Divorce and Remarriage is the same as continuous adultery.

Em português

Not wanting to take shortcuts or avoid "offending" people who have personal interest in the subject, let us just go straight to the subject and let us see the crystal clear teaching of the New Testament on the subject of Divorce and Remarriage. When somebody wants to escape from forceful and dogmatic conclusions, generally he says that certain subject is "controversial" or "polemic" (from the Greek polemeo = war). Our appeal here is the following: Let us just be in peace with the Word of God on this subject. Let us not declare war here. If we have peace, when we surrender to the Word of God with a submissive spirit, every teaching and doctrine will fall into place. Let us not try to force personal situations into the Word of God, but let us analyze the Biblical teaching without distortions.

Let us see the seven passages of the New Testament which deal with the subject of marriage. Anticipating the conclusion, so some people who don't want to examine the truth don't waste their time, they categorically affirm the total indissolubility of the marriage covenant while the man and the woman of this union are still living.

1. Mat. 5:32

In The King James Bible:

"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. "


1.1 Let us notice here that the Lord Jesus Christ is affirming the total indissolubility of the marriage while the husband and the wife are living. Notice that only in the gospel of Matthew (Mat. 5:32 and Mat. 19:9) there is the exception "saving for the cause of fornication " (notice that this is the correct word, for it comes of the Greek "porneia"), because this applies to the peculiar situation of the Jews. Look on verse 5:1. To whom was it addressed? To the multitude and the disciples. This was the exact situation that Joseph wrongly thought about Mary. In Mat. 1:20, the angel of the Lord called Mary "thy wife" even though the marriage had not been celebrated and consummated. In other words, they had not become one flesh at that point, it was "before they came together" - v. 18, but they were husband and wife. In this in case, Jesus is saying that the marriage could be cancelled by divorce, in case of fornication , situation in which the unrepented person is only a step away to hell (1Cor. 6:10, Jude 1:7, Re. 21:8).

1.2 Notice that the word is not the verb commiteth adultery (moichao), which occurs two times in the verse, but purposefully was not used by the Lord Jesus for the exception. Why!? Did the Lord forget it?

to be continued...

married (Greek: mnesteuo) with not married Jose and (gameo). It is for this in case that special, and only in this case of the Jews, that Jesus is if relating, because the marriage if had not consummated. In this in case that, the sin is fornication that would break the pact of the "esposamento" and not of marriage. It is very simple!

1.3 He notices that Jesus starts its argument with the adversativa conjunction HOWEVER . This in says them that it has a contrast between what the Jews wanted to hear and what Jesus was teaching. If Jesus was defending the divorce after the marriage, would not have no necessity of the adversativa conjunction HOWEVER .

1.4 He notices that the woman is divorced, but Jesus does not recognize no divorce, characterizing this another union of adultery.

1.5 He notices the desperate reaction of the disciples in Mateus 19:9. Let us see:

2. Mat. 19:9-10

In The King James Bible :

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. His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry."


Let us notice that this man marries another woman (any who is the situation of it). It is another marriage, but not valley nothing ahead of God. This new union is considered adultery because obviously the true marriage continues in vigor. The desperate reaction of the disciples and the rejoinder of Mr. Jesus Christ, are one of the strongest evidences that very were well understood you when it denied total the possibility of divorce and new marriage. Let us see:

The disciples had been despaired and if they had surprised at this highest standard of marriage. In its minds, the divorce and new marriage were always an option. The only doubt that they had was if it could by any reason be or only in case of adultery. When Jesus closed these two doors, them had been pasmos. To express the frustration, they had left for the appeal: in accordance with they, would be better nor to marry. Perhaps they were saying that Jesus was very radical, making impracticable the marriage with this "been improper" and highest requirement. Mr. Jesus, then, instead of granting the truth as they make these irresponsible shepherds who advise people if to divorce and marry divorced, did not yield one millimeter and affirmed that nor all have the ability spiritual to understand the subject, but only those to who were granted, or either, the problem are not in the marriage and its divine implications, but in the sin of rebellion of the man who always corrupts the plan of God. He notices that the disciples had distorted what God said. In Gn. 2:18, God said "is not good that the man is alone...". Here the disciples say that they do not convém to marry. I believe accurately that they were used for the Devil, as Peter in Mat. 16:23, to distort the Word of God and to demoralize the education of Jesus. Mr., as Author of the marriage, rejects the arrogance categoricamente human being and reaffirms the sanctity of the divine institution.

3. Mark 10:11-12

"and it said to them: All that one that to repudiate its woman and if house with another one, adulterates against it. E, if a woman to repudiate the husband of it, and if house with another one, it commits adultery."

In The King Bible James:

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


Let us notice here the total absence of the exception. For what!? Because evangelho of Lucas was written the Teófilo (Luk. 1:3), a Greek. The absolute prohibition of the divorce and new marriage is crystalline. It notices that the verb "marries" is in the aorist. An action in the time occurs (house) that it provokes, or cause one another action "commits adultery", that it is in the gift of the indicative. An action in the time (marriage with another person) provokes a continuous situation in the gift (it commits adultery). While this union to remain, the condition of adultery remains. In the Greek, the gift of the indicative means an action continued or the state of an incomplete action (Greek New Testament, William Davis, p. 25). The gift of the indicative, therefore, is an action occurring in the gift, being able to be in such a way continuous (for example: "I am studying") or indefinite ("I study").

The prohibition of the divorce and new marriage is more of the one than obvious in all these seven examined verses being. Let us continue to see four verses below remaining:

4. Luc. 16:18

"All that one that repudiates its wife, and house with another one, commits adultery; e all that one that marries it that it is repudiated by the husband, commits adultery."

In The King Bible James:

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


Again the verb "commits adultery" is in the active voice and the gift of the indicative.

5. Rom 7:2-3

In The King James Bible :

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.


It notices much thing here interesting:

5.1. This woman again marries another man, being its still alive husband;

5.2. This woman whom she marries (does not interest the reason nor the "legitimacy" attributed by the men) another man again, not if she exempted of the fact that its legitimate husband (the first one) still is called m r i d . This of former-husband in the Bible does not exist. This was invented by pecadores to rationalize the sin of adultery. Only this argument that the legitimate husband still is called m r i d , despite the woman being divorced and married with another one, knocks down for land all the useless attempt to say that the new union is recognized for God. The new union is not recognized for God , being to this applied woman the adulteress heading! It has two husbands! She sees the verse! If the divorce is valid and annuls the marriage, then this versicle total would be missed in its affirmation, therefore it contradicts clearly the thesis of the divorce and new marriage, generating a total discredit in the Word of God and launching the inerrância in the can of the garbage !

5.3. It will be called (Greek chrematizo = is considered informed for God) adulteress. This means not only that it is in a state of adultery, in an adultery act of isolated as they want some. It will be called adulteress! This is the heading of it. It notices that the adulteress situation is valid while the true husband will be alive. This is a very sad tragedy, but it is the picture that the Word of God presents about of this sin!

5.4. Note that the condition is "enquanto ele estiver vivendo" e não "enquanto ele for fiel" ou "até quando eles se divorciarem" como querem os defensores do divórcio por causa de infidelidade. Infidelidade não quebra o pacto do casamento. Divórcio não quebra o pacto do casamento. Os dois cônjuges continuam uma só carne até que a morte os separem. É impressionante a fala dobre de pessoas inconstantes (Pv. 17:20; Tg. 1:8). Muita gente fala uma coisa, mas no fundo de suas mentes pensam de outra maneira. Na hora de aplicar, não agem de acordo com o que falam nos votos. O nome disso é hipocrisia. Não há uma só linha no Novo Testamento que dê base para quebra do pacto do casamento que não seja a morte. A única condição para o novo casamento é somente "se o marido morrer" e ponto final. É óbvio e cristalino...

Uma pergunta sempre surge: Qual o conselho que se deve dar para pessoas que se divorciaram e recasaram? Isso é um problema que cada um tem que resolver por si. Não creio que nenhum pastor deva se meter nessa questão, pois as pessoas que se meteram nessa confusão de novo casamento é que são responsáveis por seus atos e devem elas mesmas resolver o problema. Os princípios Bíblicos são esses aqui expostos, mas as pessoas é que devem elas próprias decidir. Isso parece duro, mas o fato é que depois que as pessoas estragaram as suas vidas, existe essa vontade de criar a válvula de escape que os outros que devem resolver e decidir por elas. Existe uma tendência de jogar o abacaxi nas costas do pastor. E depois se os problemas aumentam, e eles irão aumentar..., o pastor é o culpado. Nada disso! Quem se meteu na confusão é que são os culpados, eles é que resolvam. Cair numa armadilha de aconselhar divorciados é uma fogueira que todo pastor deve evitar. Pessoas divorciadas e recasadas não devem ser aceitas como membros, muito menos servir no ministério da igreja local. É duro, mas é Bíblico (1Co. 5:9-13; 6:10; Gal. 5:19-21...) Por isso as igrejas devem ter pesada carga de ensino sobre a família e concentrar o ministério em aconselhamento preventivo tanto para jovens como para casais (perigo: nunca deve se fazer aconselhamento misto: homem aconselha homem, mulher aconselha mulher...).

6. In 1Co. 7:11

If, however, if to separate, that it is without marrying, or that if reconciles with the husband; e that the husband does not leave the woman.

In The King Bible James:

"But and if she depart, let to her remain unmarried, or be reconciled you her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife."


In case that it has separation between husband and woman, and this is a possibility and until a necessity in specific cases, it only has two options:

6.1 It is without marrying; or

6.2 If it reconciles.

END POINT. Nothing of divorce or new marriage. It notices that for it and the husband if to reconcile, is obvious that to the husband also final it is forbidden to remarry. Irresponsible people, when they divorce themselves, badly wait to dry the ink of the paper of the human divorce, that nothing valley for God, and already is ventured definitively in another relationship (adultery) closing, many times, the door for the reconciliation. This hinders the only Biblical solution of restoration in repentance case. Let us notice that in verse 15, the expression "in called them for the peace" does not have nothing to see with recasamento, that obviously would be a contradiction with verse 11, but speaks of the believer to be free of any guilt on the conjugal obligations, case the unbeliever abandons it.

7. 1Co. 7:39

"the married woman is on for the law all the time that its husband lives; but, if to falecer its husband is free to marry who to want, contanto that it is in the Gentleman."

In The King Bible James:

"The wife is bound by the law long them to her husband liveth; but if to her husband be dead, she is at liberty you be married you whom she will; only in the Lord."


It notices here that the time adverb "while" or the used expression sinônima " all the time (Greek: chronos) that its husband lives". Here we see that the subject of the linking of the woman with its husband is submitted and carried to an only dimension that is of the time , or either, does not have none another escape, none another circumstance that annuls this marriage, during the time where its husband is alive. Again, absolutely nothing on divorce and recasamento, accurately as in Mar. 10:10-11, Luc. 16:18, Rom 7:3 and 1 Color 7:11! The divorce with new marriage, by the way, is directly calling LIE what this verse says, therefore says that that the woman is free to marry who to want during " the time " that the husband lives. The Bible declares that the marriage is indissolvable until the death of one of the spouses.

Conclusion :

The divorce and the recasamento of any woman with another man while its husband is alive, or the marriage of any man with another woman while its wife is alive, are at the same time, a blasphemy against God and a situation of adultery continued committed for both the people of the new union:

1. Because who remarries is declaring for the whole world that LAY when making the votes saying "until the death in separates them".

2. Because who if divorces and remarries total is demoralized stops with the next generation, destroying the hope of sanctity example stops with that in they follow them, in way to a corrupted and perverse society.

3. Because who remarries destroyed, irremediavelmente, the indissolvable figure of the relationship between Christ and the church, compared with the husband and the wife respectively (Ef. 5:24-25).

4. Because to another part, exactly that she is single (total insanity and wastefulness of the proper life of who thus makes it), also it commits adultery. In this in case that, this single person who if divorced house with one, are subject to the one situation of ruin terrible. If to continue in the relationship is in adultery. If to leave for another relationship, is adultery also, therefore it would be in as the marriage. The single person who marries one divorced (a) if submits to the debt of the marriage, but she is not under the blessings of it. The only solution is to be single (a) until the illicit spouse dies (the Bible calls it husband Jo. 4:18).

5. Because to the shepherd final it is forbidden to be divorced (1Tim. 3:1-2). It is an example to be followed by all the members of the church (1Tim. 4:12, Tit. 2:7).

6. Because who remarries is dishonouring the Biblical figure of the relation between the law and the death (Roman chapter 7). The law demands the death. The only thing that breaks the curse of the law on the pecador is the death. The believer died with Christ (Rom 7:4), therefore is that we are free of the law. In the same way, the law of the marriage demands the death to be cancelled. The divorced one that it remarries, is blaspheming against the Word of God, saying that the divorce, to not death, annuls the law it. This total destroys the figure that God established in Its Word so that let us understand the meaning of the death of Christ. This is a very serious subject! This to insist on the shortcut of the divorce, is only one subtle way to call God liar. Some does not exist shortcut to annul to the relation between the law and the pecador. The death only breaks this relation ! The death only breaks the relation between the husband and the woman! Followed Recasamento of divorce adultery is continued.

1 . The innocent part has right to divorce and remarry.

Refutation: Wrong! First of all: There is not this "innocent" part in a divorce. There are sins of commission and omission. It could be a refusal in providing: the conjugal love, the affection, the care, the genuine affection and many other omissions that the eyes do not come. Exactly that it does not have something as cited, when a marriage fails the two had failed. They had married for common agreement. Second: nobody has "right". Marriage is a privilege, not a right. Certain people do not receive this dom for some reasons. Many marry late and other people are widowers without never more marrying again, even so this are the only permission in the Bible for recasamento.

2 . Certain marriages "were not made in heaven". In these cases the divorce is valid.

Refutation: Wrong! No marriage is made in heaven. All are made on Earth. God seals and puts His stamp of aproaval upon this union, weather it be according or against His perfect will. If they do not ask His opinion, He will put them together anyhow. or not, he wants either done between believers or unbelievers or compounds (this is sin to see 2Co. 6:14). All those that argue this, had never been to the sky to see if certain marriage was made in the sky. In the truth this is an excuse that all the ones that want to remarry will go to use as fool has escaped, since nobody will be able to contest the validity of this argument.

3 . All marriage can be cancelled in case of adultery.

Reply: Made a mistake! It does not have one alone line in the New Will that proves this affirmation. The Bible must be interpreted under dispensacionalista education. The Old Will is in another dispensação. It does not have trans-dispensacionalista education (something that it is being valid for more than a dispensação as the death penalty, for example) on this subject. In the Old Will, education was another one, as same Jesus said: "... I HOWEVER say you... " In this education, Jesus total closed the door for divorce and new marriage, calling it adultery.

4 . Certain marriages have that to be desfeitos because of abandonment.

Refutation: Wrong! If it will have abandonment, "is without marrying" (Ço. 7:11). This is because the marriage is not insults. In 1 Co. 6:1-6, it has a final prohibition in going to the courts, and for consequência, of if divorcing. This is a sin. It is better to suffer the damage from the one that to dishonour the Jesus Christ, is what Pablo says. In abandonment case: it is without marrying, or if it reconciles (in case that it has conditions with painful repentance, humilhação, pardon and restoration).

5 . In Mat. 5:32 we have the permission for divorce.

Refutation: Wrong! The exception does not mention it adultery as Mr. Jesus could mention clearly, if thus he desired it. It notices that the used word for Jesus is another one. It is fornication. This if relates to the infidelity sin during the contract of marriage, but before the marriage if consummating. In 5 of the 7 tickets of the New Will that deal with the subject, it does not have exception some. In Sea 10:6-11 some does not have exception. "All that one" means any one, without exception some. In Lucas 16:18, we do not have "if", "but", or "e". If any man marries one divorced, commits adultery. In Rom 7:2-3, we have clearly and including education without exception some. The death only breaks the linking. In 1Cor. 7:10-11, we do not have nothing of divorce. In case that a separation happens, they remain only 2 options: he remains single for the remaining portion of the life (or until to another person it dies) or that if it reconciles. In 1Co. 7:39, the death only breaks the conjugal linking.

6 . The schools of Shammai (dovórcio only in case of adultery) and Hillel (by any reason) must be considered.

Reply: Made a mistake! This does not interest:
1- Because it belongs to another dispensação;
2- Because it is tradition human being
3- Because one mentions Jews to it e;
4- Because Mr. Jesus rejected both.

7 . "Later that a woman marries as man will not be able to never come back to the first one, (Dt. 24,1-4)."

Refutation: Wrong! This if relates to the other dispensação, of the law. In the New Will, this reconciliation is taught in Ço. 7:11. This, by the way, is the only allowed way of this woman to be able to live maritally while its legitimate husband is alive: it is to live with it. Lebremos us to fix again: "while the husband of it will be living, if it will be married another man, will be called adulteress..." (Rom 7:3)

8. "the expedient to demand of a just-converted woman, who already passed for two (or more) unions, that come back to the first husband are sadly antiBiblical - it only makes disaster."

Refutation: Wrong! Disaster is to live in adultery continued. The husband of this woman is the first one. He notices Roman 7:3 again: "while the husband of it will be living..." He notices that in the two times that this man is cited he has an article before. Or either, it is the husband . This woman just converted of the example, that lives with other man that not it its first (o) husband (the only one that he is the true husband ), is committing (present of the indicative) adultery. Nobody goes "to demand" nothing of nobody. The Bible must be nailed and the people are that they are responsible ahead of God and for the consequências of its acts. It has two options: Or if she reconciles with the true husband, or is as single (1Co. 7:11). What she cannot, she is people in situation of adultery, to be accepted as members of churches, or to demand membrezia, or to participate of the ministry of the same ones in foot of equality with constituted Biblicamente families, who fight with nails and teeth to preserve the sanctity of the marriage to harvest the blessings for itself, for the church and the next generation. This yes is that it would be a degradation, disaster and disaster for the institution of the family, and God sabiamente left this good clearly in the Bible. Another fallacy of the statement is the use of the situation applied to "just converted". The fallacy is in bringing the emotion for inside of the debate and appealing to have compassion (nobody would dare to deny this feeling) of the new person converted to strengthen the argument of the recasamento. Sin, however, is always sin, it does not matter if it is committed has 30 years or if it for "he is just converted". Jesus, the compassion in person, collated clearly the adultery one of the Samaritana woman in Jo. 4:18. If the divorce and new marriage were valid, why the Salvador Lover mentioned the fact of the pecadora poor person to have had five husbands ? Simple! Because it committed some adultery ones. It was married five of them. It notices that one of the men was not husband, or either, the man with which it was coexisting was not marriage fruit, but is clearly that all the relationships (except the first one - it is evident that it was the husband) had been censured by the Master. In the always mutant and corrupt law of the men, the inconstância of the "emotions" or the "lapsing" exists because something happened, or has happened has much time, but not in the changeable principles of the law of God.

9 . The exception must be considered as adultery in Mateus 5:32 and 19:9.

Refutation: Wrong! The word of the exception is fornication (used 1 time in each verse) and not adultery (used 2 times in each verse). The immediate context of these two verses must be respected as a factor guides and led in consideration to be interpreted a certain word correctly and so that the direction in the verse is understood. In Mateus 5:32 and 19:9, two different terms are used and juxtaposed, of form that if cannot neglect nor to deny. The word fornication (porneia) is differentiated of the verb adulterates (moicheo). Different words mean things different! The exception if applies to the marriage contract that was a peculiar situation of the Jews that is the immediate addressee of this evangelho. Therefore it is that alone evangelho of Mateus (written for the Jews) is that brings this extra explanation. He will be that God would go "to forget" this vital exception in the others 5 verses where the subject is treated? Absolutely not! If It did not place the exception in case of adultery, is because it does not exist! Education is crystalline in other verses where the absolute prohibition of recasamento while the original spouse is alive clearly is taught. It does not have divorce and new marriage allowed in no part of the New Will . It does not have allowed recasamento while the original spouse is alive. This relation is called adultery.

10 . A couple that already were divorced and married again, to if converting and confessing its sin, can be joined and to be accepted as members, therefore everything stops backwards is pardoned and "everything became new..." 2Co. 5:17.

Refutation: Wrong! Not dumb the conjugal law in nothing when a person if converts. If these two people if had converted, they have the obligation to stop to commit adultery continued. The doctrine of the repentance (Greek: metanoeo) says that a mind change happens, attitude and of behavior when a person truily is saved. The expression "everything became new" does not have nothing to see and some cannot be distorted in way to justify pecaminosas situations after the conversion, quite to the contrary! "Everything became new" in teaches them that the person was regenerated (new creature) and that had a radical change in the values, beliefs and attitudes. Let us assume that a thief has in its power an account millionaire fruit of its robery. When saying that he became himself, it opposes to return the money appealing the "everything became above new" of the verse, living esplendidamente. This would be one confronts and some would not prove conversion. This is accurately the same case of the couple that if converts being to live in adultery without wanting to adopt Biblical solution to reconcile with the true spouse - possible case - or to be single (a) - always possible.

11 . The expression "in called them for the peace" 1Co. 7:15 gives permission for the recasamento.

Refutation: Wrong! Nothing it is said in this verse on recasamento. The peace mentioned there mentions the state to it of if not being more under the conjugal obligations (Note: conjugal obligation is different of conjugal union - the union remains until the death). In this in case that, after to ask for to pardon the God and to the men, if it does not have to feel guilt, therefore it had attempt of reconciliation without success, remaining then, only the other alternative that is "is without marrying" (to remain as single) until the death of the spouse (1Co. 7:11, 39).

12 . In 1 Co. 7:27-28, for that they are free, or either, divorced, it has the permission of if marrying again: "if to be married, does not sin..."

Refutation: Wrong! Nothing it is said in this verse on recasamento of divorced. It is more of the one than obvious that "the free" expression, applied to the marriage, if relates to the widowers! It sees in Rom 7:2-3 in in Ço. 7:39 as "the free" word is used only when the husband dies. Again let us notice in 1Co. 7:8-9, that the widowers () and the bachelors () only are that they are the only qualified people will be married.

13 . The person who married again cannot more if reconcile with the first spouse, therefore she goes to have that to divorce itself as the spouse what she opposes 1 Co. 6:1-8.

Refutation: Wrong! This as marriage nothing valley ahead of God, therefore is considered adultery. If the men wrong consider it of marriage, and a "divorce" in accordance with the laws human beings is necessary to cancel it, this does not violate 1 Co. 6:1-8, therefore a pecaminosa situation (that never it must have occurred in first place) is being corrected and not created. In the countries where the abominação of the "marriage" of sodomitas is fact, when the "divorce" has conversion of any one of the two, has that to be made immediately. This is the result of the iniquidade of men pecadores that usurp its position of authority to blaspheme of God and the family.

14 . The verse "Each one is in the vocation that was called", allows that the divorced one and marrying are again with its new spouse when it is become.

Refutation: Wrong! For the healthy Hermeneutics (interpretation of the Bible for the proper Bible) we know that a verse not clearly has that to be looked at and to be illuminated by the other clear ones that they deal and they teach the same on subject, is in remote or next tickets. This calls Principle the Context . Another principle says that the unit, truth and allegiance of God, guarantee that a ticket in Its Word cannot contradict other tickets. This calls Principle the Agreement . When men interpret a part of the Scriptures in a manner which contradicts some other part of the Scriptures on the same matter, we know that their interpretation is erroneous. When the correct interpretation is made on any matter it will not contradict every interpretation that can possibly be made of some other part of the Scripture on the same matter. Therefore, vocation (1Co. 7:20) or been (1Co. 7:24) cannot mention to the situation of divorce and recasamento, therefore it would enter in contradiction with:

1- the previous verse, 7:11, that it only mentions the two options for the married ones that they had been broken up: reconciliation or is without marrying ;

2- verse 7:39 that it says clearly that the woman alone is free "if to falecer its husband " (singular and still folloied of the article "").

3- the other verses that deny this possibility as Roman 7:2-3 total.

To be with the new spouse at the same time that the legitimate spouse still is alive, adultery would be continued. Certain people nor think about the most serious implications of its fools arguments:

1. A prostitute could interpret in the same way, it would allege that she could live in the "vocation that was called".

2. A sodomite could interpret in the same way, it would allege that it could live in the "vocation that was called".

3. A fornicator, who has relations continued with a woman without being married, could interpret in the same way, it would allege that he could live in the "vocation that was called".

It is clear that we know that none of these mentioned iniquitous people, will be able to inherit the kingdom of God (1 Co. 6:10), or either, is lost, independent of whom they allege on having if converted. This rationalization is accurately what apóstolo Judas spoke in Judas 1:4 on heretical that "... they covertem in dissolution the favour of God, and deny the God... "

15 . The verse in 1 Tim. 3:2: "husband of a woman" applied to the bishop and deacons (1Tim. 3:12), suggests that members of church can have the inferior and be divorced and remarried standard.

Reply: Made a mistake! Because:

1. This would be to accept and to be connivent with adultery in the church;

2. This would deny that the bishop would be an example of the fidiciary offices;

3. The door opened for the polygamy leaves;

4. This is not based nor on education clearly and objective of the Holy Writs, nor on exegese healthy, but on the moving sand of suggestions, inferences and conjecturas, that frontalmente contradict the remaining portion of verses on the subject; e

5. This could be used as excuse members to adopt inferior standards how much to be given to the wine, or misers or all the too much qualifications of the bishop. All they also must be the qualifications of all the members of the church!

16 . The vote most recent (the vote of the new marriage) has that to be kept.

Refutation: Wrong! The oldest vow is that it has that to be kept! This vote of the new marriage violates the Word of God total and is, in accordance with Mr. Jesus Christ, call of adultery, therefore the first marriage (and its respective vote) continue in vigor! If it cannot make a new vote, opposing the first vote! This rationalization human being, taken to the obvious extremity of the irresponsible ones, leaves the door opened for libertines (and as they they are many...) to marry as many times how much they want, jeeing of the institution of the marriage, therefore they allege: "the vote most recent has that to be kept..." The Word of God is above of the word of the man, who if becomes liar (Rm. 3:4) when does not fulfill its votes. Consequentemente, this vote fool of the recasamento, is pecaminoso and one confronts against God. It does not have value some, and must be broken immediately for not continuing itself in adultery.>

Ensinos Anti-Bíblicos