Month: May 2003

Let None Deal Treacherously
An examination of God’s Law (and the error of men) on the subject of Marriage, Divorce & Remarriage
(Article 9 and Final of Series)

The assertion of thiese articles (Later self-published in booklet form) has been that the Lord’s teaching regarding marriage and divorce is straightforward, and easily understood. Simply stated, it is: One man, One woman, for a lifetime. Continue reading “An Addendum” →

Let None Deal Treacherously
An examination of God’s Law (and the error of men) on the subject of Marriage, Divorce & Remarriage
(Article 8 of Series)

When error is taught religiously, history shows people to be divided into one of three groups. First, there are those who advocate the error. Second, there are those who combat the error. And, finally, there are those who seek to minimize the differences, thus compromising with the error. Issues in the past 150 years have shown this to be true with the battles over the instrument in worship, and with the institutional issues that troubled brethren in the middle of the last century. Continue reading “Fellowship and Controversy” →

Let None Deal Treacherously
An examination of God’s Law (and the error of men) on the subject of Marriage, Divorce & Remarriage
(Article 6 in Series)

To define the “mental divorce” position, we refer to both formal propositions, and a common scenario. First, the proposition, which some who advocate the position have signed:

The scriptures teach that the innocent person (free of fornication) who has been put away without God’s or his/her approval and against whom adultery has been committed may remarry.

Next, the scenario, which establishes the contention in plain language:

When Jack puts away Jill for a reason other than fornication, though he obtains a civil divorce, they are not really divorced. It is called divorce only “accomodatively”. If Jack then remarries another woman, he is guilty of adultery. So, he can now be mentally put away by Jill. This is the real divorce. Now, Jill is free to remarry.

Both the above proposition and the scenario is used by Donnie Rader in his book, Divorce and Remarriage: What Does the Text Say, page 74. Rader states, “Actually this is an effort by some to justify remarriage following an unlawful divorce.”
Rader’s assessment of the position is accurate, and the mental divorce position is not defensible from scripture. Continue reading “Mental Divorce” →