Good thoughts, Matt! One point "The local church doesn't exercise authority over unbelievers but believers." Well, fair enough, but do note that marriage is something universal and natural---part of God's general Providence, we might say. So I do think God's intent for marriage matters for all. And the chronology question IMO doesn't change things for this reason.
Good thoughts, Matt! One point "The local church doesn't exercise authority over unbelievers but believers." Well, fair enough, but do note that marriage is something universal and natural---part of God's general Providence, we might say. So I do think God's intent for marriage matters for all. And the chronology question IMO doesn't change things for this reason.
I would agree with your statement on God's intent, but the direction on how a church enforces what constitutes the validity/invalidity of re-marriage, due to its ambiguity in Scripture as you have thoroughly discussed, I think of as another category.
Again very interesting and thought provoking discussion I discovered from the Challies newsletter. I will be following you going forward. Thanks!
Good thoughts, Matt! One point "The local church doesn't exercise authority over unbelievers but believers." Well, fair enough, but do note that marriage is something universal and natural---part of God's general Providence, we might say. So I do think God's intent for marriage matters for all. And the chronology question IMO doesn't change things for this reason.
I would agree with your statement on God's intent, but the direction on how a church enforces what constitutes the validity/invalidity of re-marriage, due to its ambiguity in Scripture as you have thoroughly discussed, I think of as another category.
Again very interesting and thought provoking discussion I discovered from the Challies newsletter. I will be following you going forward. Thanks!