Protestants and adultry

[Rightlydivide]

You can’t step down from office without giving at least a weeks notice. Lol

However, the question still remains as it may pertain to you if you ever get divorced (God forbid): Does a protestant who remarries after divorce commit adultery? If the answer to this is ‘no’, then can I and other Catholics be given an explanation, taking into consideration Jesus’s explicit prohibition of remarriage after divorce. (And I expect a ‘Bible Based’ answer considering your intense adoration of sola scripture)

Ave Maria

Not in cases of fornication per the scripture I posted previously.

Mat 19:9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except [it be] for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

Its not that compoicated for me. Being a literalist and a fundamentalist has its advantages

 

[ralphinal]

Porneia is translated as adultory every time it is used, but if you look at the strict definition of it you get this definition

1. illicit sexual intercourse
   a. adultery, fornication, homosexuality, lesbianism, intercourse with animals etc.
   b. sexual intercourse with close relatives; Lev. 18
   c. sexual intercourse with a divorced man or woman; Mk. 10:11,
2. metaph. the worship of idols
   of the defilement of idolatry, as incurred by eating the sacrifices offered to idols

Now, is it impossible that the Mark reference is actually the same use as the Lev.?

This is how the Catholic CHurch has seen the word use.

But, in any event, it means that Jesus only allowed for one reason for divorce. Not irreconcilable differences, not anything but unlawful sexual relations. IN another passage he did not. Is Jesus contradicting himself?

Annulments are not Catholic divorces. They are a statement that there was no sacramental marriage. Yes, they apply only to Catholics. If Jesus was right and a divorced person cannot marry, then there are a lot of people in a lot of trouble.

Valke, would the Jewish people allow for a marriage of relatives? Would it be a valid marriage if consent could not be given?

Rightous, so which position do you take? DIvorce and re-Marriage only in cases of divorce or the more liberal view?

 

[9Choirs]

Not in cases of fornication per the scripture I posted previously.

Mat 19:9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except [it be] for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

Its not that compoicated for me. Being a literalist and a fundamentalist has its advantages

I think you may be a ‘tad bit’ mistaken. Lets take a look at scripture:

Mathew 19:9
And I say to you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and he that shall marry her that is put away, committeth adultery.

Okay, here is the common verse used by Protestants to vindicate themselves from guilt when remarrying after a divorce. Here we see that Matthew makes leeway for a man to **civilly/legally **divorce his wife in the cases of her being unfaithful.

Mathew 10: 11-12
11 And he saith to them: Whosoever shall put away his wife and marry another, committeth adultery against her. 12 And if the wife shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.

Mathew addresses divorce again, but this time in regards to remarriage after a divorce has taken place. As we can quite unambiguously see, he states explicitly that remarriage is akin to adultery, **and he does not make exceptions to remarriage being akin to adultery, not even in the case of an unfaithul spouse
**

This clearly concludes that a sacramental marriage can never be ended by **divorce **which is stipulated by the law of the state, as a sacramental marriage is bound till death. In the eyes of God, a sacramentally married couple are forever joined together and only death can break the bond. **Gods law and human law are to be looked at separately. **

1Corinthians 7:10-11
But to them that are married, not I but the Lord commandeth, that the wife depart not from her husband. And if she depart, that she remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband. And let not the husband put away his wife.

Paul takes into consideration the need of a civil divorce here, yet still does not infer that a civil divorce ends a sacramental marriage.

Romans 7: 1-3
Do you not know, brethren—for I am speaking to those who know the law—that the law is binding on a person only during his life? Thus a married woman is bound by law to her husband as long as he lives; but if her husband dies she is discharged from the law concerning the husband. Accordingly, she will be called an adulteress if she lives with another man while her husband is alive. But if her husband dies she is free from that law, and if she marries another man she is not an adulteress. (Rom. 7:1–3)

Does that require an explanation?

The difference between Catholics and Protestants is that we take the fullness of the Bible into account when discerning faith and morals. Protestants often pick one or two verses that support their positions, hence the divorce and remarriage of many protestants.

Ave Maria

 

[deb1]

I’m not divorced and have recently retired as chief spokesperson of all Protestants…

Can I suggest that you become the spokesman only for your particular denomination? How can you speak for both High and Low Protestant Churches which sometimes have very divergent views on subjects such as OSAS?

 

[deb1]

Not in cases of fornication per the scripture I posted previously.

Mat 19:9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except [it be] for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

Its not that compoicated for me. Being a literalist and a fundamentalist has its advantages

Yes, your stance would make it easier to understand the bible. Whether it assist you in making correct interpretations is open for debate.

Imagine that you use the phrase ‘raining like cats and dogs’ in a letter to your wife. Two thousand years from now, archaeologists find the letter. Hopefully they will look at the culture and our sayings to realize that you were using a common cliché’ and did not mean that poodles and Siamese were falling out of the sky! Yet, you are not looking at Jesus’ words in context to his overall culture or the Greek wording of the text. Such a stance would make it very easy to misinterpret verses.

 

[whiteknite]

The bible is full of examples on adultry :-
Abraham took the slave girl Hagar as a concubine…
King Solomon He had 700 official wives and 300 concubines…

Was it ok for them but not for the rest of humankind??

:knight1:

 

[9Choirs]

The bible is full of examples on adultry :-
Abraham took the slave girl Hagar as a concubine…
King Solomon He had 700 official wives and 300 concubines…

Was it ok for them but not for the rest of humankind??

:knight1:

You’re forgetting one important word- context.

The Old Covenant and the New covenant that Jesus introduced are two different things. The Old laws permitted divorce and remarriage in the OT but only due to the disobedience of the Jewish people. Jesus however fulfilled the new law, so we must not look at such an example set by Solomon and Moses as acceptable today. If so, other atrocities that were permitted in the OT are permissible today, and you really don’t want me to compile a list…

Ave Maria

 

[whiteknite]

You’re forgetting one important word- context.

The Old Covenant and the New covenant that Jesus introduced are two different things. The Old laws permitted divorce and remarriage in the OT but only due to the disobedience of the Jewish people. Jesus however fulfilled the new law, so we must not look at such an example set by Solomon and Moses as acceptable today. If so, other atrocities that were permitted in the OT are permissible today, and you really don’t want me to compile a list…

Ave Maria

So its ok to cherry pick what is right and wrong??
I get quotes from both OT and NT to point out things but what your saying is OT doesnt apply??

 

[Rightlydivide]

Porneia is translated as adultory every time it is used, but if you look at the strict definition of it you get this definition

Now, is it impossible that the Mark reference is actually the same use as the Lev.?

This is how the Catholic CHurch has seen the word use.

But, in any event, it means that Jesus only allowed for one reason for divorce. Not irreconcilable differences, not anything but unlawful sexual relations. IN another passage he did not. Is Jesus contradicting himself?

Annulments are not Catholic divorces. They are a statement that there was no sacramental marriage. Yes, they apply only to Catholics. If Jesus was right and a divorced person cannot marry, then there are a lot of people in a lot of trouble.

Valke, would the Jewish people allow for a marriage of relatives? Would it be a valid marriage if consent could not be given?

Rightous, so which position do you take? DIvorce and re-Marriage only in cases of divorce or the more liberal view?

No, he elaborates in one passage. The synoptics have several passages that differ based upon the context and location of the speech. For example, Luke and Matthew differ greatly based upon location. Jesus said a lot of the same things in different environments, he elaborates in one passage.

 

[Rightlydivide]

I think you may be a ‘tad bit’ mistaken. Lets take a look at scripture:

Mathew 19:9
And I say to you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and he that shall marry her that is put away, committeth adultery.

 

[Rightlydivide]

Yes, your stance would make it easier to understand the bible. Whether it assist you in making correct interpretations is open for debate.

Imagine that you use the phrase ‘raining like cats and dogs’ in a letter to your wife. Two thousand years from now, archaeologists find the letter. Hopefully they will look at the culture and our sayings to realize that you were using a common cliché’ and did not mean that poodles and Siamese were falling out of the sky! Yet, you are not looking at Jesus’ words in context to his overall culture or the Greek wording of the text. Such a stance would make it very easy to misinterpret verses.

Debate deb1, appears to be rampant amongst everyone…hence the Orthodox and Catholic threads who both appeal to common history and scripture…

 

[Rightlydivide]

Can I suggest that you become the spokesman only for your particular denomination? How can you speak for both High and Low Protestant Churches which sometimes have very divergent views on subjects such as OSAS?

I dont belong to a denomination but of course I was joking about the spokesperson part…I should abandon all attempts at humor

 

[deb1]

I dont belong to a denomination but of course I was joking about the spokesperson part…I should abandon all attempts at humor

No, don’t abandon humor. I understood that you were joking. I just got to serious with my response. My fault, not yours.

 

[Our_Refuge]

Mathew 19:9
And I say to you, that whosoever shall put away his wife,** except it be for fornication, **and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and he that shall marry her that is put away, committeth adultery

.

=Rightlydivide;3781337]
Civil? Legal? Show me that in this context
No the other one just clarifies. I dont have to read my church doctrine into any passage because our doctrine is the Bible.

Here in lies the problem of private interpretation by protestants. Matthew would appear to allow for divorce to modern man THis is not the case.
Matthew’s gospel was written to the Jews of his time. In those days** engagement was legally binding**. An engagement could be broken off only by death or divorce. Unfaithfulness **during the engagement period **was considered adultery. When Mary became pregnant she would have been considered an adulteress for having sex outside of marriage.
In other words if your spouse- to -be had an affair during the engagement period then your marriage would not proceed. You could "divorce’ your wife and end the engagement.
This is why Joseph was going to “divorce” Mary even though they were not yet married. They were in their engagment period where divorce was allowed.
As all of the other Gospel passages clearly show, once married there is no such thing as divorce for any reason.
schreiberumc.org/sermons/Christmas%20Eve%20Sermon%2012-24-07.doc

 

[Rightlydivide]

.

Here in lies the problem of private interpretation by protestants. Matthew would appear to allow for divorce to modern man THis is not the case.
Matthew’s gospel was written to the Jews of his time. In those days** engagement was legally binding**. An engagement could be broken off only by death or divorce. Unfaithfulness **during the engagement period **was considered adultery. When Mary became pregnant she would have been considered an adulteress for having sex outside of marriage.
In other words if your spouse- to -be had an affair during the engagement period then your marriage would not proceed. You could "divorce’ your wife and end the engagement.
This is why Joseph was going to “divorce” Mary even though they were not yet married. They were in their engagment period where divorce was allowed.
As all of the other Gospel passages clearly show, once married there is no such thing as divorce for any reason.
schreiberumc.org/sermons/Christmas%20Eve%20Sermon%2012-24-07.doc

Written to the Jews? A Catholic ultra dispensationalist!!
Now…I have seen everything…

 

[BSHoop96]

again another thread that attempts to characterize the teaching and practice of thousands of denominations by an innaccurate and anachronistic label. If you want to make a statement about a group, please correctly identify the group and provide the source and authority for your allegation. there are as many different teachings on marriage and divorce among non-Catholic Christians as there are denominations or non-denominational preachers.

also just because an individual, whether Catholic, Lutheran, Mormon, Jewish or claiming any other religious affiliation, acts against the moral teaching of his own leaders, does not equate to “his group teaches and advocates this”. So evidence of “this Catholic did that, and this Baptist I know did this” cannot be used to condemn that religion to which that individual adheres.

Why not begin this thread with:
what is your denomination, and what does it teach about marriage and divorce, and what are your scriptural and other sources for the teaching?

why begin in an accusatory tone against people you don’t even know, based on behavior of a couple of people you do know? how does that aid rational discussion?

excellent.

Not to mention that there are plenty of divorced Catholics who are good Catholics, who have gone thru the annulment process and I’m sure protestants would question that.

 

[Rightlydivide]

Refuge…how do you get that Matthew 19 is talking about engagement? As it squares with verse 5 specifically?

 

[ralphinal]

No, he elaborates in one passage. The synoptics have several passages that differ based upon the context and location of the speech. For example, Luke and Matthew differ greatly based upon location. Jesus said a lot of the same things in different environments, he elaborates in one passage.

Valid.

I know it was a joke, but you should stay spokesperson for all Protestantism. It would help if they had one unified voice

 

[BSHoop96]

sacremental? That word does not appear in my Bible

 

[9Choirs]

Civil? Legal? Show me that in this context