was written to Christians in the NT era as part of the NT. You refuse to deal with that because it doesn't match your theology.
So either the Bible is wrong, or your theology is wrong and my guess is that it is your theology and not the Bible.
The Pharisees challenged Jesus about divorce according to Moses. Jesus pointed out how wrong they were. Jesus abolished Mosaic Law on the cross. Even if the Reformed were right about the moral law continuing, which they are not, they still need to justify Divorce continuing as part of the civil law they admit Christ abolished.
You are the one that claims the moral law does not continue, you need to prove that Scripturally. So murder is ok? Lying is ok?
You cannot show where any NT authority imported Divorce into the New Covenant. It was a relief valve for hard unregenerate hearts under the Old Covenant. It is not for born-again Christians who forgive all offences, having New Spiritual hearts.
Matthew 19:9 If it was not imported, why did Matthew include this? Surely you don't think every word Jesus spoke is in the Gospels.
But why are you trying so hard to undo marriages which God tells us to protect, not letting anyone put them asunder? You're approach destroys marriages when they reach their weakest point. This should not be.
I'm not trying to undo anything, who said that I am? I am trying to properly interpret Scripture.
That being said, it seems you are guilty of the anti-nomian heresy.
-
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
Jesus replaced the Old Covenant on the cross, not before. And then it began phasing out ending at the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70.We are not under the Old Covenant, and especially the divorce laws tolerated by Moses.
God told us not to let any man put his marriage law asunder. “Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.” (Matthew 19:6) (KJV 1900)
That's great but you still have to deal with verse 9 and why it was written to Christians in the NT era as part of the NT. You refuse to deal with that because it doesn't match your theology.
So either the Bible is wrong, or your theology is wrong and my guess is that it is your theology and not the Bible.
The Pharisees challenged Jesus about divorce according to Moses. Jesus pointed out how wrong they were. Jesus abolished Mosaic Law on the cross. Even if the Reformed were right about the moral law continuing, which they are not, they still need to justify Divorce continuing as part of the civil law they admit Christ abolished.
You are the one that claims the moral law does not continue, you need to prove that Scripturally. So murder is ok? Lying is ok?
You cannot show where any NT authority imported Divorce into the New Covenant. It was a relief valve for hard unregenerate hearts under the Old Covenant. It is not for born-again Christians who forgive all offences, having New Spiritual hearts.
Matthew 19:9 If it was not imported, why did Matthew include this? Surely you don't think every word Jesus spoke is in the Gospels.
But why are you trying so hard to undo marriages which God tells us to protect, not letting anyone put them asunder? You're approach destroys marriages when they reach their weakest point. This should not be.
I'm not trying to undo anything, who said that I am? I am trying to properly interpret Scripture.
That being said, it seems you are guilty of the anti-nomian heresy.
The New Covenant totally replaced the Old Covenant AKA the Ten Commandments.
““Indeed, a time is coming,” says the LORD, “when I will make a new covenant with the people of Israel and Judah.It will not be like the old covenant that I made with their ancestors when I delivered them from Egypt. For they violated that covenant, even though I was like a faithful husband to them,” says the LORD.” (Jeremiah 31:31–32) (NET)
“When he speaks of a new covenant, he makes the first obsolete. Now what is growing obsolete and aging is about to disappear.” (Hebrews 8:13) (NET)
This means the New Covenant replaced all of the Old Covenant.
But, as a gentile convert, the Apostles provided this ancient law predating the Ten Commandments for you, and nothing more.
“but that we should write them a letter telling them to abstain from things defiled by idols and from sexual immorality and from what has been strangled and from blood.” (Acts 15:20) (NET)
This is not OT Law. If so, it would require returning to the entire Old Covenant. It is NT law that pre-dates the OT. Genesis 9:4 shows abstinence from blood commanded by God to Noah.
Joshua 24:2 shows the idol worship Abraham's ancestors.
So the point being that since similarities exist in the Old Covenant, they do not place us back under the OT.
And as I said before, The NT writers imported some of the moral aspects of the Ten Commandments that we use for instruction and commentary. But they did not import the Sabbath, or Circumcision.
-
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
Jesus replaced the Old Covenant on the cross, not before. And then it began phasing out ending at the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70.We are not under the Old Covenant, and especially the divorce laws tolerated by Moses.
God told us not to let any man put his marriage law asunder. “Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.” (Matthew 19:6) (KJV 1900)
That's great but you still have to deal with verse 9 and why it was written to Christians in the NT era as part of the NT. You refuse to deal with that because it doesn't match your theology.
So either the Bible is wrong, or your theology is wrong and my guess is that it is your theology and not the Bible.
The Pharisees challenged Jesus about divorce according to Moses. Jesus pointed out how wrong they were. Jesus abolished Mosaic Law on the cross. Even if the Reformed were right about the moral law continuing, which they are not, they still need to justify Divorce continuing as part of the civil law they admit Christ abolished.
You are the one that claims the moral law does not continue, you need to prove that Scripturally. So murder is ok? Lying is ok?
You cannot show where any NT authority imported Divorce into the New Covenant. It was a relief valve for hard unregenerate hearts under the Old Covenant. It is not for born-again Christians who forgive all offences, having New Spiritual hearts.
Matthew 19:9 If it was not imported, why did Matthew include this? Surely you don't think every word Jesus spoke is in the Gospels.
But why are you trying so hard to undo marriages which God tells us to protect, not letting anyone put them asunder? You're approach destroys marriages when they reach their weakest point. This should not be.
I'm not trying to undo anything, who said that I am? I am trying to properly interpret Scripture.
That being said, it seems you are guilty of the anti-nomian heresy.
The New Covenant totally replaced the Old Covenant AKA the Ten Commandments.
““Indeed, a time is coming,” says the LORD, “when I will make a new covenant with the people of Israel and Judah.It will not be like the old covenant that I made with their ancestors when I delivered them from Egypt. For they violated that covenant, even though I was like a faithful husband to them,” says the LORD.” (Jeremiah 31:31–32) (NET)
“When he speaks of a new covenant, he makes the first obsolete. Now what is growing obsolete and aging is about to disappear.” (Hebrews 8:13) (NET)
This means the New Covenant replaced all of the Old Covenant.
But, as a gentile convert, the Apostles provided this ancient law predating the Ten Commandments for you, and nothing more.
“but that we should write them a letter telling them to abstain from things defiled by idols and from sexual immorality and from what has been strangled and from blood.” (Acts 15:20) (NET)
This is not OT Law. If so, it would require returning to the entire Old Covenant. It is NT law that pre-dates the OT. Genesis 9:4 shows abstinence from blood commanded by God to Noah.
Joshua 24:2 shows the idol worship Abraham's ancestors.
So the point being that since similarities exist in the Old Covenant, they do not place us back under the OT.
And as I said before, The NT writers imported some of the moral aspects of the Ten Commandments that we use for instruction and commentary. But they did not import the Sabbath, or Circumcision.
Ok, I've shown you biblically that you are absolutely wrong but you continue. That's fine, choose what you may, but it doesn't make it correct. Where do you get this theology anyway?
-
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
Jesus replaced the Old Covenant on the cross, not before. And then it began phasing out ending at the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70.We are not under the Old Covenant, and especially the divorce laws tolerated by Moses.
God told us not to let any man put his marriage law asunder. “Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.” (Matthew 19:6) (KJV 1900)
That's great but you still have to deal with verse 9 and why it was written to Christians in the NT era as part of the NT. You refuse to deal with that because it doesn't match your theology.
So either the Bible is wrong, or your theology is wrong and my guess is that it is your theology and not the Bible.
The Pharisees challenged Jesus about divorce according to Moses. Jesus pointed out how wrong they were. Jesus abolished Mosaic Law on the cross. Even if the Reformed were right about the moral law continuing, which they are not, they still need to justify Divorce continuing as part of the civil law they admit Christ abolished.
You are the one that claims the moral law does not continue, you need to prove that Scripturally. So murder is ok? Lying is ok?
You cannot show where any NT authority imported Divorce into the New Covenant. It was a relief valve for hard unregenerate hearts under the Old Covenant. It is not for born-again Christians who forgive all offences, having New Spiritual hearts.
Matthew 19:9 If it was not imported, why did Matthew include this? Surely you don't think every word Jesus spoke is in the Gospels.
But why are you trying so hard to undo marriages which God tells us to protect, not letting anyone put them asunder? You're approach destroys marriages when they reach their weakest point. This should not be.
I'm not trying to undo anything, who said that I am? I am trying to properly interpret Scripture.
That being said, it seems you are guilty of the anti-nomian heresy.
The New Covenant totally replaced the Old Covenant AKA the Ten Commandments.
““Indeed, a time is coming,” says the LORD, “when I will make a new covenant with the people of Israel and Judah.It will not be like the old covenant that I made with their ancestors when I delivered them from Egypt. For they violated that covenant, even though I was like a faithful husband to them,” says the LORD.” (Jeremiah 31:31–32) (NET)
“When he speaks of a new covenant, he makes the first obsolete. Now what is growing obsolete and aging is about to disappear.” (Hebrews 8:13) (NET)
This means the New Covenant replaced all of the Old Covenant.
But, as a gentile convert, the Apostles provided this ancient law predating the Ten Commandments for you, and nothing more.
“but that we should write them a letter telling them to abstain from things defiled by idols and from sexual immorality and from what has been strangled and from blood.” (Acts 15:20) (NET)
This is not OT Law. If so, it would require returning to the entire Old Covenant. It is NT law that pre-dates the OT. Genesis 9:4 shows abstinence from blood commanded by God to Noah.
Joshua 24:2 shows the idol worship Abraham's ancestors.
So the point being that since similarities exist in the Old Covenant, they do not place us back under the OT.
And as I said before, The NT writers imported some of the moral aspects of the Ten Commandments that we use for instruction and commentary. But they did not import the Sabbath, or Circumcision.
Ok, I've shown you biblically that you are absolutely wrong but you continue. That's fine, choose what you may, but it doesn't make it correct. Where do you get this theology anyway?
Jeremiah and Hebrews say I'm right. I'm not alone in this Theology. Consider the Protestant Reformed Church and their views on Divorce and Remarriage. Albertus Pieters (western Reformed Theological seminary), especially "The Seed of Abraham" as far as the law being totally abolished. Many other sources as well. But especially the clear teaching of Scripture.
