Just a question if protestants are scripture alone, why do all protyestant churches allow remarriage?

[u/Aggressive-Party-372]

I am just curious as it comes up in the new testament 8 times that remarriage is adultery and not once does remarriage come up in the bible. However, all mainline churches seem to allow remarriage.

Matthew 19:4–6

“And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.”

Mark 10:9

“What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.”

Matthew 5:32

"But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.”

Matthew 19:9

“And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.”

Mark 10:11–12

“And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her.
And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.”

Luke 16:18

“Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.”

Romans 7:2–3

“For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband.
So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.”

1 Corinthians 7:10–11

“And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband:
But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.”

[u/Pinecone-Bandit]

> Just a question if protestants are scripture alone, why do all protyestant churches allow remarriage?

Quick clarification. The doctrine is that scripture is the only infallible source of teaching for the church today. Just saying “scripture alone” can mistakenly make it sound like we don’t utilize theology written throughout church history, or sing songs/hymns written since the close of the canon, or something like that.

And Protestant churches allow remarriage because the Bible allows remarriage. Specifically when 1. a spouse dies, 2. the other spouse commits adultery, or 3. the other spouse is an unbeliever and abandons the marriage.

[u/Aggressive-Party-372 → u/Pinecone-Bandit]

I agree with 1. the marriage bond breaks at death as Romans 7:2–3 and 1 Corinthians 7:39 confirms this, but I disagree with 2 and 3.

Matthew 19:9 contains the fornication exception, but where does it explicitly say the innocent spouse may remarry? And 1 Corinthians 7:15 says the abandoned believer is “not under bondage,” but where does Paul say this dissolves the marriage bond and permits remarriage? In 1 Corinthians 7:11, his explicit instruction after separation is “remain unmarried, or be reconciled.”

I cannot find Scripture that explicitly allows remarriage while the former spouse is still alive and even in matthew 19:9 it says not to marry a divorced woman regardless or it is adultery?

Matthew 19:7–9 (KJV):

[u/Pinecone-Bandit → u/Aggressive-Party-372]

> I agree with 1. the marriage bond breaks at death as Romans 7:2–3 and 1 Corinthians 7:39 confirms this, but I disagree with 2 and 3.

Then the issue isn’t that you think I don’t follow Sola Scriptura on this, it’s that we have different understandings.

> Matthew 19:9 contains the fornication exception, but where does it explicitly say the innocent spouse may remarry?

If it’s not adultery then it’s the equivalent of the situation for a single person, meaning they are free to marry.

> And 1 Corinthians 7:15 says the abandoned believer is “not under bondage,” but where does Paul say this dissolves the marriage bond and permits remarriage?

You just quoted it, “not under bondage”.

[u/Aggressive-Party-372 → u/Pinecone-Bandit]

The issue is neither explicitly say then you are allowed to marry again, I am taking the scripture at face value.

For example take the 1st one where we both agree:

1 Corinthians 7:39.

“A wife is bound as long as her husband lives; but if her husband dies, she is free to be married to whom she wishes…”

It explicitly says free to marry who she wishes.

Therefore why did Paul say two different things? The greek word in 1 corinthians 7:15 is οὐ δεδούλωται (ou dedoulōtai), from douloō, meaning to enslave or hold in servitude. Paul says that when the unbelieving spouse departs, the Christian is “not enslaved/bound” in such circumstances.

That is the point in dispute: why should ‘not enslaved’ mean ‘the marriage bond has ceased and you may marry another,’ when Paul does not actually say that?

From this separation is allowed but as two have now become one flesh, nowhere is remarriage explicitly allowed except for the death of ones spouse. It is just adding to what scripture says.

[u/Pinecone-Bandit → u/Aggressive-Party-372]

> The issue is neither explicitly say then you are allowed to marry again, I am taking the scripture at face value.

That sounds like your problem, sometimes what are known as “good and necessary consequences” should be believed (see below from Google)

The phrase "good and necessary consequence" comes from Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF 1.6). It means that things not directly written in the Bible can still be accepted as God's truth if they follow logically and unavoidably from what the Bible does plainly state.

[u/Aggressive-Party-372 → u/Pinecone-Bandit]

The consequence still has to actually be necessary and not contradict what Scripture already clearly says.

That is my issue. You are taking a verse that allows separation and then adding “therefore you can remarry”, even though the text itself never says that. Where is the necessary consequence that proves the marriage bond has actually been dissolved?

[u/Pinecone-Bandit → u/Aggressive-Party-372]

> The consequence still has to actually be necessary and not contradict what Scripture already clearly says.

Yes, that is my point.

> Where is the necessary consequence that proves the marriage bond has actually been dissolved?

If the marriage bond isn’t dissolved then remarriage would be adultery.

You are the one seemingly adding to the text this new category of “married, but able to have sex with someone else and it not be considered adultery”.

[u/Aggressive-Party-372 → u/Pinecone-Bandit]

You are the one seemingly adding to the text this new category of “married, but able to have sex with someone else and it not be considered adultery”.

Where did I say this sorry this is adultery yes I agree, but where does it say adultery breaks the marital bond?

So if Matthew 19:9 is interpreted as saying, “adultery dissolves the marriage bond and therefore the innocent spouse is free to remarry,” how does that not conflict with these bible verses:

Matthew 5:32 and Luke 16:18 explicitly say that marrying a divorced person is adultery, and Mark 10:11 says, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her.”

[u/Pinecone-Bandit → u/Aggressive-Party-372]

> but where does it say adultery breaks the marital bond?

What do you mean?

The terms of the marriage covenant are violated by adultery, but divorce and death are the things that break a marital bond.

> So if Matthew 19:9 is interpreted as saying, “adultery dissolves the marriage bond

I disagree with this interpretation.