Would Donald Trump’s marriage be accepted in a CA church?

[Ernie]

Do you not all find it pointless to argue the aspects of divorce and remarriage?

Surely each of our opinions within the context of church groups, is meaningless from a functional perspective.

We won’t change what these groups practice. You either are part of those groups or you are not.

I mean, fine to say the Methodists have this wrong, of the Papists have that wrong, but so what?

I like to know what the positions are of various groups and how they arrive at those positions. I'm also interested in provoking others to love and good works. MennoNet is a place to discuss. If this bores you, then please move on to a topic that interests you.

[steve-in-kville]

Suppose Trump decided he wanted to join an Anabaptist church. After meeting all other requirements and passing the traditional seeker “hazing”, the last thing to deal with would be his marital status.

Key facts:

His first wife is deceased.

His second wife is still living.

His third wife is also living, with him.

Discuss.

I'll play. Given the church group, I can see this as being the key topic for about 18 months' worth of "brother's meetings."

You know I'm right.

[Josh]

I'll play. Given the church group, I can see this as being the key topic for about 18 months' worth of "brother's meetings."

You know I'm right.

I haven't been in such a church. I have been in one that avoided having brothers' meetings more than once a year or so and just never dealt with anything.

[mrbilliam]

Is there a scriptural basis for the position that what one did before becoming a Christian and joining the church is different for remarrying after becoming a Christian and joining the church? I can understand the reasoning, that those without the Spirit of God can't be held to the same standard as those with the Spirit of God, but I am curious if there are verses/passages that are used for this position.

The ancient "ordinance / sacrament" of Marriage seems to hold no bounds. If somebody was a Hindu, married Hindu, divorced Hindu, then married another Hindu spouse, then both converted (husband and wife) to Christianity, somehow their marriage vows before Krishna would be held to Christian standards. The confusion runs wild on this topic for me.

The Hindu "sacraments", rituals, Gods, Godesses, and ways of worship are all invalid. But the marriage always seems valid and recognized. Always held to Christian standard.

It's weird, and I never understood it.

[mrbilliam]

Suppose Trump decided he wanted to join an Anabaptist church. After meeting all other requirements and passing the traditional seeker “hazing”, the last thing to deal with would be his marital status.

Key facts:

His first wife is deceased.

His second wife is still living.

His third wife is also living, with him.

Discuss.

I'll play. Given the church group, I can see this as being the key topic for about 18 months' worth of "brother's meetings."

You know I'm right.

You are 1000% right. It may also lead to a church split.

Sometimes I wish we could butt out of people's lives, and leave sticky situations up to God's judgment.

[Josh]

Is there a scriptural basis for the position that what one did before becoming a Christian and joining the church is different for remarrying after becoming a Christian and joining the church? I can understand the reasoning, that those without the Spirit of God can't be held to the same standard as those with the Spirit of God, but I am curious if there are verses/passages that are used for this position.

The ancient "ordinance / sacrament" of Marriage seems to hold no bounds. If somebody was a Hindu, married Hindu, divorced Hindu, then married another Hindu spouse, then both converted (husband and wife) to Christianity, somehow their marriage vows before Krishna would be held to Christian standards. The confusion runs wild on this topic for me.

The Hindu "sacraments", rituals, Gods, Godesses, and ways of worship are all invalid. But the marriage always seems valid and recognized. Always held to Christian standard.

It's weird, and I never understood it.

The marriage “vows” are not significant. The marriage itself is. Marriage exists outside of church officiated weddings. Baptisms and communion do not.

[mrbilliam]

Is there a scriptural basis for the position that what one did before becoming a Christian and joining the church is different for remarrying after becoming a Christian and joining the church? I can understand the reasoning, that those without the Spirit of God can't be held to the same standard as those with the Spirit of God, but I am curious if there are verses/passages that are used for this position.

The ancient "ordinance / sacrament" of Marriage seems to hold no bounds. If somebody was a Hindu, married Hindu, divorced Hindu, then married another Hindu spouse, then both converted (husband and wife) to Christianity, somehow their marriage vows before Krishna would be held to Christian standards. The confusion runs wild on this topic for me.

The Hindu "sacraments", rituals, Gods, Godesses, and ways of worship are all invalid. But the marriage always seems valid and recognized. Always held to Christian standard.

It's weird, and I never understood it.

The marriage “vows” are not significant. The marriage itself is. Marriage exists outside of church officiated weddings. Baptisms and communion do not.

Actually, this is where the understanding of sacraments and ordinances and their depth need to be understood. "What God hath joined together let no man put asunder". Somebody vowing before Krishna is not the ordinance of matrimony. In Catholic circles, upon receiving a remarried person into the church the Bishop would give his approval for the new converts. (They didn't know Jesus when they did all that). This would NOT be the case in most Mennonite churches. They'd say "no the first Hindu wife is his wife and we don't care if he married vowing before Krishna".
.
Baptisms do exist outside of the Holdemans (A Beachy Amish Baptism), but the Holdeman churches won't recognize it.

[Josh]

Yes, the Catholic sacrament of marriage is bizarre and doesn’t align with scripture.

Did everyone who got baptised in Acts 2 have to go and have their marriages “sacramentalised”?

You’ll also note I said baptism isn’t valid outside of “the church”.

[Ernie]

Is there a scriptural basis for the position that what one did before becoming a Christian and joining the church is different for remarrying after becoming a Christian and joining the church? I can understand the reasoning, that those without the Spirit of God can't be held to the same standard as those with the Spirit of God, but I am curious if there are verses/passages that are used for this position.

The ancient "ordinance / sacrament" of Marriage seems to hold no bounds. If somebody was a Hindu, married Hindu, divorced Hindu, then married another Hindu spouse, then both converted (husband and wife) to Christianity, somehow their marriage vows before Krishna would be held to Christian standards. The confusion runs wild on this topic for me.

The Hindu "sacraments", rituals, Gods, Godesses, and ways of worship are all invalid. But the marriage always seems valid and recognized. Always held to Christian standard.

It's weird, and I never understood it.

The marriage “vows” are not significant. The marriage itself is. Marriage exists outside of church officiated weddings. Baptisms and communion do not.

Josh, can you explain more what you mean by this?

[Josh]

Marriages can be performed by complete unbelievers according to whatever local customs and laws are. We see this in the OT and NT. People in other cultures are clearly described as married.

Baptism and communion don’t exist outside of Christianity, and in particular require a Christian church of at least 2 believers. They are not performed by governments or non-Christian people.

A marriage is more like a natural birth. We record births in our church (sort of), but we recognise birth certificates from non-church authorities. However, the New Birth is the exclusive domain of Christians.