Marriage/divorce in protestantism

  • Thread starter Thread starter momstheword
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

momstheword

Guest
I’ve been involved for some time in an apologetics discussion, and as we were discussing the consistency of church teaching, this came up, and I thought it should give pause to Bible Christians.
Has anyone ever heard of a protestant church denying two people marriage because they were previously married to another? Scripture is abundantly clear, even in the NT for anyone who thinks the 10 Commandments are old news, that marriage is sacred in the eyes of God, and that He despises divorce. Yet, somehow the Catholic Church (correct me if I’m wrong) seems to be the only institution that takes this seriously, refusing to marry two people if one or both have been married before.
Anybody?
 
I’ve been involved for some time in an apologetics discussion, and as we were discussing the consistency of church teaching, this came up, and I thought it should give pause to Bible Christians.
Has anyone ever heard of a protestant church denying two people marriage because they were previously married to another? Scripture is abundantly clear, even in the NT for anyone who thinks the 10 Commandments are old news, that marriage is sacred in the eyes of God, and that He despises divorce. Yet, somehow the Catholic Church (correct me if I’m wrong) seems to be the only institution that takes this seriously, refusing to marry two people if one or both have been married before.
Anybody?
I never have. In fact, in discussions with Fundamentalists, this is a useful tool – quote Jesus’ words about divorce and ask them if their church allows divorce and remarriage – and then ask them to justify it.
 
I’ve been involved for some time in an apologetics discussion, and as we were discussing the consistency of church teaching, this came up, and I thought it should give pause to Bible Christians.
Has anyone ever heard of a protestant church denying two people marriage because they were previously married to another? Scripture is abundantly clear, even in the NT for anyone who thinks the 10 Commandments are old news, that marriage is sacred in the eyes of God, and that He despises divorce. Yet, somehow the Catholic Church (correct me if I’m wrong) seems to be the only institution that takes this seriously, refusing to marry two people if one or both have been married before.
Anybody?
Since you ask, yes I have.

My previous church (before we moved 10 years ago) would not marry anyone who had been divorced. No exceptions. No exceptional circumstances.
 
I have seen protestant churchs refuse to remarry people. Although, it is not really common and some demoninations do not see divorce as a preclusion to remarriage in their doctrine (Methodist for one.) My former spouse is remarried in the Methodist church and is now contesting a nullity of our marriage. So, obviously protestants can have some interesting views of marriage.
 
I have seen protestant churchs refuse to remarry people. Although, it is not really common and some demoninations do not see divorce as a preclusion to remarriage in their doctrine (Methodist for one.) My former spouse is remarried in the Methodist church and is now contesting a nullity of our marriage. So, obviously protestants can have some interesting views of marriage.
That is really strange. If she married someone else, why on earth would she contest the annulment? Does she think that she really is validly married to you or is she just being spiteful?
 
That is really strange. If she married someone else, why on earth would she contest the annulment? Does she think that she really is validly married to you or is she just being spiteful?
Just spiteful really. Some she does not understand, but really just spiteful. And she hates the Catholic Church and anything it does.

I was not Catholic while we were together. I came to the Chruch after the divorce.
 
Just spiteful really. Some she does not understand, but really just spiteful. And she hates the Catholic Church and anything it does.

I was not Catholic while we were together. I came to the Chruch after the divorce.
Perhaps what will become clear to the tribunal is that she really does not understand what marriage is. I know that it is difficult to be trying to put your life back together, just to have a spiteful ex fighting you every step of the way. I will keep you in my prayers.
 
Thank you for your prayers. It is quite difficult. The problem is that she can cause delay in the process. I believe the Tribunal will see the truth in the end. It will just take longer.
 
…Has anyone ever heard of a protestant church denying two people marriage because they were previously married to another?..
Yes, my old Independant Baptist Church refused to marry anyone who had been previously married - no matter the circumstances - no exceptions!

Remarried people, including those of long marriages with children where one of the spouses may have had even a briefest first marriage, in youth before they were a Christian, were allowed to be members, but, were asked to kind of keep it quiet about the success of it, so as not to lead others astray ?!].

The first time we visited the church, the homily was on how divorce was always wrong in all cases. The pastor was so strong on it, and it bothered me. I began to think of exceptions. Of course, I would never, ever divorce, myself! But what about those other poor people who had no choice? There had to be people out there who made mistakes.

So, in my first conversation with this pastor, was the issue of divorce. After that, it was an unimportant topic to me, which never came up in conversation with the pastor again, until fifteen years later, briefly, in my last conversation with him. Never say never - I learned that one alone, even with all the prayer and faith one could muster, cannot hold a marriage together, and divorce was the fate of my own long marriage.

That Baptist pastor, his assistant pastor at the time, and most of the church’s elders were all ex-Catholics! I believe that their stance - like the women mentioned in another post here in this thread, who, though remarried herself, is contesting her previous husband’s bid for nullity - is not about spite at all (I think you have to be careful about judging someones motives that way) but about a root essence of true Protestantism - that is - *protesting the Catholic Church! *

When I was a member of this Baptist Church, I had already been “Born-again” for some time, and was anxious to grow in holiness, and learn what was true and right. Year after year, Sunday after Sunday, I sat through very long sermons about the need to accept Christ as your Savior (though I assume nearly everyone had, and certainly everyone heard this before!). And I wondered about issues of faith, and tried to find answers for things like, “How do you grow in holiness?” (other than study your Bible, which I had been doing all along).

All too often the reply was, “Who can know?” and, “we see through a glass darkly now - in heaven we will know.” And what an astounding disovery, when God drew me into exploration of the Catholic faith, to see that these questions actually did have answers!

Although so many doctrinal questions were unanswerable in my old church (the only *clear *doctrines were “Bible-alone” and “Faith-alone”, which is why stumbling upon and reading the Hahns’ book rocked my world), the one thing we could be quite clear on was that the Catholics were wrong!

When you love Christ and want to do things his way, you hang onto what doctirnes of His that you have. And when you believe that the Catholic Church is offending God himself, its only natural to kick against vehemently against it.

So we have to be patient with our Protestant brothers and sisters, who don’t have the fullness of faith that we are blessed with. Like a babe on milk alone, we have to give their demands and fits some leeway and understanding. While we patiently present the truth, of course.
 
Thank you for your prayers. It is quite difficult. The problem is that she can cause delay in the process. I believe the Tribunal will see the truth in the end. It will just take longer.
For some people it is all about control. The truth will always come out in the end though.

I for one am going to seek an annulment the first possible day that I can because I know that they take time and I know my husband is not going to cooperate or even be truthful.
 
Yes, my old Independant Baptist Church refused to marry anyone who had been previously married - no matter the circumstances - no exceptions!
That is terribly arbitrary. I am shocked at how many fundamentalists think that divorce is OK in the situation of adultery, but fail to see how a marriage might not be valid if one of the parties entering into it is not competent to make the vows or never intended them. I actually have heard the advice given to stay in an abusive marriage because divorce is a sin.

I think the Catholic Church has it right.
 
(I think you have to be careful about judging someones motives that way)
Just so we are all clear here. The other poster simply asked if my former spouse was just being spiteful or believed that we were validly married. I was the one that said she was being spiteful. This is not an just my opinion or judgment. She has told me that she does not beleive that we are married but that she will do everything in her power to prevent a nullity from ever being granted. If that does not define spiteful I do not know what does.
 
So why do other denomination allow remarriages?

I’ve been wondering this for a while, as I have a coworker who was just married for the 4th time over the weekend. She truly believes God brought her and her spouse together. She was married in the Catholic Church the first time (but not the second or third, no annulment).

She goes to a Nazarene Church. How do they find that ok?

I love her as a person, but stongly disagree with most of her personal choices.
 
So why do other denomination allow remarriages?

I’ve been wondering this for a while, as I have a coworker who was just married for the 4th time over the weekend. She truly believes God brought her and her spouse together. She was married in the Catholic Church the first time (but not the second or third, no annulment).

She goes to a Nazarene Church. How do they find that ok?

I love her as a person, but stongly disagree with most of her personal choices.
This is the danger of personal interpretation. It brings about too much disorder and confusion, with people looking for churches that will cater to their personal desires, which aren’t necessarily reflective of what God wants for us.
 
I personally don’t like these threads. It’s no longer appropriate for us knock Protestants on divorce and remarriage, when annulments in our own Church have become basically a rubber stamp on divorce.

In one corner we have Protestants allowing divorce and remarriage, in the Catholic corner we are saying the marriage never took place, even after some considerable length and possibly children. But to a Protestant who doesn’t accept marraige as a Sacrament anyway, AND they don’t have the Church or any sort of annulment opportunity. How can we take the high road? Especially since divorce among Catholics is equal to them. I understand there is defect of form etc… But there’s a reason why annulments have gone from like 9 in the early 1900’s to 63,000 a year in the USA, and it isn’t simply “bad catechism”. How we can grant 62,000 decrees of nullity a year, and still maintain the smug attitude on divorce is lost on me. We may teach it, but Bishop on down we don’t practice it.

These topics never end well for Catholics.
 
I personally don’t like these threads. It’s no longer appropriate for us knock Protestants on divorce and remarriage, when annulments in our own Church have become basically a rubber stamp on divorce.

In one corner we have Protestants allowing divorce and remarriage, in the Catholic corner we are saying the marriage never took place, even after some considerable length and possibly children. But to a Protestant who doesn’t accept marraige as a Sacrament anyway, AND they don’t have the Church or any sort of annulment opportunity. How can we take the high road? Especially since divorce among Catholics is equal to them. I understand there is defect of form etc… But there’s a reason why annulments have gone from like 9 in the early 1900’s to 63,000 a year in the USA, and it isn’t simply “bad catechism”. How we can grant 62,000 decrees of nullity a year, and still maintain the smug attitude on divorce is lost on me. We may teach it, but Bishop on down we don’t practice it.

These topics never end well for Catholics.
Hmmm, maybe I was being a little bit smug about the correctness of the Catholic Church. I guess that is because I wasn’t Catholic when I got married and received no pre-marital counseling whatsoever from the Protestant minister that married us. Knowing what I know now, I know that if we had been Catholic and attempted to marry in the Catholic Church, we never would have been allowed to marry. Yet all of the problems that were already present in our relationship were of no importance to the Protestant minister that married us.

I think the huge increase in annulments are at least in part because more people are becoming Catholic and are seeking annulments for marriages that were never Catholic marriages in the first place. Back when there were only 9 annulments a year, very few people converted, very few Catholics married outside of their faith, very few people practices birth control, very few wives worked outside of the home, etc, etc. It has very little to do with “rubber stamping”. I think your attitude is very cynical, Saint Michael.
 
I personally don’t like these threads. It’s no longer appropriate for us knock Protestants on divorce and remarriage, when annulments in our own Church have become basically a rubber stamp on divorce.
You are very misinformed if you think nullities are a rubber stamp.

I was not Catholic or even baptized at the time of my former marriage. We always practiced birth control and neither of us had a problem with divorce and remarriage before or during the marriage. Lastly, my former spouse is remarried.

Yet my nullity action has been going on for about a year and a half now. Some rubber stamp. It appears to be about the slowest moving rubber stamp ever.
 
You are very misinformed if you think nullities are a rubber stamp.

I was not Catholic or even baptized at the time of my former marriage. We always practiced birth control and neither of us had a problem with divorce and remarriage before or during the marriage. Lastly, my former spouse is remarried.

Yet my nullity action has being going on for about a year and a half now. Some rubber stamp.
I’m not saying the Church is wrong, if increasing annulments drastically is how they are countering the divorce and flee problem of the modern Church, then so be it, they’re the Church. But when 93% of all petitioned annulments are granted, it’s hard to call it anything but a rubber stamp. Especially considering the huge rate they’re increasing.

Fact is, Prostestants don’t believe in annulments, nor do they have the benefit of a formal proceeding to grant them an annulment and make it like their marriage never happened. Chances are most of the marriages that end in divorce for Protestants are no more in defect than Catholics.

But since Catholics divorce at the same rate, and annulments are granted nearly all the time for one reason or another, I think it’s better we just leave it alone, rather than try to use it as a judgment against Protestant Churches.
 
I’m not saying the Church is wrong, if increasing annulments drastically is how they are countering the divorce and flee problem of the modern Church, then so be it, they’re the Church. But when 93% of all petitioned annulments are granted, it’s hard to call it anything but a rubber stamp. Especially considering the huge rate they’re increasing.

Fact is, Prostestants don’t believe in annulments, nor do they have the benefit of a formal proceeding to grant them an annulment and make it like their marriage never happened. Chances are most of the marriages that end in divorce for Protestants are no more in defect than Catholics.

But since Catholics divorce at the same rate, and annulments are granted nearly all the time for one reason or another, I think it’s better we just leave it alone, rather than try to use it as a judgment against Protestant Churches.
Where do you get your 93% number? Please give your references for such a claim and what types of petitions it includes.
 
I’ve been involved for some time in an apologetics discussion, and as we were discussing the consistency of church teaching, this came up, and I thought it should give pause to Bible Christians.
Has anyone ever heard of a protestant church denying two people marriage because they were previously married to another? Scripture is abundantly clear, even in the NT for anyone who thinks the 10 Commandments are old news, that marriage is sacred in the eyes of God, and that He despises divorce. Yet, somehow the Catholic Church (correct me if I’m wrong) seems to be the only institution that takes this seriously, refusing to marry two people if one or both have been married before.
Anybody?
I grew up in the Church of Christ, and we were taught remarriage after divorce was strictly forbidden, with one exception. If a spouse committed adultery, the innocent spouse could remarry, the guilty spouse could not. (This comes from a misunderstanding of the verse that says “except for fornication” as seen here: catholic.com/thisrock/2000/0007bt.asp ) But if someone divorces because of irreconcilable differences, or because of an abusive relationship, etc, they were not allowed to remarry, period.

So, while a lot of converts to Catholicism might have a hard time ajugsting to the teaching on divorce and remarriage, it actually wasn’t too much of a change for me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top