A Matter of Faith or Conscience?
Romans 14 provides instruction regarding matters of personal liberty. Paul used the examples of eating meats and observing days in showing that we can and should continue in fellowship with those we differ with on matters of conscience. Some were eating meat. Others were eating only vegetables (v. 2). Some were observing certain days. Others were regarding each day alike (v. 5). These people were to accept each other. Why? Because God had accepted all of them (v. 3). Their differences were in regards to personal conscience, not faith.
Some brethren try and use Romans 14 to justify ongoing fellowship with those who differ with them in matters of faith. To do so is to pervert the Scriptures. Romans 14 deals with personal liberty, not matters of faith in which God has legislated. If no sin is committed by either position, then Romans 14 applies. The matter should not be a test of fellowship. However, if sin is involved, fellowship cannot be maintained. Since "God is Light, and in Him there is no darkness at all" (1 Jn. 1:5), we cannot have "fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness" (Eph. 5:11) and expect to remain in God's favor.
Should This Issue Be a Test of Fellowship?
On the one hand, we have those who recognize that while the Scriptures specify the lawful cause for divorce, they never specify a procedure or timing. On the other hand, there are those who believe that, in addition to the lawful cause, they must also follow a certain procedure or sequence. Is sin involved when either of these views is put into practice? No. In both cases, one puts away their mate for fornication and then has the right to remarry. No sin is committed by doing this. Since either position can be applied without sin being committed, this matter belongs in Romans 14. Fellowship among brethren should not be disrupted over this issue.
The "Safe" Side
Some who believe that they must follow a certain procedure or sequence in order to put away their mate view this as the "safe" position. Actually, if both positions are void of sin, both are safe. But if in their mind they see this as the "safe" position, and believe it for that reason, fine.
Likewise, in Romans 14:2, we could say the one who only ate vegetables was holding the "safe" position. They're not convinced they can eat meat, so they abstain from it. There's nothing wrong with this. But this person is described as "weak." Why? Because the more we grow as Christians in the knowledge of God's word, the more we understand what He permits and restricts. God's word permits one to eat meat. Those who were weak in the faith would lean toward the "safe" side and eat only vegetables.
The same is true with this issue. God's word permits one to put away their mate for fornication and remarry. The procedure and timing are not addressed in Scripture and are therefore a matter of conscience, not faith. But those who are weaker (at least in relation to this topic) may lean toward what they view as the "safe" side and not put away their mate for fornication if they cannot do so a certain way.
There is no problem when one leans toward this "safe" side as a matter of personal choice. The problem comes whenever they try and impose their "safe" rule upon others. Romans 14:3 prohibits this -- "the one who does not eat is not to judge the one who eats, for God has accepted him." The connection is made in 1 Timothy 4:1-3 between those who advocate eating no meat and those who "forbid marriage" from those who have a right to marry. Both are said to have fallen "away from the faith" (v. 1). When one tries to bind additional requirements on God's people, they are no longer merely "weak in faith" (Rom. 14:1), they are now guilty of sin.
Should this issue be a test of fellowship? Again, no. But have some made it a test of fellowship? Sadly, yes. When one teaches that in order for someone to be able to put away their spouse for fornication and remarry, they must put them away in a certain manner, they have gone beyond what is written. Nowhere in the New Testament is any putting away procedure or timing specified. Yet some impose their scruple upon others and make a matter of conscience into a test of fellowship, thus causing division in the body of Christ. The "safe" side is only safe when it is kept to oneself. Stirring up strife over the issue is not safe, for God's word says those who are guilty of such will not inherit the kingdom (Gal. 5:19-21) and are deserving of death (Rom. 1:29,32).
A Non-Binding Position
While some will make rules as to what procedure must be used or the timing in place for one to put away their mate, the Scriptures make no such rules. Therefore, if we wish to follow what the Bible teaches and "speak as the oracles of God" (1 Pet. 4:11), we will refrain from making rules in these matters as well. The Scriptures teach that one may put away their mate for fornication and remarry. This permission includes one who has previously been put away by their spouse for some other cause. This is the scenario we've been examining. The only way one can prohibit the one in our scenario from putting away their mate and remarrying is by binding additional rules upon them that are not found in Scripture.
The position advocated here is a non-binding position. That simply means that since the word of God does not require putting away be done in a certain way or time frame, we can not require such either. Therefore, one may put away their mate for fornication and remarry even after their mate put them away for some other cause.
Some may wonder, if I believe the person in that scenario has a right to remarry, would I encourage one in that situation to remarry? No, I would not encourage them to remarry. But, I would not discourage them from remarrying either. Why? Whether they remarry or remain unmarried, they commit no sin. Again, we have no right to bind anything upon others that is not taught in God's word. Therefore, no one has the right to require that one to marry and no one has the right to require they remain unmarried.
