Protestants - divorce and remarriage

[PRmerger]

The big difference with Catholics I think is that we view divorce as a singular sin to be repented and forgiven, not as a potential beginning of continuous unrepentant un-chastity.

We, too, view divorce as a singular sin to be repented and forgiven. It is the subsequent choice to continue an adulterous relationship which is the problem.

 

[benjohnson]

Lutherans make of Jesus’ words in Matthew regarding divorce and re-marriage being adultery?

That the Law condemns us utterly, there is no doubt. I think we would respond with that we are guilty under the Law, we are also saved under God’s Grace.

 

[PRmerger]

That the Law condemns us utterly, there is no doubt. I think we would respond with that we are guilty under the Law, we are also saved under God’s Grace.

Not sure what you are saying, friend.

Under Lutheran eyes, if I divorce and re-marry, am I committing adultery?

 

[Lochias]

Which I do not approve of. But this, along with the Orthodox teaching of economy with regards to remarriage, is still rather more honest than the Roman Catholic “annulment” farce. Rest assured, to God, the secrets of all hearts are open.

I think you just don’t understand what the Church means by annulment. It’s been explained several times in this thread alone.

 

[benjohnson]

Not sure what you are saying, friend.

Under Lutheran eyes, if I divorce and re-marry, am I committing adultery?

I would say so, I think the law is pretty clear. But I would also say that Jesus redeem us sinners after we repent and seek his forgiveness. Where I think our churches differ is that we would say that once this happens, the new marriage would no longer be adulterous.

I have to admit that I’m no expert in this matter of divorce and remarriage, and I pray that I never will become well acquainted.

 

[SteveVH]

I think you just don’t understand what the Church means by annulment. It’s been explained several times in this thread alone.

I think it is more a refusal to accept the Catholic explanation because it is a Catholic explanation than it is a misunderstanding. He has already concluded that the Catholic practice of annulments is a “farce”.

 

[Lochias]

I think it is more a refusal to accept the Catholic explanation because it is a Catholic explanation than it is a misunderstanding. He has already concluded that the Catholic practice of annulments is a “farce”.

Possibly. One can hope for the best, though.

(Calling it a “farce” was rather rude.)

 

[SteveVH]

Possibly. One can hope for the best, though.

(Calling it a “farce” was rather rude.)

I draw my conclusion from the fact that it has been explained very well on this thread alone, along with the general tone of previous posts. But you’re right, we should never give up hope.

 

[PRmerger]

I would say so, I think the law is pretty clear. But I would also say that Jesus redeem us sinners after we repent and seek his forgiveness. Where I think our churches differ is that we would say that once this happens, the new marriage would no longer be adulterous.

I have to admit that I’m no expert in this matter of divorce and remarriage, and I pray that I never will become well acquainted.

I pray you never have to either.

So let me ask you this: let’s say a wife commits adultery, repents of it, but then continues to commit adultery with this man…are you saying that the Church ought not consider this immoral?

I am certain that you will answer that the Church has the right and duty to counsel this woman to cease and desist in her adulterous behavior.

So how is this different from a divorced and re-married couple continuing to engage in their adultery, even if they’ve asked for God’s forgiveness?

You have acknowledged that it is adultery, right?

 

[benjohnson]

Certainly it would be immoral: repentance requires a sincere contrition.

So how is this different from a divorced and re-married couple continuing to engage in their adultery, even if they’ve asked for God’s forgiveness?

Great question! I’m not sure, but it probably has to do with that we could possibly view divorce being a one-time sin-filled act that extinguished the God-given bond between man and woman that then was repented of and forgiven.

I know Lutherans view marriage as a vocation, so in that vain, one could see how one could fail to meat their calling on one vacation and take up another.

 

[Lochias]

Certainly it would be immoral: repentance requires a sincere contrition.
Great question! I’m not sure, but it probably has to do with that we could possibly view divorce being a one-time sin-filled act that extinguished the God-given bond between man and woman that then was repented of and forgiven.

Ah, but how can an act of man dissolve what God has created? If I steal from a man, then become contrite and beg for his forgiveness, but refuse to return the items, is it like I never stole at all?

 

[PRmerger]

Great question! I’m not sure, but it probably has to do with that we could possibly view divorce being a one-time sin-filled act that extinguished the God-given bond between man and woman that then was repented of and forgiven.

Indeed. That covers the divorce part. Which is why Catholicism proclaims that after one has confessed the sin of divorce, he is again able to receive the Eucharist.

But what we’re talking about is the re-marriage part. How does your church reconcile its position (re-marriage is not forbidden if there’s repentance) with the words of Jesus in Matthew?

 

[benjohnson]

But what we’re talking about is the re-marriage part. How does your church reconcile its position (re-marriage is not forbidden if there’s repentance) with the words of Jesus in Matthew?

My guess is that the contrite penitents are forgiven their sin completely. Lutherans are really loath to put conditions on forgiveness as that turns to gospel back into law.

 

[benjohnson]

Indeed. That covers the divorce part. Which is why Catholicism proclaims that after one has confessed the sin of divorce, he is again able to receive the Eucharist.

But what we’re talking about is the re-marriage part. How does your church reconcile its position (re-marriage is not forbidden if there’s repentance) with the words of Jesus in Matthew?

Ah… I think I see where you are coming from: I think the Lutheran view is that the breakup of a marriage is the sin. Now, Ideally the could should get back together - but I think that we probably view anybody acting like brother and sister with anybody but their own spouse as still potentially sinful as they’re still not reconciled with their original spouse.

So we pronounce God’s forgiveness on both those that remarry their original spouse, those that remain celibate, and those who marry others and those that live in sin as long as they repent.

Again, I plead ignorance in this.

 

[PRmerger]

My guess is that the contrite penitents are forgiven their sin completely. Lutherans are really loath to put conditions on forgiveness as that turns to gospel back into law.

Indeed. They are forgiven completely, if they are repentant (and receive the sacrament of confession).

But then they sin again each and every time they engage in sex. Because they are not married, right?

I am trying to understand the Lutheran POV here.

Is it a sin to divorce and re-marry? It does appear to be an affirmative. So I don’t understand the permission to divorce and re-marry, even if forgiveness has been attained for adultery. They are still committing adultery, are they not?

 

[PRmerger]

Ah… I think I see where you are coming from: I think the Lutheran view is that the breakup of a marriage is the sin.

As do Catholics.

But it appears that the re-marriage part is not a sin in Lutheran theology? Even with the words of Jesus telling that it is indeed a sin?

Sorry for my persistence…I am trying to understand…and I get that you also are trying to work this out as well.

 

[benjohnson]

Ah, but how can an act of man dissolve what God has created? If I steal from a man, then become contrite and beg for his forgiveness, but refuse to return the items, is it like I never stole at all?

In your analogy, we would say the stolen items are lost and unable to be returned if truly the couple could not remain married for reasons of abuse, apostasy, and other grave reasons.

Frankly, I’m not sure if it is possible to break God’s bond - but I think we can say with confidence that we should place our hope in God forgiving those with contrite heart.

 

[benjohnson]

As do Catholics.

But it appears that the re-marriage part is not a sin in Lutheran theology? Even with the words of Jesus telling that it is indeed a sin?

Sorry for my persistence…I am trying to understand…and I get that you also are trying to work this out as well.

No worries! It’s always my joy to talk with you!

Ok… here’s what I found: From a Lutheran perspective, after a divorce the couple is living in sin even if they chose to remain celebrate. The idea being that breaking “one flesh” into two is sinful no matter how pious the behavior afterwards.

So if reconciliation is judged by the pastor as impossible, it can not longer be said that the individual is using their will to remain in this sinful state, and the sin can be forgiven and the individual free to remarry or not.

 

[Lochias]

In your analogy, we would say the stolen items are lost and unable to be returned if truly the couple could not remain married for reasons of abuse, apostasy, and other grave reasons.

My analogy was more to point out the similarities between the sin of theft and the sin of adultery, not the first marriage itself. Sorry, that prolly wasn’t too clear.

Frankly, I’m not sure if it is possible to break God’s bond - but I think we can say with confidence that we should place our hope in God forgiving those with contrite heart.

Forgiveness? Of course. But forgiveness doesn’t erase promises to each other and to God, surely, unless one or both of those people never meant those promises in the first place?

 

[Lochias]

No worries! It’s always my joy to talk with you!

Ok… here’s what I found: From a Lutheran perspective, after a divorce the couple is living in sin even if they chose to remain celebrate. The idea being that breaking “one flesh” into two is sinful no matter how pious the behavior afterwards.

So if reconciliation is judged by the pastor as impossible, it can not longer be said that the individual is using their will to remain in this sinful state, and the sin can be forgiven and the individual free to remarry or not.

See, here’s the disconnect, though: If they were bound into one flesh, by the power of God, how can a pastor decide that God somehow didn’t mean it after all?

This is where annulment differs from divorce, by the by; all annulment can do is look to see if that bond was never there in the first place. Huge difference.