How can the Church rule or enforce issues on divorce and sexual inpurity when itself has become accepting/passive of such sins?
The Church itself seems to have a common theme, divorce or seperate from those you disagree.
How can the Church?
How can the Church?
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
-
_rvornberg
- Posts: 34
- Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 12:23 pm
I wouldn't worry about the church enforcing anything. I'd be more concerned with the fact that God will judge each man according to his deeds.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
The responsibility for communicating God's truth is laid on the shoulders of His Church. Churches that fail to uphold God's standards with reference to marriage and divorce are not only contributing to the damnation that violators will face on the day of judgment, but are also multiplying victims in this life—abandoned spouses and children, and everyone else who suffers from the selfish choices of those who choose to divorce, including grandparents, friends of the family, and the church, which must lose a previous member through the necessary excommunication.
Yes, individuals will stand judgment for breaking their marriage vows, but churches that have failed to declare and enforce God's standards also share in the responsibility.
Divorce is not a victimless crime. It is one of the most emotionally violent crimes known in any society, and it leads, statistically, to the increase of other crimes, which are committed in greater numbers by the children of divorce. These children, in addition to becoming criminals in larger numbers than others, also will experience drug addiction, unwed pregnancies, depression and suicide in greater percentages than will children from intact homes.
The miscreant responsible for this disaster (the one breaking up the marriage) must bear a crushingly immense load on the day of judgment for all of the people victimized by his/her selfish actions, as will the spineless leaders of any church that silently sat by and watched the lives of its members being ruined and victimized by divorce. If the church does not stand against this trend, it will lose its own children. Why are the churches so morally stupid and negligent when it comes to this obvious evil in their midst?
Someday, when I am not feeling so sheepish, I might venture to say what I really feel about this topic.
Yes, individuals will stand judgment for breaking their marriage vows, but churches that have failed to declare and enforce God's standards also share in the responsibility.
Divorce is not a victimless crime. It is one of the most emotionally violent crimes known in any society, and it leads, statistically, to the increase of other crimes, which are committed in greater numbers by the children of divorce. These children, in addition to becoming criminals in larger numbers than others, also will experience drug addiction, unwed pregnancies, depression and suicide in greater percentages than will children from intact homes.
The miscreant responsible for this disaster (the one breaking up the marriage) must bear a crushingly immense load on the day of judgment for all of the people victimized by his/her selfish actions, as will the spineless leaders of any church that silently sat by and watched the lives of its members being ruined and victimized by divorce. If the church does not stand against this trend, it will lose its own children. Why are the churches so morally stupid and negligent when it comes to this obvious evil in their midst?
Someday, when I am not feeling so sheepish, I might venture to say what I really feel about this topic.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
In Jesus,
Steve
Steve
Steve wrote:
TK
Steve- i realize you are speaking mighty plainly here, but can you please elucidate just a little? you seem to be saying that people (Christians) who divorce for unjustified reasons are going to hell, but I am not 100% sure if that really is what you are saying.Churches that fail to uphold God's standards with reference to marriage and divorce are not only contributing to the damnation that violators will face on the day of judgment,
TK
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
"Were not our hearts burning within us? (Lk 24:32)
Hi TK—
Granted that some of us here (including myself) do not know exactly what we mean when we speak of "hell," we can agree that, whatever it may be, it is the opposite of "salvation" (whatever that may entail).
Salvation, by any Christian's definition is for those for whom Christ has become "Lord" (Rom.10:9). As I understand it, the fulness of salvation belongs only to followers of Christ.
What God may decide about the fate of those who have never heard of Christ, but have sought to live a life pleasing to "the unknown god" will have to remain, for the time being, His to know and ours to find out—but I do not think that they reign with Christ in eternity as God has promised that those who suffer with Him shall do.
Suffice it to say, one who divorces his wife, contrary to Christ's instructions, is not a follower of Christ. This is simple matter of definitions: A follower of Christ is one who follows Christ (John 10:27). One who rejects Christ's words is not a follower of Christ. While true disciples may stumble into momentary sin, yet they quickly repent when they realize that they have done so.
Divorce, however, is not an action of a moment, but a calculated and long-premeditated betrayal carried out through a protracted, unjustified lawsuit. It is not accidental, nor a momentary act of weakness. People pay their lawyers big bucks for the pleasure of committing this abomination.
When the divorce has happened, it does not go away. The victims remain victims every day that the betrayal continues. Repentance requires going back and ceasing to victimize one's family. Is there salvation apart from repentance?
Can we think that one who highhandedly breaks the covenant (with his wife) that he made before and in the name of Christ, can do so without, in the very act, also breaking any covenantal obligations he has as a disciple of Christ to "continue in [Christ's] words" (John 8:31)?
A decision to divorce without grounds is (if the person is a Christian possessing a Bible) a decision to walk away from being a Christian disciple. If any may be said to be "damned" in scripture, it is those who have followed Christ and then have decided to abandon Him.
But, perhaps we will say that many people (including professing Christians) choose to divorce their faithful spouses because they are ignorant of the teachings of Christ on the subject. So they have not troubled themselves to discover the will of their Creator before destroying another's life? Who is to be blamed for that? Are they also ignorant of the vows that they took? The best thing that can be said of them is that they are choosing to trash their integrity and to knowingly victimize an innocent person to whom they are deeply indebted. If we extend any hope of salvation to the ignorant, is this the kind of ignorant person who can be said to be "living up to the light they have"? Can we say the same for those who attack someone in an alley and steal their wallets? The latter are committing a lesser act of cruelty, and may even do so for more forgivable motives than the spouse-betrayer.
God is more gracious than we are, and may see some way of forgiving such inhuman cruelty, but if we are to believe that hell is a place for the "goats" as well as for the devil (Matt.25:31ff), then I can think of no act more goat-like than that of the man who betrays his faithful wife or the woman who betrays her faithful husband.
Only the fact that this atrocity has become so common among us, and that every one of us has had someone we know and love who has committed such an act, could soften our condemnation of this behavior. We are to love sinners, as God surely does, but we must love their victims as well and not tolerate those who falsely claim to be Christ's followers and who deliberately destroy the lives of their mates and their children.
In fact, every person who divorces his/her spouse contributes to the statistic that makes the action seem "normal" to our children (and numbs the shock level even for us adults, who should know better)—so that the person who sins against his/her marriage is sinning also against all of our marriages, and those of our children, by eroding the natural sense of societal outrage that would otherwise render such criminality unthinkable.
If I sound animated about this issue, I am. I have five innocent children who have suffered and still suffer great spiritual harm because of this very atrocity. I see the damage in their lives every day. The person who causes these little ones to stumble (as every deserting parent does)—well, we know that a horrible drowning would be more tolerable for them than whatever it is that God has in store for them. The non-confrontational "Christians" who enable such an apostate to take this course, by their non-condemning show of sympathy, become partakers with them in their guilt (cf., 2 John 10-11). Can we imagine such people are "saved" by any biblical definition of that word?
Granted that some of us here (including myself) do not know exactly what we mean when we speak of "hell," we can agree that, whatever it may be, it is the opposite of "salvation" (whatever that may entail).
Salvation, by any Christian's definition is for those for whom Christ has become "Lord" (Rom.10:9). As I understand it, the fulness of salvation belongs only to followers of Christ.
What God may decide about the fate of those who have never heard of Christ, but have sought to live a life pleasing to "the unknown god" will have to remain, for the time being, His to know and ours to find out—but I do not think that they reign with Christ in eternity as God has promised that those who suffer with Him shall do.
Suffice it to say, one who divorces his wife, contrary to Christ's instructions, is not a follower of Christ. This is simple matter of definitions: A follower of Christ is one who follows Christ (John 10:27). One who rejects Christ's words is not a follower of Christ. While true disciples may stumble into momentary sin, yet they quickly repent when they realize that they have done so.
Divorce, however, is not an action of a moment, but a calculated and long-premeditated betrayal carried out through a protracted, unjustified lawsuit. It is not accidental, nor a momentary act of weakness. People pay their lawyers big bucks for the pleasure of committing this abomination.
When the divorce has happened, it does not go away. The victims remain victims every day that the betrayal continues. Repentance requires going back and ceasing to victimize one's family. Is there salvation apart from repentance?
Can we think that one who highhandedly breaks the covenant (with his wife) that he made before and in the name of Christ, can do so without, in the very act, also breaking any covenantal obligations he has as a disciple of Christ to "continue in [Christ's] words" (John 8:31)?
A decision to divorce without grounds is (if the person is a Christian possessing a Bible) a decision to walk away from being a Christian disciple. If any may be said to be "damned" in scripture, it is those who have followed Christ and then have decided to abandon Him.
But, perhaps we will say that many people (including professing Christians) choose to divorce their faithful spouses because they are ignorant of the teachings of Christ on the subject. So they have not troubled themselves to discover the will of their Creator before destroying another's life? Who is to be blamed for that? Are they also ignorant of the vows that they took? The best thing that can be said of them is that they are choosing to trash their integrity and to knowingly victimize an innocent person to whom they are deeply indebted. If we extend any hope of salvation to the ignorant, is this the kind of ignorant person who can be said to be "living up to the light they have"? Can we say the same for those who attack someone in an alley and steal their wallets? The latter are committing a lesser act of cruelty, and may even do so for more forgivable motives than the spouse-betrayer.
God is more gracious than we are, and may see some way of forgiving such inhuman cruelty, but if we are to believe that hell is a place for the "goats" as well as for the devil (Matt.25:31ff), then I can think of no act more goat-like than that of the man who betrays his faithful wife or the woman who betrays her faithful husband.
Only the fact that this atrocity has become so common among us, and that every one of us has had someone we know and love who has committed such an act, could soften our condemnation of this behavior. We are to love sinners, as God surely does, but we must love their victims as well and not tolerate those who falsely claim to be Christ's followers and who deliberately destroy the lives of their mates and their children.
In fact, every person who divorces his/her spouse contributes to the statistic that makes the action seem "normal" to our children (and numbs the shock level even for us adults, who should know better)—so that the person who sins against his/her marriage is sinning also against all of our marriages, and those of our children, by eroding the natural sense of societal outrage that would otherwise render such criminality unthinkable.
If I sound animated about this issue, I am. I have five innocent children who have suffered and still suffer great spiritual harm because of this very atrocity. I see the damage in their lives every day. The person who causes these little ones to stumble (as every deserting parent does)—well, we know that a horrible drowning would be more tolerable for them than whatever it is that God has in store for them. The non-confrontational "Christians" who enable such an apostate to take this course, by their non-condemning show of sympathy, become partakers with them in their guilt (cf., 2 John 10-11). Can we imagine such people are "saved" by any biblical definition of that word?
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
In Jesus,
Steve
Steve
Thanks, Steve, for that convincing clarification.
I believe that you are the only person who I have ever heard state what you have stated.
Perhaps if this was taught from the pulpit, the divorce rate in the church would plummet. I honestly believe that less than 1% of Christians believe what you have stated (essentially, that if you are improperly divorced then you are not a Christian).
i might venture to say that less than 1% of the evangelical pastors believe this.
TK
I believe that you are the only person who I have ever heard state what you have stated.
Perhaps if this was taught from the pulpit, the divorce rate in the church would plummet. I honestly believe that less than 1% of Christians believe what you have stated (essentially, that if you are improperly divorced then you are not a Christian).
i might venture to say that less than 1% of the evangelical pastors believe this.
TK
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
"Were not our hearts burning within us? (Lk 24:32)
-
_rvornberg
- Posts: 34
- Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 12:23 pm
That was very convicting Steve.
Lord lead us not into temptation.
You said a couple of things that brought up some questions. I'm not going to post it here, I'll post it in: Church Life.
Lord lead us not into temptation.
You said a couple of things that brought up some questions. I'm not going to post it here, I'll post it in: Church Life.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Steve, you are certainly correct about the ongoing negative ramifications of divorce.Steve you wrote:Divorce is not a victimless crime. It is one of the most emotionally violent crimes known in any society, and it leads, statistically, to the increase of other crimes, which are committed in greater numbers by the children of divorce. These children, in addition to becoming criminals in larger numbers than others, also will experience drug addiction, unwed pregnancies, depression and suicide in greater percentages than will children from intact homes.
Do you think that usually only one party is responsible for the "crime of divorce"? Or do you think both members of a divorcing couple are guilty, albeit in differing degrees.
Is one member of a divorcing couple ever entirely responsible for bringing about the divorce? Or does the other party share in the guilt, in a ratio of 1:4, or maybe 1:9, or even as little as 1:99? How often is their an equal responsibility (1:1 ratio)?
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Paidion
Avatar --- Age 45
"Not one soul will ever be redeemed from hell but by being saved from his sins, from the evil in him." --- George MacDonald
Avatar --- Age 45
"Not one soul will ever be redeemed from hell but by being saved from his sins, from the evil in him." --- George MacDonald
We need to avoid the danger of confusing responsibility for unhappiness in a marriage with responsibility for a divorce, since unhappiness is never, in itself, a legitimate reason to break your promises.
If we ask who is responsible for an unhappy marriage, we may be able to divide the guilt between the partners, since all spouses are imperfect, and may cause trials for their partners.
However, divorce is a specific act of covenant-breaking. It is thus the crime of perjury. Crimes, by definition, have a perpetrator and a victim. The victim may be a very annoying individual, but cannot be said to be responsible for crimes committed against him/her.
If one partner is an unrepentant adulterer or adulteress, and ends up divorced on those grounds, then that adulterous person must bear the full responsibility alone for the divorce, even if it is pursued by the other partner. On the other hand, if a husband or wife divorces his/her spouse without such grounds, then the party initiating the divorce is clearly the covenant-breaker.
Everyone who seeks an unjustified divorce is capable of pointing to actions of their spouse which contributed to the unhappiness of their marriage. But being an imperfect spouse (even a very imperfect one) is not the same as giving one's partner grounds to commit the crime of perjury.
If we ask who is responsible for an unhappy marriage, we may be able to divide the guilt between the partners, since all spouses are imperfect, and may cause trials for their partners.
However, divorce is a specific act of covenant-breaking. It is thus the crime of perjury. Crimes, by definition, have a perpetrator and a victim. The victim may be a very annoying individual, but cannot be said to be responsible for crimes committed against him/her.
If one partner is an unrepentant adulterer or adulteress, and ends up divorced on those grounds, then that adulterous person must bear the full responsibility alone for the divorce, even if it is pursued by the other partner. On the other hand, if a husband or wife divorces his/her spouse without such grounds, then the party initiating the divorce is clearly the covenant-breaker.
Everyone who seeks an unjustified divorce is capable of pointing to actions of their spouse which contributed to the unhappiness of their marriage. But being an imperfect spouse (even a very imperfect one) is not the same as giving one's partner grounds to commit the crime of perjury.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
In Jesus,
Steve
Steve