J
jay29
Guest
Why is it acceptable for Protestants to get married and divorced and get married again in defiance of what Christ said? What is the rationale? Adultery is plain as day in scripture…
- Status
S
Steadfast
Guest
Protestants believe the Bible to make an exception for divorce when one of the spouses has been unfaithful.
See Matthew 19:9, which reads:
See Matthew 19:9, which reads:
Most conservative Protestants do not permit, or would not permit, at-will divorce, but in this regard they are in pretty much the same boat as Catholics: they can say what they want, people are still getting divorced.
J
jay29
Guest
Why don’t they consider the remarriage part NOT adultery?
M
mommyof4
Guest
Because the bottom line is that human beings want to do what we want to do. We justify, rationalize, and tell ourselves that none of it matters, “God will understand why I did what I did.”
M
monorail
Guest
Hi.
This doesn’t answer your question, but I think it is an interesting sidenote. The Douay-Rheims commentary on that verse is (emphasis mine)
This doesn’t answer your question, but I think it is an interesting sidenote. The Douay-Rheims commentary on that verse is (emphasis mine)
G
Gabriel_of_12
Guest
Looks like you might be starting one? For clarificatioin; the meaning of marriage to both Catholic and Protestant should be mentioned first.
To the Catholic Marriage is a sacrament. It is sacred, and is only conducted in the house of God. It is the exchange of vows between a man and woman only, before witnesses, and a Priest. This vow taking is made before God, it is here that it is said, “what God has put together let no man put asunder”. Marriage between a Man and Woman unites them and they become One. This marriage is a symbol between Jesus and his bride the Catholic church, where the two are made one, thus Jesus the head of the church in heaven, and the Catholic church is the body of Christ on earth; where both binding and losing, closing and opening takes place in the kingdom.
This is why the Catholic church does not allow divorce. Because Jesus would not divorce his bride the Church. Even though Peter may deny him 3 times, or Saul persecute the Church, Jesus forgives his bride 7x’s 70 times. Marriage between a man and a woman is called the domestic church by the Catholic church. Marriage has a head (Husband) a body (Wife) both are one, and they procreate according to Gods’ will, and they bear a child. This has symbolism to the blessed Trinity.
Now you may get different opinions about Marriage these days from different faiths outside the Catholic church.It would be interesting to see how many view Marriage as sacred before God, where divorce is not allowed. I have seen and heard of the some new ways of getting married, For example, marriages being conducted at Mickey Mouses house, Jumping out of planes, Gay marriages, etc.
I thought I should mention also, that if anyone is in a pickle about divorce, Marriage a second time, these circumstances can be resolved by speaking to a local priest. Sometimes the Marriage was never valid if done outside the Catholic church.
Peace
S
Steadfast
Guest
Because the passage in Matthew that I quoted makes no proscription against remarriage for the offended spouse.
T
teancum79
Guest
I think it is also worth noting that different groups have different views on the forgiveness process. Some may not think its “ok”, but that it is very forgivable. Kind of like the you’ll get forgiveness for things you’ll never get permission for.
L
LutheranDK
Guest
But you forget what God commands through Paul in
1 Cor 7:10-11, it seems:
“And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband:
But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife”
I can’t see an opening for remarriage for anyone?
And Christ, in Matt, allows divorce in case of adultery, but does not give the right to remarry. Not any way I can see anyway.
L
LutheranDK
Guest
Indeed - and I would also say that not all protestants believe that such an exeption exists. I, for one, do not anyway, and I don’t think I’m the only one.
E
elvisman
Guest
This is a man-made tradition
Let’s see what Jesus said before Matt. 9:19.
Matt. 19:4-7
**He said in reply, “Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female’ ****and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? **
**So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, no human being must separate.” **
**They said to him, “Then why did Moses command that the man give the woman a bill of divorce and dismiss (her)?” **He said to them, "Because of the hardness of your hearts Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.
You cannot “un-become” one flesh. You either ARE or AREN’T. There is no dissolution of a valid marriage.
A
Adam14
Guest
I think that many protestants will say that divorce/remarriage is wrong, and that the bible is pretty clear on this topic. It’s a sin…but so is lying…and everybody has lied at some point. I don’t think too many Christians(Catholic or non-Catholic) would say they accept lying, but it still happens.
I guess the difference here would be that marriage is a sacrament in the Catholic church, and not so in many protestant churches…i.e the whole “all sins are equal” view.
It’s a touchy topic, since unfortunately divorce is so common and on the rise. It hits home for many people.
None of this is meant to be a blanket statement, as there are always exceptions.
I guess the difference here would be that marriage is a sacrament in the Catholic church, and not so in many protestant churches…i.e the whole “all sins are equal” view.
It’s a touchy topic, since unfortunately divorce is so common and on the rise. It hits home for many people.
None of this is meant to be a blanket statement, as there are always exceptions.
A
Adam14
Guest
I’d also like to add…(I can no longer edit my previous post, so I have to make a new one)
Personally, I don’t agree with divorce and remarriage, nor the “all sins are equal” example I mentioned above. I start RCIA this fall, so I now fall on the Catholic side of the fence for this argument. I was just trying to look at the topic from different perspectives. As always, I could very well be wrong…
H
Henning
Guest
Romans 7
2 For the woman that hath an husband
whilst her husband liveth is bound to the law
but if her husband be dead
she is loosed from the law of her husband
3 *Therefore whilst her husband liveth
she shall be called an adulteress
if she be with another man
but if her husband be dead
she is delivered from the law of her husband
so that she is not an adulteress
if she be with another man
2 For the woman that hath an husband
whilst her husband liveth is bound to the law
but if her husband be dead
she is loosed from the law of her husband
3 *Therefore whilst her husband liveth
she shall be called an adulteress
if she be with another man
but if her husband be dead
she is delivered from the law of her husband
so that she is not an adulteress
if she be with another man
S
Swan
Guest
I found an interesting explanation here:
biblicalfoundations.org/?p=154
Note: this is just one section presenting one side on an ongoing debate. Links and comments are on the site for those interesting in doing more reading on this issue.
*Starting with Instone-Brewer’s article (which summarizes several of his much larger works on the subject), for the sake of those unfamiliar with Instone-Brewer’s position, I will first offer a brief summary of his argument and then move immediately to a critique. Instone-Brewer looks at the first-century positions on divorce and remarriage held by the schools of Hillel and Shammai in order to understand the background for Jesus’ pronouncement in Matt 19:9 that divorce is not permitted “except for porneia.” He notes that both views were predicated on a certain interpretation of Deut 24:1. The Hillelites interpreted the phrase in this passage allowing divorce for “a thing of nakedness” or “a cause of immorality” to indicate that divorce was permitted for adultery (“nakedness,” “immorality”) as well as for any other “cause” or “thing.” This, then, is behind the Pharisees’ question in Matt 19:3: “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?” In essence, they asked Jesus whether or not he agreed with Hillel’s interpretation of Deut 24:1. The school of Shammai, on the other hand, interpreted “a cause of immorality” as one single phrase referring to adultery, taking a much more restrictive position on the legitimacy of divorce. In reply to the Pharisees’ question, Jesus gave a resounding “no.” He did not agree that divorce was legitimate “for any and every reason,” as Hillel did. Those who divorced their wife for any reason other than porneia and remarried committed adultery. According to Instone-Brewer, Jesus thus did not reject the Old Testament itself at this point but merely a faulty interpretation of it, defending the proper understanding of Deut 24:1 as allowing divorce for adultery only.
As far as I’m concerned (though not Piper, see below), I say, so far so good. (I do not agree with Piper’s criticism of Instone-Brewer’s use of the Jewish background in this case. Using information on the first-century schools of Hillel and Shammai and their respective views on divorce is a staple of evangelical interpretation of Matthew 19, and rightly so, since the occasion was the Pharisees’ question in Matt 19:3, which clearly reflect their own first-century Jewish context.)
At this point, however, Instone-Brewer proceeds to make an argument from silence. He says that Jesus did not only defend adultery as a grounds of divorce per Deut 24:1, he also “didn’t reject the other ground for divorce in the Old Testament,” divorce for neglect, based on Exod 21:10–11. Instone-Brewer’s logic here eludes me. He seems to be saying that unless Jesus explicitly stated that divorce was not allowed in cases of neglect, we must assume he allowed for it (a classic argument from silence). This logic seems less than compelling to me, however, just as arguments from silence often tend to be rather precarious. How did Instone-Brewer get from an exception (however understood) that Jesus explicitly made to an exception he supposedly implied? (I realize Instone-Brewer says that Jesus did not have to make this explicit, since it was universally believed, but I would still like to see demonstration of a more direct connection with New Testament teaching here.) In terms of contextual exegesis, Jesus was simply addressing a question posed to him (Matt 19:3; see above); hence it seems that Exod 21:10–11 does not enter in to the discussion at Matt 19:9 at all as far as I can see. At this point, then, Instone-Brewer does seem to move from biblical exegesis to Jewish background, and does not have clear scriptural support (as Piper alleges more globally).
In his response to Instone-Brewer’s piece, then, John Piper states at the outset that in his view “the implication of this article is that every marriage I am aware of could already have legitimately ended in divorce.” (As will be seen below, I share this concern, though I do not agree that this requires the “betrothal view,” essentially a “no divorce under any circumstances” position, as Piper seems to imply.) Piper first turns to Instone-Brewer’s reasoning from Exod 21:10–11, correctly (in my view) identifying this as an argument from silence and questioning several other aspects of Instone-Brewer’s interpretation of this passage. Next, Piper turns to Instone-Brewer’s handling of the exception clause in Matt 19:9 in relation to Deut 24:1. Piper contends that Jesus disagreed with Deut 24:1 rather than merely clarifying the meaning of the passage (as Instone-Brewer contends), citing Mark 10:4–9. Instead, Jesus went all the way back to the beginning and reiterated God’s perfect plan for marriage as a lifelong union between one man and one woman. I agree with Piper that this is what Jesus does in Matthew 19, except for the one exception Jesus explicitly states in Matt 19:9 (a crucial point), which Piper leaves aside initially.
But this is the exact point that is debated. I certainly agree that Jesus upheld and reaffirmed God’s original intention for marriage as a permanent, lifelong union, but the crux interpretum here is what is meant by “except for porneia” in Matt 19:9. I contend that in this case (adultery/sexual immorality), Jesus allowed an exception. Piper agrees that there is an exception, but he defines porneia as referring exclusively to breaking an engagement, something for which he has in my view insufficient exegetical and lexical support (see Chapter in God, Marriage & Family). This is not the place to critique Piper’s version of the “betrothal view”; I have done so at length elsewhere, and maintain that what I have said in God, Marriage & Family is the most plausible understanding of the “exception clause” despite Piper’s response in What Jesus Demands from the World (remember that the “betrothal view” is held by a minority and that understanding porneia more broadly in Matt 19:9 has wide support among conservative evangelical commentators). As several individuals commenting at Justin Taylor’s blog have rightly pointed out, Piper’s reading of porneia in Matt 19:9 as exclusively referring to breaking an engagement does not constitute the most natural reading of the word in this passage but rather seems contrived, perhaps reflecting an effort to protect the notion of the indissolubility of marriage under all circumstances (though I am aware that Piper believes his reading is the best way to exegete the passage).
Thus I agree with Piper’s criticism of Instone-Brewer’s treatment of Exod 21:10–11 yet disagree with his criticism of Instone-Brewer’s handling of Matt 19:9 and Deut 24:1. Here, then, is the important point: Piper’s concern that Instone-Brewer “tragically widens the grounds of legitimate divorce” largely pertains to Instone-Brewer’s inclusion of spousal neglect as a legitimate grounds of divorce on the basis of Exod 21:10–11, which I also reject, while it does not equally apply to the understanding of the exception clause as allowing divorce in cases of adultery. The latter is an exception made in continuity with the Old Testament (where adultery was punishable by stoning), and Jesus does not mandate divorce in the case of adultery but merely allows for it. Moreover, adultery is the sole exception made by Jesus (plus abandonment by Paul, 1 Cor 7:15-16) and can be clearly delineated so that it does not amount to opening the floodgates to indiscriminate divorce as Piper fears.
To the contrary, I would ask us to consider whether elevating the scriptural ideal (with Jesus as the bridegroom “who will never divorce his wife and take another,” to quote Piper, citing Eph 5:25) without allowing divorce even in cases of spousal adultery may be going beyond Scripture and thus is pastorally doubtful. I continue to maintain, therefore, that affirming a high view of marriage as Jesus did while allowing exceptions for divorce in cases of adultery and abandonment remains the option that is exegetically most defensible and pastorally most sensible.*
In a nutshell, though, it is a different interpretation of scripture. In the non-Catholic case, this passage is interpreted in light of other teachings on the subject in both the OT and NT and not on this single sentence/instance. It is interesting to me how Catholics point this out as if there are not instances in the NT that seem very clear cut and unambiguous, like the one about Jesus’s brothers, which the RC does not take at their literal, stand alone interpretation yet they have no trouble pointing out this same issue with non-Catholics as if they’ve never done the same thing - and using it as an “example” of some sort of irreverency on the part on non-Catholics. I’ve been both a Prot and a Cath and find this type of insinuation insulting.
biblicalfoundations.org/?p=154
Note: this is just one section presenting one side on an ongoing debate. Links and comments are on the site for those interesting in doing more reading on this issue.
*Starting with Instone-Brewer’s article (which summarizes several of his much larger works on the subject), for the sake of those unfamiliar with Instone-Brewer’s position, I will first offer a brief summary of his argument and then move immediately to a critique. Instone-Brewer looks at the first-century positions on divorce and remarriage held by the schools of Hillel and Shammai in order to understand the background for Jesus’ pronouncement in Matt 19:9 that divorce is not permitted “except for porneia.” He notes that both views were predicated on a certain interpretation of Deut 24:1. The Hillelites interpreted the phrase in this passage allowing divorce for “a thing of nakedness” or “a cause of immorality” to indicate that divorce was permitted for adultery (“nakedness,” “immorality”) as well as for any other “cause” or “thing.” This, then, is behind the Pharisees’ question in Matt 19:3: “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?” In essence, they asked Jesus whether or not he agreed with Hillel’s interpretation of Deut 24:1. The school of Shammai, on the other hand, interpreted “a cause of immorality” as one single phrase referring to adultery, taking a much more restrictive position on the legitimacy of divorce. In reply to the Pharisees’ question, Jesus gave a resounding “no.” He did not agree that divorce was legitimate “for any and every reason,” as Hillel did. Those who divorced their wife for any reason other than porneia and remarried committed adultery. According to Instone-Brewer, Jesus thus did not reject the Old Testament itself at this point but merely a faulty interpretation of it, defending the proper understanding of Deut 24:1 as allowing divorce for adultery only.
As far as I’m concerned (though not Piper, see below), I say, so far so good. (I do not agree with Piper’s criticism of Instone-Brewer’s use of the Jewish background in this case. Using information on the first-century schools of Hillel and Shammai and their respective views on divorce is a staple of evangelical interpretation of Matthew 19, and rightly so, since the occasion was the Pharisees’ question in Matt 19:3, which clearly reflect their own first-century Jewish context.)
At this point, however, Instone-Brewer proceeds to make an argument from silence. He says that Jesus did not only defend adultery as a grounds of divorce per Deut 24:1, he also “didn’t reject the other ground for divorce in the Old Testament,” divorce for neglect, based on Exod 21:10–11. Instone-Brewer’s logic here eludes me. He seems to be saying that unless Jesus explicitly stated that divorce was not allowed in cases of neglect, we must assume he allowed for it (a classic argument from silence). This logic seems less than compelling to me, however, just as arguments from silence often tend to be rather precarious. How did Instone-Brewer get from an exception (however understood) that Jesus explicitly made to an exception he supposedly implied? (I realize Instone-Brewer says that Jesus did not have to make this explicit, since it was universally believed, but I would still like to see demonstration of a more direct connection with New Testament teaching here.) In terms of contextual exegesis, Jesus was simply addressing a question posed to him (Matt 19:3; see above); hence it seems that Exod 21:10–11 does not enter in to the discussion at Matt 19:9 at all as far as I can see. At this point, then, Instone-Brewer does seem to move from biblical exegesis to Jewish background, and does not have clear scriptural support (as Piper alleges more globally).
In his response to Instone-Brewer’s piece, then, John Piper states at the outset that in his view “the implication of this article is that every marriage I am aware of could already have legitimately ended in divorce.” (As will be seen below, I share this concern, though I do not agree that this requires the “betrothal view,” essentially a “no divorce under any circumstances” position, as Piper seems to imply.) Piper first turns to Instone-Brewer’s reasoning from Exod 21:10–11, correctly (in my view) identifying this as an argument from silence and questioning several other aspects of Instone-Brewer’s interpretation of this passage. Next, Piper turns to Instone-Brewer’s handling of the exception clause in Matt 19:9 in relation to Deut 24:1. Piper contends that Jesus disagreed with Deut 24:1 rather than merely clarifying the meaning of the passage (as Instone-Brewer contends), citing Mark 10:4–9. Instead, Jesus went all the way back to the beginning and reiterated God’s perfect plan for marriage as a lifelong union between one man and one woman. I agree with Piper that this is what Jesus does in Matthew 19, except for the one exception Jesus explicitly states in Matt 19:9 (a crucial point), which Piper leaves aside initially.
But this is the exact point that is debated. I certainly agree that Jesus upheld and reaffirmed God’s original intention for marriage as a permanent, lifelong union, but the crux interpretum here is what is meant by “except for porneia” in Matt 19:9. I contend that in this case (adultery/sexual immorality), Jesus allowed an exception. Piper agrees that there is an exception, but he defines porneia as referring exclusively to breaking an engagement, something for which he has in my view insufficient exegetical and lexical support (see Chapter in God, Marriage & Family). This is not the place to critique Piper’s version of the “betrothal view”; I have done so at length elsewhere, and maintain that what I have said in God, Marriage & Family is the most plausible understanding of the “exception clause” despite Piper’s response in What Jesus Demands from the World (remember that the “betrothal view” is held by a minority and that understanding porneia more broadly in Matt 19:9 has wide support among conservative evangelical commentators). As several individuals commenting at Justin Taylor’s blog have rightly pointed out, Piper’s reading of porneia in Matt 19:9 as exclusively referring to breaking an engagement does not constitute the most natural reading of the word in this passage but rather seems contrived, perhaps reflecting an effort to protect the notion of the indissolubility of marriage under all circumstances (though I am aware that Piper believes his reading is the best way to exegete the passage).
Thus I agree with Piper’s criticism of Instone-Brewer’s treatment of Exod 21:10–11 yet disagree with his criticism of Instone-Brewer’s handling of Matt 19:9 and Deut 24:1. Here, then, is the important point: Piper’s concern that Instone-Brewer “tragically widens the grounds of legitimate divorce” largely pertains to Instone-Brewer’s inclusion of spousal neglect as a legitimate grounds of divorce on the basis of Exod 21:10–11, which I also reject, while it does not equally apply to the understanding of the exception clause as allowing divorce in cases of adultery. The latter is an exception made in continuity with the Old Testament (where adultery was punishable by stoning), and Jesus does not mandate divorce in the case of adultery but merely allows for it. Moreover, adultery is the sole exception made by Jesus (plus abandonment by Paul, 1 Cor 7:15-16) and can be clearly delineated so that it does not amount to opening the floodgates to indiscriminate divorce as Piper fears.
To the contrary, I would ask us to consider whether elevating the scriptural ideal (with Jesus as the bridegroom “who will never divorce his wife and take another,” to quote Piper, citing Eph 5:25) without allowing divorce even in cases of spousal adultery may be going beyond Scripture and thus is pastorally doubtful. I continue to maintain, therefore, that affirming a high view of marriage as Jesus did while allowing exceptions for divorce in cases of adultery and abandonment remains the option that is exegetically most defensible and pastorally most sensible.*
In a nutshell, though, it is a different interpretation of scripture. In the non-Catholic case, this passage is interpreted in light of other teachings on the subject in both the OT and NT and not on this single sentence/instance. It is interesting to me how Catholics point this out as if there are not instances in the NT that seem very clear cut and unambiguous, like the one about Jesus’s brothers, which the RC does not take at their literal, stand alone interpretation yet they have no trouble pointing out this same issue with non-Catholics as if they’ve never done the same thing - and using it as an “example” of some sort of irreverency on the part on non-Catholics. I’ve been both a Prot and a Cath and find this type of insinuation insulting.
C
Claire_from_DE
Guest
I think some protestants look on divorce as a sin. But if they are repentant and confess their sin to God, they are forgiven. They still consider the marriage over, so they can marry again. I don’t say all Protestants think this way but some do.
S
Sepharad
Guest
I always wondered about this, too. When I got into genealogy, I did my husband’s family tree as well as my own.
While doing it, and digging up records, I found out that my father-in-law had been married not once before (as we’d all been told), but twice! The first marriage was when he was 18, in the Navy, and in Florida. Turns out he never even told my mother-in-law about it!
My mother-in-law was a born-again Christian who was raised Methodist but became Baptist somewhere along the lines. I never asked her this but I just never could see how she saw nothing wrong with marrying a man who was previously married but divorced (she did know about the 2nd divorce). It would have been a very personal question and she probably would have seen it as judging her, so I never asked…but it never stopped me from wondering.
In a way though, the fact that annulments are so easy to get in the CC seems to me to be almost the same thing. I knew a few Catholics in the pro-life movement who got annulments just because they wanted them, which to me is wrong (one of them asked me to testify as a witness before the church marriage tribunal and she basically asked me to lie for her and say things about her husband which were not true, so I refused and she wouldn’t talk to me anymore.) But I heard she got the annulment after all.
Isn’t that just as bad?
While doing it, and digging up records, I found out that my father-in-law had been married not once before (as we’d all been told), but twice! The first marriage was when he was 18, in the Navy, and in Florida. Turns out he never even told my mother-in-law about it!
My mother-in-law was a born-again Christian who was raised Methodist but became Baptist somewhere along the lines. I never asked her this but I just never could see how she saw nothing wrong with marrying a man who was previously married but divorced (she did know about the 2nd divorce). It would have been a very personal question and she probably would have seen it as judging her, so I never asked…but it never stopped me from wondering.
In a way though, the fact that annulments are so easy to get in the CC seems to me to be almost the same thing. I knew a few Catholics in the pro-life movement who got annulments just because they wanted them, which to me is wrong (one of them asked me to testify as a witness before the church marriage tribunal and she basically asked me to lie for her and say things about her husband which were not true, so I refused and she wouldn’t talk to me anymore.) But I heard she got the annulment after all.
Isn’t that just as bad?
B
BloodWashed
Guest
Probably one of the most misinterpreted verses about divorce in the Bible is the following:
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.
Many people try to say that “saving for the cause of fornication” is Jesus giving permission to the husband of an adulterous wife to file for divorce. Jesus said no such thing. What he is saying is that if a husband divorces his wife, he makes her an adulterer–unless she ALREADY was an adulterer, in which case she makes herself an adulterer. That doesn’t mean that the husband has the right to divorce her! It just means that if he does divorce her, HE doesn’t make her an adulterer. However, Jesus commandment still remains: “Therefore what God hath put together, LET NO MAN PUT ASUNDER.” Divorce is as wicked as murder, and there is NO BIBLICAL GROUNDS FOR IT.
By the way, this is a Baptist, not a Catholic. Many Catholics consider Baptists to be protestants, but that’s not true because Baptists aren’t protesting the Catholic church because they were never in the Catholic church. As for the question on why do protestants allow for divorce and remarriage, I’m as lost as you are. Saying you can sometimes understand the necessity for divorce is like saying you can sometimes understand the necessity for adultery.
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.
Many people try to say that “saving for the cause of fornication” is Jesus giving permission to the husband of an adulterous wife to file for divorce. Jesus said no such thing. What he is saying is that if a husband divorces his wife, he makes her an adulterer–unless she ALREADY was an adulterer, in which case she makes herself an adulterer. That doesn’t mean that the husband has the right to divorce her! It just means that if he does divorce her, HE doesn’t make her an adulterer. However, Jesus commandment still remains: “Therefore what God hath put together, LET NO MAN PUT ASUNDER.” Divorce is as wicked as murder, and there is NO BIBLICAL GROUNDS FOR IT.
By the way, this is a Baptist, not a Catholic. Many Catholics consider Baptists to be protestants, but that’s not true because Baptists aren’t protesting the Catholic church because they were never in the Catholic church. As for the question on why do protestants allow for divorce and remarriage, I’m as lost as you are. Saying you can sometimes understand the necessity for divorce is like saying you can sometimes understand the necessity for adultery.
H
Henning
Guest
I agree with Bloodwashed,
plus
1 Corinthians 6
9 Know ye not that the unrighteous
shall not inherit the kingdom of God?
Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters
nor adulterers, nor effeminate
nor abusers of themselves with mankind
10 *Nor thieves, nor covetous
nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners
shall inherit the kingdom of God
sounds harsh but…
plus
1 Corinthians 6
9 Know ye not that the unrighteous
shall not inherit the kingdom of God?
Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters
nor adulterers, nor effeminate
nor abusers of themselves with mankind
10 *Nor thieves, nor covetous
nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners
shall inherit the kingdom of God
sounds harsh but…
L
Lil_Cat
Guest
Not all Protestants think that remarriage is ok. I grew up fundamentalist and you get married ONCE (unless, of course, your spouse dies). There were no annulments, either.
- Status