Divorce, Remarriage and Adultery, According to the Bible – Is Matthew 19 Talking About Marriage or Betrothal? – Kerrigan Skelly

divorce

Divorce and remarriage is a very sensitive subject, for many different reasons.  It effects adults, it effects children, it could effect where you will spend eternity, it could effect what Church you are able to be a part of and it could effect friendships you have.  When it comes to different viewpoints on this subject from the Bible, there is one that seems to be “on the rise.”

The view that I am referring to, is the one that states the following:  If you have been divorced from your first spouse, you cannot remarry at all unless the first spouse has died.  And if you have already remarried someone else (with your first spouse still alive), then you must now divorce them or you are in perpetual adultery and on your way to Hell.  It doesn’t matter how long you were married to the first spouse or what reasons you had for divorcing him/her.  It doesn’t matter how many children you have or how long you have been married to the current spouse.  It doesn’t matter if your first spouse has remarried someone else or not.

It also doesn’t matter, according to this view, if you were a non-believer when you got divorced and have since become a believer who is now married to another believer.  It doesn’t even matter if your first spouse is still a non-Christian, according to this view.  You should still seek to be reconciled to them or remain single (after you get divorced from current spouse).

This view basically says that any other marriages while the first spouse is still alive are not legitimate marriages in God’s eyes. This view has been responsible for breaking up lots of Godly marriages through false doctrine and false guilt. Many people are now single and either waiting to be rejoined to their first spouse or waiting for that spouse to die.  Some of them are lonely and burning, but are told they would be in sin if the were to marry someone else.

Is this really the way God planned things to be?  Is this position really the Biblical position on divorce and remarriage?  I came really close to believing in it and close to “putting my stake down” on the position.  Fortunately, I continued to study things out and came to different conclusions.  Here’s the first video, where I was basically teaching the view that I have been describing above:

And here’s the second video, where I had changed my mind after studying it out much more thoroughly:

If you want to know what I believe and how it is backed up with Scriptures, the second video is the one you should watch.  My intention in writing this blog post is not to bring up all of the Scriptures in that video and try to prove my current position. Such is already done in the second video from above.  The point of this blog post is to address one of the many objections I have received, from the “no remarriage allowed unless the first spouse has died” group.

Continue reading

Advertisements

9 Reasons Why Revelation 3:10 Does NOT Support the Pre-Trib Rapture Theory

Revelation3_10

Many Christians believe in the Pre-Trib Rapture Theory, when it comes to Eschatology, their beliefs about the end times.  One Scripture that is consistently used to support this view is Revelation 3:10.  I have been teaching through Revelation for a little while now and I don’t believe that Revelation 3:10 supports the Pre-Trib Rapture Theory, at all.  Here are 9 reason why I believe this (point #8 may be the most important point):

1) This verse is wrote specifically and directly to the Church at Philadelphia, not the Church as a whole.

It would only apply conditionally to the Church as a whole, not directly, unconditionally or universally.  The Pre-Trib Rapture people don’t apply the rest of what is written to this Church universally, unconditionally or directly, so why this portion?

 

2) There is no mention of the Church of the end times in this passage, just the Church at Philadelphia.

People who want to apply this verse directly to the “end times” Church can’t give a reason why.  The reason definitely isn’t found in the passage itself.  This is an inconsistency in hermeneutics.

 

3) There is also no mention of “Church ages” in these passages about the seven Churches, let alone about the Church of Philadelphia being representative of the Church right before the rapture.

There is absolutely no reason in the Scriptures to make the different letters to the Churches in Revelation 2-3 into “Church ages”…unless of course you START with Dispensationalism or the Pre-Trib Rapture theory and try to force it upon the Scriptures.  This is called eisegesis.  To properly interpret the Scriptures, we must perform exegesis.  We must find out what the text ACTUALLY says, not try to make it say something that we already believe before we come to the text.

Continue reading

12 Signs That You May Have Left Your “First Love”

LeftFirstLove

I have been teaching through Revelation at the Church I am one of the Pastors of – Refining Fire Fellowship http://www.refiningfirefellowship.com   We have now come to the beginning of Revelation Chapter 3.  You can follow along with the teachings at this YouTube video play list:   Revelation Series

In having come this far, I have obviously already taught on Jesus’ letter to the Church at Ephesus.  The title of this blogpost is referring to one verse of Scripture that Jesus spoke to them – Revelation 2:4.  It says, “Nevertheless I have this against you, that you have left your first love.”  WELL Christian, have you left your first love?

Here are 12 signs I gave during that teaching, that may help to show you that you have left your first love.  Please examine yourself thoroughly, to make sure that this hasn’t happened to you.  Self-delusion is a very dangerous thing.  Let the Lord search your heart and reveal things to you:

Continue reading

Calvinism, Free Will & God’s Expectations | Kerrigan Skelly

vineyard

Isaiah 5:1-4 (NKJV) says, “Now let me sing to my Well-beloved a song of my Beloved regarding His vineyard: My Well-beloved has a vineyard on a very fruitful hill.  He dug it up and cleared out its stones, and planted it with the choicest vine.  He built a tower in its midst, and also made a winepress in it; so He expected it to bring forth good grapes, but it brought forth wild grapes.  And now, O inhabitants of Jerusalem and men of Judah, judge, please, between Me and My vineyard. What more could have been done to My vineyard that I have not done in it?  Why then, when I expected it to bring forth good grapes, did it bring forth wild grapes?”

Calvinism teaches that God predestines/ordains/decrees/causes all things that come to pass (whether sin or righteousness) and that God did this in eternity past.  If this is true, then no one and nothing has “free will”, by any definition of that word.  And no, I don’t need to add the term “libertarian” before “free will” to explain what I mean by “free will”.  In fact, I refuse to.  To do so, would be to give in to the Calvinist’s redefining of the term “free will”.  I won’t put up with the linguistic revision of Calvinism.  In fact, I have a series of videos that seeks to expose this facet of Calvinism, that is called, “Calvinist CONFUSION“.

The above passage simply can’t fit into a system that says that God has caused all things to happen, in eternity past.  Passages like the one above, won’t fit with Calvinism, no matter how much you twist it.  How could the “god” of Calvinism possibly have “expectations” that are contrary to what He ordained to happen, in eternity past?  How could the “god” of Calvinism possibly be “disappointed”, when things don’t go differently than he decreed them to be?  If the “god” of Calvinism predestined the house of Israel to be like this, how could he be upset with them and punish them for such actions (read on to Isaiah 5:5-6)?

Continue reading