Response to Faye from Atlanta The most subversive teaching that comes from Permanence ideology comes form those who teach ‚Äúindissoluble marriage.‚ÄĚ A percentage of these teachers feel it necessary to exceed the bible in order to resolve divorce and remarriage, they advocate that subsequent marriages after divorce should end. The ‚Äúdivorce to repent‚ÄĚ supposition has been a source of contention for a long time. Most Permanence advocates have not taught this doctrine because it is not instructed and unprecedented in scripture. The minority that teach this doctrine have whole heartedly abandoned biblical precedents for a solution of their understanding of how repentance should work itself out in this case. They believe repentance in this matter should look different NOW than it did in the Old Testament, they believe God requires now what He forbid before. Keep in mind that they are discarding biblical precedents and replacing it with their solution, they are speaking for God where God has not spoken. This zeal has a pharisaical tendency to add rules to the Word of God. The contention over this teaching is controversial, even for those who hold to other Permanence beliefs. There is nothing in the New Testament that should be construed as to reinterpret the Old Testament binding that occurred in remarriage.