Common Christian practices that are not taught in scripture

[RZehr]

In that time, it required a divorce to break an engagement/betrothal. If a fiancé commuted fornication with someone, it was allowed to break the engagement, and not follow through with the marriage. Today this is still practice in Orthodox Jewish communities and also conservative Muslim communities - needing to get a divorce to break an engagement and be free to marry someone else.

This concept isn’t taught in the New Testament, either, despite some how claim so. The text says zip all about betrothals etc., but rather says “Whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality”… it does not say “fiancée”.

Lots of things of the day are not described in detail. It wasn’t necessary. Because the people understood how their society operated.

[Ken]

In that time, it required a divorce to break an engagement/betrothal. If a fiancé commuted fornication with someone, it was allowed to break the engagement, and not follow through with the marriage. Today this is still practice in Orthodox Jewish communities and also conservative Muslim communities - needing to get a divorce to break an engagement and be free to marry someone else.

This concept isn’t taught in the New Testament, either, despite some how claim so. The text says zip all about betrothals etc., but rather says “Whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality”… it does not say “fiancée”.

Lots of things of the day are not described in detail. It wasn’t necessary. Because the people understood how their society operated.

So what you are saying is that we can't simply rely on the plain language of the Bible. We have to rely on the cultural and historical context in which it was written as well?

[Ernie]

And that churches are of mixed opinion as to whether divorce and remarriage constitutes adultery since the scriptures are somewhat inconsistent on that point. And consequently, different churches have taken different positions on that subject.

Different churches take different positions on many issues. This does mean all positions are equally valid.

Yes. And the mixed opinions on many issues have only happened in the last century. For many hundreds of years, the same position that the early church had was the same position as most churches.

[Ken]

And that churches are of mixed opinion as to whether divorce and remarriage constitutes adultery since the scriptures are somewhat inconsistent on that point. And consequently, different churches have taken different positions on that subject.

Different churches take different positions on many issues. This does mean all positions are equally valid.

Yes. And the mixed opinions on many issues have only happened in the last century. For many hundreds of years, the same position that the early church had was the same position as most churches.

Maybe on divorce. Although I'm not sure that so many churches have really changed their view of divorce so much as just decided to tolerate it.

But we have had many centuries of religious wars over issues large and small so I'm not sure that religious unanimity in general has ever really existed. And I'm sure the early church also has many doctrinal fights even if many of them have been lost to history. The winners tend to write history, not the losers.

[Ernie]

Different churches take different positions on many issues. This does mean all positions are equally valid.

Yes. And the mixed opinions on many issues have only happened in the last century. For many hundreds of years, the same position that the early church had was the same position as most churches.

Maybe on divorce. Although I'm not sure that so many churches have really changed their view of divorce so much as just decided to tolerate it.

But we have had many centuries of religious wars over issues large and small so I'm not sure that religious unanimity in general has ever really existed. And I'm sure the early church also has many doctrinal fights even if many of them have been lost to history. The winners tend to write history, not the losers.

Other practices/expectations that have been dropped by many churches in the last century are: men only clergy, getting married (rather than just shacking up), heterosexual unions only, families praying together, covering most of one's body in public, head-covering for women, men removing headgear for prayer or worship, chants and hymns for worship, etc.

Some practices that were dropped longer ago by many churches are, abstinence from violence, acapella singing in church, lifting hands in worship, segregated seating, etc.

[Ken]

Yes. And the mixed opinions on many issues have only happened in the last century. For many hundreds of years, the same position that the early church had was the same position as most churches.

Maybe on divorce. Although I'm not sure that so many churches have really changed their view of divorce so much as just decided to tolerate it.

But we have had many centuries of religious wars over issues large and small so I'm not sure that religious unanimity in general has ever really existed. And I'm sure the early church also has many doctrinal fights even if many of them have been lost to history. The winners tend to write history, not the losers.

Other practices/expectations that have been dropped by many churches in the last century are: men only clergy, getting married (rather than just shacking up), heterosexual unions only, families praying together, covering most of one's body in public, head-covering for women, men removing headgear for prayer or worship, chants and hymns for worship, etc.

Some practices that were dropped longer ago by many churches are, abstinence from violence, acapella singing in church, lifting hands in worship, segregated seating, etc.

How many of those things you say are being dropped by modern churches were actually taught in scripture? acapella singing? segregated seating?

[Josh]

In that time, it required a divorce to break an engagement/betrothal. If a fiancé commuted fornication with someone, it was allowed to break the engagement, and not follow through with the marriage. Today this is still practice in Orthodox Jewish communities and also conservative Muslim communities - needing to get a divorce to break an engagement and be free to marry someone else.

This concept isn’t taught in the New Testament, either, despite some how claim so. The text says zip all about betrothals etc., but rather says “Whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality”… it does not say “fiancée”.

Lots of things of the day are not described in detail. It wasn’t necessary. Because the people understood how their society operated.

But to get back on topic, this would be a "practice[s] that are not taught scripture".

[Sudsy]

Yes, I understand that. And of course you have plenty of company in that view. Still, in keeping with the thread topic, that idea is not taught in (New Testament) scripture.

And I disagree in that New Testament scripture tells me that God forgives and forgets all sin and since He does, all, to me, means all, including divorce and remarriage. To me, it is a matter of how we understand what is taught in the scripture.

Where in the New Testament do you read that God forgets all sin?

https://www.gotquestions.org/does-God-forget.html

[Sudsy]

If D&R is a state of perpetual adultery then so is not being baptised by immersion living in a state of perpetual disobedience. What if God says, at judgment day, why did you not follow the NT practise of water baptism as it originally was performed and you never even asked for forgiveness for changing the practise ?

I am in no way promoting D&R as this is not God's original intent yet to believe this puts anyone in a state of perpetual adultery I believe is incorrect. I am very grateful for the mercy of God and am trusting His mercy will endure forever.

Others can believe what they chose and this is my last post regarding this topic.

[MaxPC]

The use of grape juice instead of fermented wine. The Greek word used in the New Testament is oinos, i.e. fermented wine.