I understand that this is very time consuming, so please dont feel like Im trying to draw you in again or anything. Not giving a full response will drive me nuts (hence my longwinded posts that are edited 30 times or more before I feel like they say all that needs to be said).
You said...
Believe it or not, the intent was not to play on emotions or anything of the sort. I rarely like to even allow for any emotional aspect in my presentation after having thought that that was a good idea before, since out God is an emotional being (love, hate, jealous, etc)....but I found that ANY use of personal details on my part or anything else beyond plain hard logic leaves the discussion open for personal insults and attacks that always end up being used when real material for discussion runs short.Your question is put in such a way as to arouse sentimental approval for the permanence of the second marriage. The real question is not whether the marriage is a happy one of long duration, but, rather, Is this marriage sinful in the sight of God?
I do apologize if you thought that was the case. But I assure you that this example of a 4 decade marriage was meant in the most calculating, logical manner possible. Are we called to end a marriage of 40 years because of a mistake more than four decades earlier.
I simply wanted to know where you stand on that matter.
I believe you have answered the question and that you believe that no amount of time invested in a godly marriage is of any matter. If the marriage was entered into after an unscriptural divorce, if Im understanding you correctly, then you believe that its not a 'marriage' at all but simply an adulterous affair....even if the man is truly repentant.
Stealing does not involve a covenant made to another human being.If a man had robbed a bank (or robbed you) forty years ago, and was now living happily on the stolen money (and even tithing to his church), would you have him break-up his pleasant lifestyle and return the stolen money to its rightful owner? If not, then you and I see morality very differently.
This example does not fit at all.
One that might fit better is if I betray a contract Ive made with another person with a third party being witness to it, then later contract myself to a second individual.
Your views say that I can just throw aside the second contractual agreement whenever I want to go 'fix' the first.
I dont personally believe that this is how it works.
If this were merely stolen property we were discussion, then Id agree with you completely, but its not. A new covenant has been made, even where it was entered into wrongly, and I dont believe that God just ignores that new covenant.
Thus another reason why I dont believe there is any call present in scripture to break apart these second marriages even entered into after unjustly throwing away a first.
The damage is done there and it needs to be repented of, but it does not negate the second.
Only if the second is 'unlawful' and we could never take this person to begin with (same sex, incestuous, etc) would this new covenant not be valid in Gods eyes.
Every instance that Ive seen of men HAVING to put away their wives in scripture was a union that was unlawful to begin with. Ezra it was with foreign wives not lawful to have....Herod was not permitted to have his neice who was his brothers wife.....the man in Corinth was not permitted to have his fathers wife....
Those unions were NEVER supposed to be at the points where they existed (obviously even now Christians are not supposed to purposefully marry nonchristians, but we dont have to put away someone who isnt of our faith now if they wish to remain married to us) and as they should never have existed to begin with, they MUST be ended.
You are absolutely correct that our sense of morality on this issue isnt the same. Not in the least apparently because after spending so much time on this one single topic (approx 10,000 hours at this point), I find that I cant return to a cut and dry perspective that allows me to just say 'God hates divorce' and not see the myriad of other evidences that show me a far broader truth.
Sure God hates putting away...and yet He gave a bill of divorce Himself.
While Im sure He hates it, that fact MUST be harmonized with the fact that He gave a writ of divorcement and then later that covenant was set aside with the ratification of the New covenant.
You know, its just like a trial in a murder case.
The prosecution presents evidence that seems to show that a man is guilty of murder.
Then the defense steps up to the plate and shows how that evidence really needed to be interpreted in light of a dozen other evidences.
And so in the end we see that the original thinking about the data was off just a bit because we werent able to see the complete picture so we interpreted that first evidence in a manner that we had to amend in light of all the rest.
Ive talked with hypercalvinists over the years and I can say that they can really have a younger christian basically in tears in fear for their unsaved loved ones because of the way they use a few passages that REALLY seem to say one thing when you look at them....that God has chosen whom He will from the foundation of the world and basically foreordains even our sin, forcing us to sin and then condemning us to hell for that sin.
Tell that to a woman whos loves her unbelieving father very dearly and watch her cringe in fear that its quite possible that God Himself has literally foreordained this mans sin, giving him no choice in the matter, and will someday later cast this man into the lake of fire for those sins and its quite possible that this womans faith can even be shaken over the matter, and even anger towards God can result.
But its all because these folks only focus on part of the evidence and they refuse to harmonize the whole of Gods council that they believe this way.
Ill give them this, they can REALLY give you a run for your money with Scripture.
They are FAR more convincing, in my opinion, than these anti-remarriage doctrines.
Even now I hate getting into discussions with them because they bring to bear scriptures that really do say exactly what they believe....its VERY hard to look at their evidence and not be at overwhelmed by it if not convinced entirely.
I do believe that these MDR doctrines do precisely the same.
The have VERY clear scripture working for them, but they fail to remember some very key factors......God hates putting away.....it is not good for man to be alone.....God has called us to peace.......it is better to marry than to burn.......and the fact that remarriage is assumed in scripture except where expressly prohibited.
These, and much more, are all details that have to be harmonzed to understand Jesus intent in the gospels and just why Paul can seemingly ourright DEFY Jesus when He says 'let not man put asunder' (CHORIZO)....when Paul turns right around in 1 Cor 7 and basicallys lets 'let man put asunder (CHORIZO/depart).
Then there is your answer. Repentance causes God to 'forgive' that debt.I don't believe that the passage of time erases sin. Only repentance (often accompanied by restitution) does. Now, if the bank, in the meantime, has forgiven the robber of the theft, and canceled his debt, then he can go ahead and keep the money. That's the bank's prerogative, not the robber's.
So if this new union is abomination or 'unlawful' then it cannot be remained in...such as homosexual unions or having a fathers or brothers wife.
The bank forgave the debt at repentance...but this new union MUST be one that is not inherently sinful (incestous, same sex, etc)
Well, I can see half a dozen or so problem with this last part but since I dont want to provoke you into feeling like you need to continue in this, Ill not given any response at all to it, except to say that this is not logically consistant and will end in a 'waiting game' where one spouse can just walk out of a marriage for no just cause, then wait for the other to screw up and remarry because they cannot contain, then the guilty party who abandoned the marriage is now 'free' to remarry with no 'sin' being committed.So also, if a man's ex-wife has surrendered her claim on her adulterous husband, by herself remarrying and going on with her life, then the adulterer would still have to repent of his adultery, but there is no possibility of his making restitution in being restored to his first wife. In such a case, it would apparently not be necessary for him to leave the sinful marriage, but only (after repentance) to solemnize it.
No offense to you personally, but this is the epitome of legalism because it can be used to do precisely what those hard hearted Jews were doing....manipulating the letter of the law instead of understanding the spirit of it.
God bless
have a great evening.
Unless you wish to continue, I will consider our discourse in the matter ended
