It should be noted that your offenses in other posts have not been address; you've simply ignored them. This is making you more suspicious as we continue; I thought you should know that since you likely have considered it, but I hope that you simply have not considered it. (i.e. It would be really bad if you had considered it and did nothing.)
Contrary to popular Christian opinion and based on what God clearly states in his Word, God NEVER allows for divorce and remarriage, no matter the reason. Many, if not most churches and Christians believe that God is against divorce but yet makes exception for adultery, abuse, abandonment, etc. However, there is no Biblical basis for this.
God's plan has always been that 2-never-before-married-persons would enter into the marriage covenant for life, ending only in the death of one or the other.
God's plan for marriage, and His allowance for divorce in certain situations, are two different things. God planned for mankind to not sin, but He knew what would happen, and so He made a contingency plan, which is why we have the Lord Jesus Christ. To say that there is no such thing as divorce because God had a plan for marriage, is like to say, there is no such thing as sin because God had a plan for mankind; that's a fallacious introduction.
The permanency of marriage is foundational to knowing the heart of God and seeing the picture of Christ and the church personified in each marriage.
Exactly, which, if you had actually taken the time to read the book I wrote on marriage, instead of stopping a small fraction of the way through, you would have seen that no one here will disagree with that. The problem is that the analogy of the husband and wife to Christ and the church is not a sound starting point to disprove divorce in Scripture. That would be like making the argument that all Christians were intended not to live in houses, but rather in barns, because we are called sheep by an analogy; that's nonsensical.
Let's start with some verses.
Luke 16:18 Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever
marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.
Mark 10:11-12 And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth
adultery against her. And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth
adultery.
God is very clear in these verses. If either the husband or the wife divorces his or her spouse and marries another, he or she commits adultery, no exception.
Then immediately the argument is made, what about the exception clause in Matthew? Let's look at that verse.
Matthew 5:32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication,
causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.
Correct, but you're leaving out Scripture.
And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept. But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
-Mark 10:5-9
It is the hardness of heart, whether in one or the other (but most often, both), that God allowed this; however, it should not be done if at all avoidable. Again, if you would actually read the book instead of answering the matter before you've heard it, you'd understand why.
He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him.
-Pro 18:13
In addition, you're only going to these points, and not reading/studying the Bible the way that God instructed us to do so:
For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:
-Isa 28:10
God goes on to explain that He setup His Word in that way so that those who did not have proper understanding of Scripture would trip over themselves.
But the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken.
-Isa 28:13
The good news is that I think I can save myself some time because, after scanning through the Scripture you posted, I can see that you purposely avoided certain Scriptures, just like you did in Mark. I disagree with Kevin, although he is a very kind man, and I highly respect his humility, I'm not sure he discerned the deception, but I see it clearly.
This is a pattern we've seen many times here on the forum, and trust me when I tell you, those people don't stay here very long. What they (and you) will do is quote specific verses, but then stop before you get to verses that contradict your presuppositional argument. For example, you will later go to Matthew 19:6, and I'll quote more of it:
And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
-Mat 19:4-6
You're happy to quote that because if you cherry pick only these verses, it seems to support your fallacious argument, but if you keep reading, you'll get more details:
They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. 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.
-Mat 19:7-9
It's interesting that allude to that verse, but you don't actually quote it. (How convenient.) So now, Jesus said that a couple sins if they divorce, UNLESS it's over the matter of one of the is fornicating, which, if you would have taken the time to read my book instead of just ignoring it, you would know why that is because it's explained more later (i.e. here a little and there a little).
The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife. Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.
-1Co 7:4-5
Thus, the sexual gratification belongs to one another in a marriage, and that should not be defrauded (i.e. taking away what rightfully belongs to the other), but if one party in the marriage defrauds the other, which is fornication/adultery, then there is grounds for divorce, as Jesus pointed out.
I'm only writing this to you out of the patience that God has given me, because frankly, I'm running out of it. I've already written about these matters and explained it very thoroughly in the book, and I should not have to copy and paste them for you here because of your laziness/slothfulness, and because of your unwillingness to listen.
Countless Christians have jumped onto this phrase, "saving for the cause of fornication" to justify many reasons given for divorce and remarriage. I believe that the misunderstanding of this phrase alone has done more damage to the Christian body than almost any other doctrinal error due to the millions of marriages and families that have been torn apart.
First of all, God cannot contradict himself. He cannot forbid remarriage in 2 verses and then make an exception in another.
I'm going to make this one really simple for everyone to understand the fallacy of Fred's thinking, which he likely got from a worldly influence. If he repents (i.e. grief and godly sorrow), then we're more than willing to forgive, but so far, that's not been his heart. Let's look at a very simply commandment:
Thou shalt not kill.
-Exd 20:13
Obviously, if anyone kills anyone else, they have sinned, right? So according to Fred's philosophy (i.e. way of thinking), there is no such thing as a kill that is justified. Let's read two chapters later:
If a thief be found breaking up, and be smitten that he die, there shall no blood be shed for him.
-Exd 22:2
Now we have a contradiction somewhere (i.e. either with Fred or God) because the Bible is now saying there are certain circumstances under which God allows killing, even though He just said "Thou shalt not kill." I'm sure when it comes to Fred's philosophy or God's philosophy, you all will quickly know which one I'm going to choose.
The question we ought to ask ourselves is: Why did God allow killing under certain circumstances? Because of sin; that is, because of the hardness of hearts in thieves. Likewise, why did God allow divorce under certain circumstances? Because of sin, because of fornicators and adulterers, because of the hardness of their hearts.
(See "Can Christians Kill in Self-Defense (https://http://www.creationliberty.com/articles/selfdefense.php)" for more details.)
But after thy hardness and impenitent heart [i.e. a heart that is not broken-hearted over his sin] treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God; Who will render to every man according to his deeds:
-Romans 2:5-6
It's because of this ignorance on Fred's part that he will not see why a woman can divorce if her husband is physically beating her into a hospital. He will not see why a man can divorce if a woman is getting pregnant with other mens' children. Likely, and Fred would need to be very careful when commenting on this one, he doesn't even see that remarriage is allowed after the death of a spouse. (Don't misunderstand; I believe he probably does believe that, but he doesn't understand it, and I'm giving him fair warning when commenting on that subject because of the incoming snare that God talked about in Isa 28.)
The apparent contradiction is not the fault of God but in our misunderstanding of the verses.
Agreed. I want to end my post with that sentence; that was perfectly said.
Secondly, the Greek word porneia, correctly translated as fornication in the KJV is incorrectly translated as adultery, sexual immorality, or marital unfaithfulness in other translations.
And that's where I'm going to stop because that is where Fred starts using the "original Greek scam" that he learned to do from new-age church buildings and leavened preachers. For those of you who want to learn the truth about that, and why he's in error, please read through this teaching:
The 'Original Greek' Scam (https://www.creationliberty.com/articles/greekgame.php)
In short, Fred's premise is fallacious, his arguments are contradicted by the Scripture, he cherry-picks verses, and he's using the "original Greek" scam as a method of study, likely because he also still goes to his lexicons and concordances, which are just as corrupt as new-age bible versions and come from the same source:
The Dangers of Using Lexicons and Concordances (https://http://www.creationliberty.com/articles/lexicon.php)
Fred did not come here in humility to learn, as he stated himself; he came here in pride with contention to teach, and if he's going to insist on teaching false doctrine, he won't be welcome. Normally, I wouldn't have to be so strict on the matter, and I would be more open to discussion, but due to the nature of his previous posts and responses, the fact that his introduction has no testimony of Christ in it, nor any indication of a heart of repentance (i.e. grief and godly sorrow of wrongdoing), and because of that, I don't believe he's born again in Christ, and I'm not positioned to suffer him very long, but if you guys want to discuss this matter more with him, you're welcome to do so. (i.e. At the very least, it's always good to get some discernment practice in.)
But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.
-Heb 5:14