I am halfway and enjoying it. Like the fact that tempers did not flare. All of them were calm. I like the fact that on some issues they would say that I dont have an answer or dont know where I stand on that. I stand with the permanance view and agree with Jack on this
Scripture teaches in Deuteronomy 24 that if a man divorces his wife, then the wife goes and marries another man who also divorces her, "then her former husband, who sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after she has been defiled, for that is an abomination before the Lord. And you shall not bring sin upon the land that the Lord your God is giving you for an inheritance.” Deuteronomy 24:4. If subsequent (albeit sinfully entered into) marriages are actually invalid and therefore need to be "dissolved," then the Lord is actually *forbidding* the righteous thing in Deuteronomy 24. This passage is addressed by Jesus and he says that this is a concession to hardness of heart. And that is obviously true with regard to the toleration of divorce. But clearly the positive command in this passage is teaching us that someone must not "remarry" their first spouse if they have subsequently remarried. But this is exactly what Jack said SHOULD happen. How could God actually forbid righteousness?
I'm totally open to changing my mind on this btw. For example, I'm pro-head covering now. I absolutely have no problem holding weird teachings (or weird to our modern world). But I do think that Deuteronomy 24 is pretty tough to get around imho.
So I think I agree with almost everything except I think subsequent remarriages are still valid, and repentance looks like lamenting your sin and remaining faithful to your present spouse, and recognizing that you retain covenant obligations to your first spouse.
The answer to what river said about the children in second marriage is that a man cleaves to his wife not the kids. Why would it be different in a first ir second even if children are involved
Great conversation! It definitely opened my eyes up to a more Biblical understanding as compared to a Christian cultural one. That being said.. it is kinda funny to hear this conversation from a denomination started from a king who wanted to remarry. (a little friendly rib jabbing. lol)
I dont get it. They start by aying marriage is permanent then get right intostaying in a second or third marriage. And then go into giving every explanation for divorce. When did the first permanent marriage end? Did they say marriage was permanent? Ir did they nean any second marriage is permanent?
Im going to psten to the whole video. I keep hearing that there is no biblical exception for divorce but all but one sas a second marriage is valid. How can tgat happen? Its adultery they say tgat but to continue on. God is notpart of a second marriage
Hypocrits. Hiw can married be permanent and asecond marriage be valid. Is anyone ekse seeing this? They talk about voddie bauchman and john piper ike they are wrongbut then totally agree with them. Im very confused
Jesus recognized each marriage of the woman at the well. A second marriage is a marriage, whether the participants had grounds for divorce and marriage or not (abandonment by an unbeliever or sexual sin) is a valid marriage that God expects the members to honor. There is evidence for second marriages in the Bible but never gay marriages so this would be an invalid comparison.
The Bible did not give a lot of details of the first five husbands for the woman at the well. The only thing we know is the person she had at the moment was not her husband. It might not be good to use that situation as a precedence based on her previous husbands
I occasionally hear people bring up the Gibeonites (Joshua 9) in defense of respecting any covenant, even those made illicitly somehow. However, I don't see anything in the passage about the Gibeonites in which God commands that this, or any other illicit covenant, must be respected. It is simply Israel's decision to do so. I don't believe we can build a doctrine on that decision by Israel in the Old Covenant, especially regarding a covenant other than marriage. We also have an actual command by Ezra to separate from pagan wives, who WERE illicitly married. So I don't find the Gibeonite argument that strong.
@@1920s I heard that as well, and they did make distinctions about deaths of spouses and such also and used biblical arguments. I'll read the Bible more for understanding. This was a helpful discussion.
@@oboylebeast Can you help us understand which argument you are trying to make, and if you are assuming any details you didn't provide? On the surface, that sounds like pathos-prioritizing commentary, which, based on what the debaters said, aren't prioritized by God in every case (total war, etc.).
@@MrSmoothMoves Not all second marriages are adulterous but if it did start out that way (the divorce being not under Biblical grounds), it is now a marriage. By your rationale, you must stop every sin you've ever committed and may not commit it again or you are at risk for being considered to be a perpetual sinner regarding that sin.
I’m not Angelican but appreciated this discussion and agree that the Christian churches as a whole should take a stance on marriage permanence.
I am halfway and enjoying it. Like the fact that tempers did not flare. All of them were calm.
I like the fact that on some issues they would say that I dont have an answer or dont know where I stand on that.
I stand with the permanance view and agree with Jack on this
Great discussion.
Thank you!
Scripture teaches in Deuteronomy 24 that if a man divorces his wife, then the wife goes and marries another man who also divorces her, "then her former husband, who sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after she has been defiled, for that is an abomination before the Lord. And you shall not bring sin upon the land that the Lord your God is giving you for an inheritance.”
Deuteronomy 24:4. If subsequent (albeit sinfully entered into) marriages are actually invalid and therefore need to be "dissolved," then the Lord is actually *forbidding* the righteous thing in Deuteronomy 24. This passage is addressed by Jesus and he says that this is a concession to hardness of heart. And that is obviously true with regard to the toleration of divorce. But clearly the positive command in this passage is teaching us that someone must not "remarry" their first spouse if they have subsequently remarried. But this is exactly what Jack said SHOULD happen. How could God actually forbid righteousness?
I'm totally open to changing my mind on this btw. For example, I'm pro-head covering now. I absolutely have no problem holding weird teachings (or weird to our modern world). But I do think that Deuteronomy 24 is pretty tough to get around imho.
So I think I agree with almost everything except I think subsequent remarriages are still valid, and repentance looks like lamenting your sin and remaining faithful to your present spouse, and recognizing that you retain covenant obligations to your first spouse.
@@cullanfritts4499 Jack explicitly said that he believes a spouse cannot remarry their first spouse after ending their remarriage.
@@newkingdommedia9434 oh I must have missed that. My bad!
@@cullanfritts4499 all good, it was a long show lol
The answer to what river said about the children in second marriage is that a man cleaves to his wife not the kids. Why would it be different in a first ir second even if children are involved
Great conversation! It definitely opened my eyes up to a more Biblical understanding as compared to a Christian cultural one.
That being said.. it is kinda funny to hear this conversation from a denomination started from a king who wanted to remarry. (a little friendly rib jabbing. lol)
Thank you!
Also that's incorrect. Henry VIII never divorced any of his wives. He *annulled* the marriage, and justifiably so I would argue.
Read Luke 16 18 and Romans 7 1-3
I dont get it. They start by aying marriage is permanent then get right intostaying in a second or third marriage. And then go into giving every explanation for divorce. When did the first permanent marriage end? Did they say marriage was permanent? Ir did they nean any second marriage is permanent?
Maybe im simple but how can jared say that a couple that is married for a little while needs to seperate and the couple of 25 years us goid to go?
I have to ask- if a Christian is remarried, and genuinely does not believe or even know that they are living in sin, are they damned?
These guys are all over the place. Even when jack says it is continued adultery he accepts second marriage. Hiws that possible?
Im going to psten to the whole video. I keep hearing that there is no biblical exception for divorce but all but one sas a second marriage is valid. How can tgat happen? Its adultery they say tgat but to continue on. God is notpart of a second marriage
Hypocrits. Hiw can married be permanent and asecond marriage be valid. Is anyone ekse seeing this? They talk about voddie bauchman and john piper ike they are wrongbut then totally agree with them. Im very confused
Jesus recognized each marriage of the woman at the well. A second marriage is a marriage, whether the participants had grounds for divorce and marriage or not (abandonment by an unbeliever or sexual sin) is a valid marriage that God expects the members to honor. There is evidence for second marriages in the Bible but never gay marriages so this would be an invalid comparison.
The Bible did not give a lot of details of the first five husbands for the woman at the well. The only thing we know is the person she had at the moment was not her husband. It might not be good to use that situation as a precedence based on her previous husbands
I occasionally hear people bring up the Gibeonites (Joshua 9) in defense of respecting any covenant, even those made illicitly somehow. However, I don't see anything in the passage about the Gibeonites in which God commands that this, or any other illicit covenant, must be respected. It is simply Israel's decision to do so. I don't believe we can build a doctrine on that decision by Israel in the Old Covenant, especially regarding a covenant other than marriage. We also have an actual command by Ezra to separate from pagan wives, who WERE illicitly married. So I don't find the Gibeonite argument that strong.
gotta side with Jack. If you're in adultery, you must stop
You have to stop EVERY sin and never sin again to be saved.
@@Thomas116-m2n this take is so bad I'm not even gonna argue
@@ashleysbored6710 I'm not sure what you mean. You don't agree with me? Every sin must be stopped? Or just adultery?
Agreed
So the answer to divorce is more divorce? Got it.
No, the answer to divorce and to adultery is repentance. 🙏
@@MrSmoothMovesTwo of them said that you must separate if you’ve remarried.
@@1920s I heard that as well, and they did make distinctions about deaths of spouses and such also and used biblical arguments. I'll read the Bible more for understanding. This was a helpful discussion.
@@oboylebeast Can you help us understand which argument you are trying to make, and if you are assuming any details you didn't provide? On the surface, that sounds like pathos-prioritizing commentary, which, based on what the debaters said, aren't prioritized by God in every case (total war, etc.).
@@MrSmoothMoves Not all second marriages are adulterous but if it did start out that way (the divorce being not under Biblical grounds), it is now a marriage. By your rationale, you must stop every sin you've ever committed and may not commit it again or you are at risk for being considered to be a perpetual sinner regarding that sin.