From the Early
Church to Modern Corruption - Find Out what the Early
Church Originally Taught about Divorce and Remarriage
Recompiled
as an appendix 1/30/10; Revised 2/10/10; 2/15-2/17/10; 9/10/10; 9/3/12
This work is an appendix resource for
the book, Divorce and Remarriage Repentance Revolution. It is time to call
the church to repent of adulteress remarriage!
Contents
Summaries
of Early Church Teaching1
From
Origen to Augustine - From Wavering to Compromise. 2
For The
Most Part There Was Agreement6
Desiderius
Erasmus Roterodamus6
Luther,
Erasmus, And Other Reformers7
The BIG
Question Here is, Who’s Disciples Are We?. 7
From
the 1940’s Through the 70’s8
The
Assemblies Of God (and others)8
This part of this book has no particular interest at all of drawing dogmas and strong conclusions about absolute truth by reading the writings of men who did not even claim to be writing Scripture. The Bible itself does a completely amazing and exquisite job of this all on its own without any aid. But we have years of catholic and protestant distortions clouding our eyes, stacking up countless indoctrinations that are opposed to the ordinances God originally gave to His Church. At one time His Church faithfully kept these Words, but now they are all but lost in the confusion of multiple excuses worked by deceptive men, and we are almost entirely their disciples this day so that we cannot see God’s clear commands, even if they were plainly held up to us as a hand in front of our face. But a simple and honest look at history will easily incriminate the guilty.
With a soft heart, may we repent of the discipleship we have received from men who have opposed the truth so that we can be unhindered from clearly hearing God’s Words, and simply obey Jesus as those faithful Church leaders in the earliest centuries did.
As a side note, I have
gone to great lengths to be historically accurate, and because of this I
eagerly welcome any corrections or notations that I may have missed.
During the first five centuries of
Christianity, the modern concept of divorce followed by remarriage was unheard
of…
[www.religioustolerance.org/div_ok1.htm].
In the early church, many voices
addressed the subjects of marriage, divorce, and remarriage, but their message,
on the whole, was quite unified. Christian marriage, they said, is an
indissoluble bond. Divorce, with the implicit right of remarriage, was not an
option for Christian couples… Remarriage after separation was considered
punishable adultery or bigamy…
(Divorce and Remarriage from
Augustine to Zwingli, Christianity Today)
Of all the early recognized Church
Fathers who ever wrote, all who were written about, every discussion and every
debate, in thousands of surviving documents over hundreds of years, there is
not a single dissenting voice on the essential core doctrines of marriage, divorce
and remarriage. Each taught the same doctrine, each held the same opinion and
each enforced the same morals standards…
(Restoration of Christian Marriage, By Stephen W. Wilcox)
This divorce and remarriage teaching, which the modern church of today has clearly forsaken, was a direct result of what the leaders of the early church simply believed when they received the letters that we now call the New Testament, on top of what the Apostles personally taught the earliest of them. Especially compared to us today, their eyes were unhindered by contemporary views of “morality,” by Catholic and Protestant agendas, or even by the limitations of the language barrier to the original texts, and for the earliest of them, their hearts were reinforced by the personal testimony of the Apostles themselves or else those who had known the Apostles.
All who led the early Church
were certainly not perfect or unanimous in all of their other doctrines, and in
this area the heretics would not even allow remarriage
after widowhood, but for all practicality, amazingly, from
saint to heretic they were essentially unanimous about divorce and remarriage
within the early centuries of the church.
Basically everyone teaching in the church agreed that remarriage after
divorce was adultery, and would condemn a person if maintained. Forsaking an
adulterous remarriage was the only option for being counted repentant, saved,
and eligible to be admitted into the fellowship of the Church. It was
consistently like this within original Christianity until drastic corruption
set in.
Here are a few
names of the more influential early Church leaders and teachers who all taught
this hard core teaching:
Justin Martyr
(100–165 A.D.), Irenaeus (~ 130–200 A.D.), Athenagoras
(around 133-190), Clement of Alexandria (around 150–215 A.D.), Tertullian
(around 160–230 AD), Origen (around 185–255 A.D.).
These, and
many more leaders all unanimously and specifically taught that divorce and
remarriage for any reason at all is adultery and continues to be so until the
second marriage is terminated. Some of their quotes are referenced throughout the main body of this teaching.
There are so many more in history who said
these same things, but the most meaningful are those who wrote before 325 AD
(as seen above) since this was before the major corruption of the Council of
Nicaea when the church took its first major, official steps into mixing with
the pagan government. These earlier
writers are called “The Ante-Nicene Fathers” (that is, leaders “before Nicaea”)
by most people, and it is through the earliest of them and their testimony that
we have the New Testament confirmed to us today. But this teaching was so
universal, that even works as bad as the Shepherd of Hermas
(about 90 A.D.) taught that
remarriage was adultery. Even though he falsely claimed the inspiration of
visions, and wrote lustful content especially toward the end, he still knew and
taught that the marriage covenant was permanent.
So from the
greatest and earliest saint even to the heretic, teachers and leaders within
the early Church knew that the marriage covenant was permanent, and that remarriage
meant living in adultery.
We have said that “It was consistently like this within original Christianity, until drastic corruption set in,” and some of the first faint but significant signs of this corruption can be seen in a few later leaders such as Origen (before Nicaea) and even more so in Augustine (after Nicaea). Were there exceptions to this extreme teaching on marriage? As a whole there was not, but these few wavered, and through watching and considering their life and example we can see in many areas of truth (not just on marriage), what “small” breaches in integrity can do so quickly to ruin a man’s entire life before God.
We should take some hints from the fact that overall lawlessness and disturbing compromise against truth, happened long before anyone even wavered a little on standing up for marriage, and this speaks volumes about the solidity of their concepts of marriage and the potent effects of corruption.
“Origen Adamantius of Alexandria” was a latter Pre-Nicene church leader in Alexandria, (185–255 AD) and wavered some in sympathizing with the permissiveness of some that allowed remarriage after divorce, but he himself, even though he was a heretic in his Universalist philosophies, taught the life-long permanence of the marriage covenant, and the adultery of divorce and remarriage.
A Universalist is one who teaches that everyone eventually goes to heaven, much like Unitarians, and Origen was discipled into this heresy by his teacher, Clement of Alexandria. Their theology is often called, “Universal Redemption” or “Final Restoration.” Origin was a influential and brilliant writer, and if it were not for the unprecedented ideas that he repeated and through out to the Church, we may never have had Unitarian religions mimicking churches today.
Origin was so bad in his Universalist heresy, that even the Catholic church ended up anathematizing him (that is, basically ‘retroactive excommunication’ in this case) in their Fifth Ecumenical Council. They likewise condemned anyone who did not also reject him, his teachings and his writings.
Origin is described even
by those who sympathized with him in this way:
“Many of his teachings reflect
brilliant spiritual insights. On the other hand, some of his teachings exhibit
strained or unsound theological speculation, (“Who's Who in the Ante-Nicene
Fathers” from “A Dictionary of Early Christian
Beliefs” by David W. Bercot)”
And I would be faithful to
say that (at least in many points) he was too
brilliant for his own good. As it has been said of
others: his brilliance empowered his insanity with convincing potency.
When it comes to those who
try to misuse Origin to indicate that the early Church had exceptions to her
strict stance on divorce and remarriage, there are several things that we need
to consider:
First, it is foolish to be persuaded about the
issue of divorce and remarriage primarily based on the early church when we
have a Bible that already makes the same definite assertions. We should have
first believed it, and then looked into history.
Second, if we are still going to be persuaded by
Church history, then let us know that Origen is representative of those who erred in history, not as one who
“faithfully passed along the traditions of the Apostles” as others did. So Origen is not a good example to start with
when it comes to representing the “Early Church.” This is clear for anyone who
has understanding and reads his writings.
Third, let us keep in mind that Origen was not
one of the earliest church leaders relative to the rest. He lived from 185 to 255 A.D.
But nonetheless Origen did make a wavering
statement, and you may be disappointed in those who misuse it when you see the
actual statement, because it does not indicate anything near what the liberals
imply. Origen’s wavering statement about
remarriage was as follows:
But now contrary to what was written, some even of the rulers of
the church have permitted a woman to marry, even when her husband was living,
doing contrary to what was written,
where it is said, "A wife is bound for so long time as her husband liveth," and "So then if while her husband liveth, she shall be joined to another man she shall be
called an adulteress," not indeed altogether without reason, for it is
probable this concession was permitted in comparison with worse things, contrary to what was from the beginning ordained by
law, and written.
(Origen, Commentary on the Gospel of
Matthew, Book XIV, Part 2, #23; Vol. 9, Ante-Nicene
Fathers, in e-Sword at
9.13.29)
Would you believe that anyone
would dare try to use this quote to say that the Early Church supported certain
exceptions to their teaching? But sadly, people do try to distort Origen in this very way!
In this section Origen somewhat sympathizes with those
involved in a scandal of their day, but would you yield to sympathies that were
based on admitting that it was “contrary to what was written”? If you hate Jesus maybe so.
But isn't it noteworthy that even in slightly wavering this way, Origen still
mentions that it is “contrary” to Scripture?
Even the tone of this quote tells us that this is a highly unusual
occurrence when he says, “a woman.”
How does that compare to our churches today that are filled with
divorced and remarried couples? But despite this scandal, Origen himself still
taught the permanency of the marriage covenant along with all the other church
leaders, even from within this very same paragraph that was quoted above:
But
as a woman is an adulteress, even though she seem to be married to a man, while
the former husband is still living, so also the man who seems to marry her who
has been put away, does not so much marry her as commit adultery with her
according to the declaration of our Saviour.
(Origen, Commentary on the Gospel of
Matthew, Book XIV, Part 2, #23; Vol. 9, Ante-Nicene
Fathers, in e-Sword at
9.13.29)
Origen teaches the
permanence of the marriage covenant like this numerous times throughout this
book, surrounding the area of his notorious “wavering statement.” Compared to
us and the crimes we are used to today, this is not much of a wavering
statement after all!
So we can see that even the heretic Origen knew that the marriage covenant was permanent.
You can read more specifically about all of Origen’s heresies in the Appendix entitled, “Extra Notes on Church History”.
Augustine of Hippo is commonly (but inaccurately) known as
“Saint Augustine” or “St. Austin,” and was one of the first major mile-stones
of corruption in the area of marriage.
Many years after the overall corruption
problems that were christened in Nicaea (325 A.D.), Augustine (354–430
A.D.)
pioneered away from the primitive faith in many ways, and he did this against
marriage by teaching that christian marriage was a
Sacrament of the church, and he effectively contrasted this with “natural”
marriages that were not performed by the church.
The “Sacraments,” are basically what
Protestants call the “Ordinances of the church,” which Biblically speaking, are
the deep spiritual traditions or practices that the church has been commanded
to keep. This includes things like Communion (also called “The Eucharist” by
liturgical churches), Baptism, and any other practice like this that the Bible
commands followers of Jesus to keep and observe. They are essential practices of corporate,
Biblical faith, and the countless varieties of attempts at keeping them have in
many ways defined every version of christianity,
whether in truth or in falsehood. But
Jesus’ Church alone has the right and obligation to keep these things.
But instead of practicing Biblical
sacraments, Augustine used their potency to invent and promote the theory of
“Sacramental Marriages.” Augustine distorted the concept of marriage as if it
were a matter given to the church to perform and govern. If the church did not perform the marriage,
then Catholics came to categorize it as a “natural” marriage, and this ended up
meaning that it could theoretically be dissolved in cases such as if one of the
spouses lacked baptism (or “sprinkling”). Augustine is the primary church
leader in history to propose that marriage can be, or declared to be, valid or
invalid, annulled or dissolved, based on the authority and definition of the
church. This is eventually where we get
the idea that a couple “is more blessed” or is a “match made in Heaven” or has
a “Holy Marriage” if they are wedded in a church building.
Augustine could be called one of, if not
the most, influential church leaders in catholic doctrine, and because of this,
his ideas have stuck throughout the centuries. Because of this, the text of one
of the main American catholic bibles called “The New American Bible,”
reads like this, “…Whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is
unlawful) and marries another commits adultery,” (Mat_19:9 NAB; and similarly so in Mat_5:32). The four underlined words are a
miss-representation of 1 Greek word properly translated as
“fornication.” The NAB reads as such not at all because the original
Greek word (porneia) that is used in Matthew 5 and 19 means, “unless the
marriage is unlawful,” but rather to forcibly reconcile the Scriptures unto
Augustine’s creative departure from the Words of Jesus. How even the
translators managed to sear their conscience enough to justify this in their
own eyes is beyond me. Further implications of this Greek word and the verses
that use it are covered in chapter four, entitled, “The Exception Clause.”
Augustine, however, was
apparently not as dogmatic with these ideas as those who followed afterward,
and they did not take full and final ground in the church until some years
before the Catholic Church officialized them,
especially in 1563 in the Council of Trent, as a strong reaction against the
Reformation, known as the “Counter-Reformation.”
Augustine laid the foundation
of violating Scripture to allow for divorce and remarriage in limited cases,
which eventually resulted in a full blown list in the Catholic church of
excuses that could theoretically allow people to divorce and remarry, such as
the so called “Petrine and Pauline Privileges,” which
are mostly covered in chapter five, under the point entitled, “A Pauline Exception.”
These horrible compromises and many others are described and promoted by
“The Catholic Encyclopedia”:
“Divorce (in Moral Theology)” – www.newadvent.org/cathen/05054c.htm
As we
can see later, the reformers took Augustine’s
teaching even further than the Catholics in actually permitting and even
promoting divorce and remarriage. But despite Augustine’s compromises:
“He opposed those who wanted to allow marriage
of the innocent party in cases of adultery and made the indissolubility of
Christian marriage, even after adultery, the standard of the Western church.”
(Divorce and Remarriage from
Augustine to Zwingli, Christianity Today)
The following quote is
only one out of a number of other equally clear quotes that he wrote on this
issue:
“No one is so unreasonable to say that
a man who marries a woman whose husband has dismissed her because of
fornication is not an adulterer, while maintaining that a man who marries a
woman dismissed without the ground of fornication is an adulterer. Both of
these men are guilty of adultery, (Adulterous
Marriages 1:9:9).”
Can you see that even
those who compromised in history were zealous for the permanency of marriage
compared to today? Even Augustine opposed the liberal excuses we use today to
justify divorce and remarriage.
From all of this I hope
you will notice, especially in the early Church before the council of Nicaea (325 A.D.), that there was
impressive universal agreement in the early Church about divorce and
remarriage. The only ones who really wavered at all on this issue among the
Church were the heretics, and not those who were faithful. Even when a bad leader varied somehow, in the
end even he would uphold the same essential standard for the permanency of the
marriage covenant and the adultery of remarriage. This recognition of the
permanence of one flesh was held and defended from saint to heretic.
Though subtle heretics (2Pe_2:1; Jud_1:4) corrupted truth from within the Church (Act_20:29-31) in other areas of doctrine, it was not
until after Nicaea that corruption eventually
hit the teaching of the permanency of one flesh as well, especially from the
times of Augustine. Despite even the problems introduced by Augustine, the
standard normal rule of marriage in the church’s mind was that it was still
“indissoluble” and unbreakable for life, and divorce
and remarriage was adultery as long as the first spouse was alive.
Despite these few
exceptions, the Church leaders (listed previously) along with the Church in
general (especially from 90 A.D. to the early 300s A.D.) unanimously held this
hard teaching on divorce and remarriage on almost every front. This was a
universally fundamental doctrine of the Church. Any good church historian will
attest to the amazing agreement on
this subject, even at a time when so many other things that we take for granted
were still being tooled out in the Church’s mind.
This was the Church’s wide-held zealous
stance, even before the Bible was first compiled as one book! In fact, the
first of the two historical quotes shown above are from an essentially liberal
source that opposes everything this work sets out to proclaim, yet they note
the agreement of the early church on this subject. Even before every book in
the Bible was completely compiled and uniformly distributed, on this issue the
early Church was virtually of one accord. When it came to the law of marriage,
they were resolute. Those who propagate the
new unbiblical liberal views of divorce and remarriage preach an entirely
different message on this issue than their most respected Church leaders of
early christianity, who would consider contemporary
standards heretical.
Even after the mile stone
of apostasy at Nicaea, the church generally continued preaching the hard but
Biblical teaching about marriage with very few exceptions. But after this time
there were a number of very decisive glitches from the Truth that directly
affect and define us today. Desiderius Erasmus (1466-1536) who is well known as the father of humanism
introduced one of the more significant deviations during the Protestant
Reformation. He is called, “The most brilliant and most important leader of
German humanism…” by the Catholic Encyclopedia,
[www.newadvent.org/cathen/05510b.html].
The earlier corruption of Catholicism had
come to theoretically allow disguised divorces (which they called “annulments”)
in accordance with Augustine’s error, but this has traditionally been rarely
granted by the Catholic church until more recent
times. Despite this Catholic compromise, even they have written against
Erasmus, along with many other heretical charges: “Similarly he rejected… the indissolubility of marriage, and other
fundamental principles of Christian life and the ecclesiastical constitution.”
[Source: same as above].
Erasmus taught that the first spouse could
remarry after a divorce, under certain conditions of sin, because we could
count the first spouse as spiritually dead. He said that this was because there
was no more stoning allowed as instituted by Mosaic Law that could free the
innocent spouse when her husband deserved to die, and she deserved to be freed
from him.
“Desiderius Erasmus, also held views on marriage and divorce which were
quite radical for his day. He cast scorn on the total prohibition of divorce
and the idea of an indissoluble marriage bond,”
[www.theologicalstudies.org.uk/article_divorce_snuth.html].
And this was consistent
with his distinct pattern of corrupted sinful ideas…
“He popularized the notion that being a follower of Christ does not have any real legitimate connection with practicing good works or living Holy lives,” (Restoration of Christian Marriage, By Stephen W. Wilcox).
Erasmus developed
many of his newly popularized doctrines allowing remarriage including the case
of adultery, as well as his even more unfounded teaching that the desertion of
a spouse freed “the innocent party” to remarry, which he enhanced from previous
corruptions to now include every case of abandonment, and as the reformation
moved on, the list of excuses allowing divorce and remarriage seemed to get
longer and longer, not only with Erasmus, but eventually with the other reformers as well.
If a reader finds these Erasmian ideas
doctrinally appealing, then I would exhort that such a reader remember to 1.
Consider where we got these ideas from, (Erasmus); and 2. To establish that it
is not worth cherishing any tradition of man to the sacrifice of the commands
of God (Mat_15:1-9); and 3. Line up all of these things in man’s corrupted history with
the eternal truth that Jesus preached!
These new invented compromising
philosophies were specifically called on to allow King Henry to remarry against
the “authority of the Pope.” This all-around shameful event erupted into what
historians have called “The Great Schism” when the king split off and made his
own church and Pope, especially to approve his remarriage. It was such a
scoundrel as Erasmus, the father of humanism, who derided the Truth of Jesus
enough to step up and defend the king in the name of christian
doctrine, so that he could divorce the Queen because, “she was only bearing
girls instead of boys.” This shameful event had Erasmus’ name written all over
it, and it is from this man that we directly derive what we now know as “The
Mainline Protestant View on Divorce and Remarriage.”
Without
realizing it, the modern church has been discipled into manipulating certain
verses, and completely ignoring others, to produce a humanistic outcome in our
belief system, to produce a doctrinal pattern that is distinctly Erasmian. Do we
truly, “Just go by what the Bible says” as many churches claim they do, or are
we accepting something else from Erasmus without knowing it?
Martin Luther
(November 10th 1483 – February 18th 1546) a former friend
of Erasmus, was also reforming at this time. Luther had many
errors and perhaps among his first was befriending Erasmus, which he later
deeply regretted.
Luther, as well
as other reformers such as John Calvin, being
decisively influenced by Erasmus, also propagated humanistic views about
divorce and remarriage. The others did so only with less licentiousness and
foolish scorn for traditional values, and it seems that Luther originally
accepted these views primarily as a way of “swinging away” from Catholicism,
whereas Erasmus did it for the sake of propagating humanism and “scholarship”.
From reading some of Luther’s self-questioning statements, it seems to me that
he would have originally rather retained more “Catholic” views on this issue,
but his liberal commitments seem to have gotten the best of him in the end as
he and many of the other reformers helped people get divorced and remarried,
and put their own popish blessing on it contrary to the Words of Jesus.
Although it might seem shocking to many people who have never heard of his many well documented atrocities, Luther is at the core of all that it means to be a corrupted modern Protestant christian today, including allowing and even promoting divorce and remarriage in the end. I have briefly documented and summarized some of the most clear proofs of Luther’s overall heresy and thorough wickedness in the Bibliography and Glossary under, “Martin Luther.”
Although Luther and Erasmus both planted
seeds of corruption in the mind of the church concerning this issue, it was
Erasmus who was ultimately to be blamed being more originally responsible for
much of where the Protestant church is today on this issue. That which we would
call “The Mainline Protestant View” (epitomized in the Westminster Confession)
was originally called “the Erasmian View” of divorce
and remarriage.
It was only Erasmus (1466-1536 CE), a Roman
Catholic scholar, who advocated that couples be allowed to divorce and remarry
in the case of adultery or desertion. This belief was accepted by Martin Luther
(1483 - 1546 CE), and became embedded in the Westminster
Confession of Faith in 1648.
[www.religioustolerance.org/div_ok1.htm]
And if you don’t already
know better, the Westminster Confession of Faith has affected countless
denominations over the years, especially those of a Baptist, Presbyterian, and
otherwise overall Reformed Theology persuasion. Many churches today gladly
honor, quote and affirm this stained creed.
Still, despite all of this trouble at this
time of reformation, the so-called “Radical Reformers” including many of the
Anabaptists stood against a lot of such corruption, generally disallowing and
condemning divorce and remarriage for any reason, much like the early Church.
I hope this question arises out of reading about
Erasmus: “If this is what “the father of humanism” has taught us, then whose
disciples are we really as the church of today?” It is undeniable that on this
issue we are closer to being the disciples of Erasmus and humanism than being
heirs of the faith which was transmitted through the founding leaders of the
Church of Jesus, including their greatest deposit of truth preserved for us in
the Bible. This is one of the most important things to get out of this entire
section. No one ever interpreted the Bible the way we have, to permit
remarriage for adultery, “abandonment,” or whatever other excuse we may find,
until Erasmus. And it is he that we (as “the church”) follow on this issue. We
are becoming more and more the disciples of humanism.
Though we have chaos in
marriage today as a direct result of being disciples of the reformation and
humanism, the majority of the teaching we have glutted ourselves in did not
completely take over as a standard practice until much later.
“…the sanctity of marriage, the undesirability of divorce and the impossibility of remarriage while a spouse lived was upheld and enforced over the centuries by the vast majority of the denominations, sects and divisions of the protestant persuasion,” (Restoration of Christian Marriage, By Stephen W. Wilcox).
After the many
breaches of integrity among American churches between 1939 and 1945 with their
involvement in World War II, there were some particular beginning signs of
corruption within a number of denominations by the 1950s when the divorced
population had climbed to 25% of all marriages in the United States Later in
1969 (as though it were an introduction to all that would happen in the 70s),
the “no fault divorce laws” were legislated, which reportedly brought the
divorced population up to about 50% of marriages. That is double the already
absurd number in a matter of 20 years! Tony Perkins has been President of the
Family Research Council in Washington DC, and he has said that these laws also
brought about 141% increase in single homes, and a ten-fold increase in cohabitation.
We can clearly see the results of more lax
views of divorce on this nation. Sadly the church followed (or lead) in
morality right along with the rest of the world, and reportedly eventually
overtook it in frequency of divorces, and thus the majority of the church’s
overt rebellion against the Biblical teaching about divorce and remarriage in
the United States has come about in rapid landslides of apostasy, especially
during peaks of corruption as in the 1940’s and 1970’s.
1973 marked the beginning of the New International Version (NIV), and especially with its first release,
it promoted many liberalized views of divorce and remarriage via mistranslating
a number of key verses on this issue. Most all translations have their
weaknesses, and the NIV (among other things) has been definitely
deceptive in this area of divorce and remarriage.
The NIV has lied to countless masses of church people as it gained the highest reader population of those trying to read the Bible. By reading the NIV, countless people who did not even know what they were being given, have been repeatedly fed the liberal humanistic agenda of Desiderius Erasmus Roterodamus, which has been inserted right into key verses of the text of the Scriptures, having replaced and misrepresented the actual Words of God. Many other translations followed suit, and many of these crimes against marriage, as well as a few changes in the updates to NIV are documented in Divorce and Remarriage Repentance Revolution.
Coincidentally enough, in August of the exact same year
of 1973, the Assemblies of God took a huge turn for the worse. The Assemblies
of God have been the biggest non-Catholic denomination in the world, (over 50
million) and have consistently held much of this teaching, and were among some
of the last to depart from a lot of it.
You can see for yourself
what terribly *worldly official views the AG now holds:
ag.org/top/beliefs/Position_Papers/pp_downloads/pp_4189_divorce_remarriage.pdf
The shortened
version of this position is found at: www.ag.org/top/Beliefs/relations_09_div_remarr.cfm
[These devilish compromises
asserted by these websites are among those confronted by this work.]
* I
say that they are “worldly,” as opposed to what the church has always
taught, and as this work shows,
they are certainly not Biblical. So then, these views are properly called
“worldly,” because this is very plain to see:
The World (Humanism/ Secular thinking) ← ... → The (real) Church (Truth/ The Bible) |
(A) Where is the American church on this continuum? (B) Where are you?
From what I've read from
being involved with the Assemblies of God, most any A.G. minister
would have quickly deemed these views as ungodly falsehood in the early 1900’s
when they were founded, as one can see in a number of their own quotes. But now
it has come to be quite the opposite.
“Until recently it was considered
‘Anathema’ for anyone professing to be any type of Christian to divorce and
remarry,” (Restoration of Christian
Marriage, By Stephen W. Wilcox).
While I was attending an
A.G. church for a 5-year period, there were even more
liberalized readjustments made in August 2002, which I was grieved to hear.
This, by the way, has
certainly not been the case for the Assemblies over the majority of the first
years of her existence. In fact, let us actually heed this warning thought and
cry echoing from an Assembly of God writer from 1957 because we must apply it
more than even he does if we will now see the church saved from its plummet
into apostasy:
Numbers of churches, including some of the older denominations, which in the earlier years of their existence retained rigid views on divorce, going so far as to forbid the right of the so-called “innocent party” of Matt. 19:9 who divorces his “unchaste wife” because of fornication to remarry, have in later years liberalized their doctrine of divorce. Is this a fulfillment of Thess 2:3, “Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day [the day of the Lord] shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition”? Will our denomination follow the pattern of other apostatizing churches? God forbid! (Introduction to Does Divorce Dissolve Marriage?
By Milton T. Wells, 1957; emphasis mine)