1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Remarriage Issue

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by Marcia, Jul 20, 2004.

  1. Daniel David

    Daniel David New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Messages:
    5,316
    Likes Received:
    0
    1. Ah, the ultimate dodging of the issue. He fulfilled it. Is there anything left for him to fulfill? He didn't abolish it because he was still required by God to live under it (Gal. 4).

    Now we have a new law. His law.

    2. New Covenant Dispensationalist. I disagree with the old school who simply puts Moses in a museum.

    3. Jesus said it was because of a hard heart. So I disagree with you.

    4. There is no such thing as an innocent party. There never has been and never will be. The Scriptures NEVER mention an innocent party. I wonder why. Actually I don't.

    5. I am not ruled by pragmatic assertions. We have had two immediate family situations that have put what my wife and I believe to the test. Guess what? We still believe this.

    6. What?

    7. I have read Jesus on divorce. He is explicit about it. No divorce (except for sexual immorality but not even necessarily adultery), no remarriage without committing adultery.

    8. That means nothing to me. Many who are religious lack biblical knowledge. Again, pragmatism shouldn't dominate your theology here.

    9. An ultimatum? Nice. So, I guess he was a liar when he utterred the "for better or FOR WORSE, TILL DEATH do us part". So he has a hard heart and is a liar. Oops. Was that supposed to prove something to me?

    Further, for all your smack about a biblical theology, your conclusion is way out in left field. I reject your Erasminian view.
     
  2. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry <b>Moderator</b>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    I agree ... and that fact hasn't changed. Man still has hard hearts today.

    No, I know of no basis on which to agree ... or to disagree for that matter.

    Ah hah... the old "what is the exception clause" argument. Some (a very few) have taken it your way ... to apply the exception to divorce but not remarriage. The most vocal of these was Heth and Wenham. One of the two (I can't remember which) recently changed his position after considering the facts once again.

    So the fact is that what Christ said it not entirely clear.
     
  3. TomVols

    TomVols New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2000
    Messages:
    11,170
    Likes Received:
    0
    I believe it was not Wenham, Pastor Larry. I think this was brought to bear in an article in the Southern Baptist Journal of Theology a couple of years ago.
     
  4. delly

    delly New Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2004
    Messages:
    660
    Likes Received:
    0
    I married when I was an unbeliever. My husband always told me he was saved. I was saved when I was 35 although I had been in church all my life until I got married to him. I wanted to attend church. He did not. Nights and weekends he was either riding the roads drinking or at the beer joints. I stayed at home with my child. I can't say he never committed adultery and I can't say he did. I know he was always commenting on how great the women at the beer joints were. Guess how that made a 22 year old naive wife feel.

    I did manage to go to church for about three years from 1982 to 1985 and he went with me until he got so jealous of everyone who would speak to me. It got to be a struggle when the paranoia got the better of him and the drinking started again. I had received Christ as my savior in July 1985 but the home life went downhill from there.

    I left him when I was 44. There was no way we could have lived apart in any peace and there was no hope of reconciliation. He was so paranoid as to be mentally unstable. He was an alcoholic and he liked being that way. By the way, alcohol did not cause him to be abusive. He was that way when he was sober. The alcohol just made him worse and kinda gave him an excuse (in his mind) for his behavior. In his mind, as long as I was married to him, I was his property to do with as he pleased. Moving away from him and hiding was the only way I could have any peace and divorcing him was the only way I could have a life, because he would have hounded me and my family until the day he died if we had remained married.

    I'm not saying divorce is right but it's no bigger sin than abusing one's family to the point of causing a child to want to kill himself to get away from it or causing a wife to consider murder or suicide. Yes, killing him did cross my mind. I wished that he would have a wreck on the way home at 2 a.m. so many nights, so drunk the dividing line on the highway looked like a ribbon floating in the air and he was floating on it. I wanted him to die as long as he didnt' take anyone else with him. All this was running through my mind when he was out at night drinking.

    You may judge that I was wrong in divorcing him, but, unless you have been in that situation, you cannot know how you yourself would react. You who are happily married may say you would never divorce for any reason except adultery but until you fear for your life for many years, you have no idea what you would do in my situation. You may judge me wrong and puff out your chests in righteousness, but thank God he is much more loving and compassionate than man. He made me strong and has blessed me far more than I ever thought about.

    I was a naive child when I married; quiet, very shy to the point of diability and verbally abused by my mother all my life. I had no idea how marriage was supposed to be as my mother was the head of our house and my father did whatever he was told. I married to get away from her and went, literally, "from the frying pan into the fire." It's funny how they say girls want to marry someone like their Dad. I married someone like my mother, only much worse.

    You can quote scripture till you turn blue in the face. You can thump your Bibles and point out my error, but you are the only ones who have judged me wrong to divorce him. I have talked to many preachers (Baptist and others) since I have been divorced and none of them have condemned me. They have listened to me, prayed with me, thanked God for delivering me and welcomed me into their churches. These are men of God who are devoted to preaching the bible and showing people the way to Jesus. Jesus is using me in my music and I have many great friends (I was not allowed to have friends when I was married).

    Whether I ever get married again is strictly up to God. He listens to my prayers and knows my feelings.

    It's not strictlytrue that single people have more time than married people. I still have to make a living and work 6 days a week. I leave home at 5:30 a.m. and get home just before 6 p.m. five days a week. My son lives with me, so I still have to cook, clean house and grocery shop. I do all the things any other woman does except care of small children. I guess it's true that having a man around the house adds a lot more work on a woman.
     
  5. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry <b>Moderator</b>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    ACtually it doesn't. It also expressly gives an exception for desertion (1 Cor 7). Additionally, the OT, divorce was commanded in order to be obedient to God (Ezra). In other places in the OT, remarriage following divorce was prohibited in certain circumstances, leading to the very clear implication that remarriage following divorce was not prohibited in all circumstances.

    The people who hold your position often like to ignore the parts of the Bible that show holes in their argument. Let me sum it up:

    1. God's plan is one man and one woman for one lifetime.

    2. Divorce was a reality.

    A. Because of hardness of heart (Deut 22)

    B. Because of certain sexual sins (Deut 22, 24),

    C. In order to be obedient to God (Ezra 10).

    D. Becuase of porneia (Matt 19).

    E. Because of desertion (1 Cor 7).

    3. Remarriage is permitted after divorce in some instances.

    A. Supported by the explicit OT references forbidding it in some. (If it was forbidden in all, then there is no need to express prohibition only in some cases).

    B. Supported by the expectation and prohibition of Deut 22 (KJV is an unfortunate translation). If divorced, you can remarry, but cannot divorce again and remarry your original spouse. Why even say this if remarriage was not permitted in any case?

    C. Supported by the exception clause of Christ, interpreted in normal fashion.

    D. Supported by the explicit statement of Paul that if one loosed from a marriage (i.e., married and then loosed; you are not "loosed from a marriage" if you have never been married), he has not sinned to remarry.

    E. Supported by the explicit statement that it is better to marry than to burn.

    Side note: What about Jesus' conflicting statements (exception vs. no exception). Some, such as Craig and Daniel, take Christ's shorter statement as the only authoritative one, and resort to an abnormal reading of the text to explain away the exception. Others, such as myself, believe that the shorter statement simply was not intended to give all possibilities or exceptions. It was a statement of the general ideal. The latter, IMO, is the far more scriptural way to read it for the following reasons.

    1. God commanded divorce for reasons other than porneia (Ezra 10).
    2. God admitted the possibility of divorce and subsequent remarriage in the Law.
    3. The exception clause is too specific and clear.
    4. Assuming the finality of the shorter clause leads to Christ contradicting himself. Assuming the finality of the exception clause removes that contradiction.
    5. Paul gave an explicit allowance for both divorce and remarriage.

    Now obviously, my conclusions are based on the work that I have done. Others cannot hold these opinions in good conscience and that is fine. But there needs to be a serious backing off (Craig and DD) in the rhetoric and demeanor. You can disagree with our conclusions, but to accuse us of having contradictions or being way out in left field is over the edge. Accusations of not knowing the Bible as probably as far from true as they are out of place. The fact of the matter remains that both sides have solid biblical evidence to support them. I know because I have done the homework. The fact remains that neither I, nor anyone else I have seen here, is supporting divorce or recommending it. We do not believe it is God's best. But we live in a sin-cursed world and people sin. And we have to deal with that biblically.

    For a divorced person, contentment with singleness may well be the best option. But to quote the inspired apostle, it is better to marry than to burn, and God did not give it to all to be a eunuch for the kingdom's sake. When Paul gave his teaching, he (unlike Craig) offered no other words. He simply said what he said.

    So let's try to converse with gentlemanly kindness (no offense ladies .. it is a mere expression) about a matter on which there is legitimate room for debate.
     
  6. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry <b>Moderator</b>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think it was in Southern Journal or something like that. I have the article here somewhere ... if only I wasn't too lazy to look it up and see where it was ... :D
     
  7. TomVols

    TomVols New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2000
    Messages:
    11,170
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yeah, I was going to link it for you, but I'm too lazy to do that too. [​IMG]
     
  8. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry <b>Moderator</b>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Good thing I already have a copy in my files ... We aren't any help to each other are we ... :D
     
  9. gb93433

    gb93433 Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    15,549
    Likes Received:
    15
    If cannot apply theology then what good is it. I would not dispute most of what you wrote.

    You still put Moses in a museum when you stated, “The O.T. regulations on divorce were completely done away with by Christ. All of them. It no longer matters what Israel was permitted to do.” I assumed you were a dispensationalist because of what I know about it and how it has changed at least twice in my lifetime. Dispensationalism is much like Mormonism (always changing) unlike historical biblical theology. In dispensationalism everything is filtered through the “system”. That is exactly what you did. I assume you do not believe the moral law as well in the OT.

    We cannot force anyone to do anything. I was pastoring a church where the lady working with youth was going to divorce her husband. I told her the same advice you wrote. But in the end she did. There was nothing I could do except to get the church to take action. Which the whimps would not.

    I don’t know how old you are but I have seen a few cases of an innocent party. Such as in some drug cases.

    Of course pragmatism should not dominate our theology. It is easy to preach that. W.A. Criswell said the same thing until his daughter got divorced. Divorce is always due to a hard heart. So is every other problem associated with man.

    Re: number 9. He was willing to reconcile but she was not. He did not want a divorce but she was not willing to go with him to get help. So from your vantage point after (I think it was 14 years like this) what would recommend? My position where were the deacons and pastor in this case. Like most churches the deacons roll over and play dead.

    Of course divorce should never be any option. But I cannot control another’s attitudes and actions. If my wife wanted to leave me there would be nothing I could do except to try and persuade her otherwise. But if her heart was that hard I would have no choice.

    Personally I think a lot of divorce happens over the pursuit of pleasure or happiness. Proverbs talks about when we seek pleasure we get less than we started with. Pleasure is self seeking.
     
  10. DHK

    DHK <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    137
    quote:
    You are taking Scripture out of context. There is no cause given for divorce because of desertion. The word divorce is not there. The word "depart" is used. A person may separate without divorcing. Christ never sanctioned divorce. That much is clear. Paul would not contradict the words of Christ. "From the beginning it was not so."

    True. It always has been, from the beginning of the creation of Adam and Eve, until now. Nothing has changed.
    [/QB]
    So was polygamy. It didn't make it right. "From the beginning it was not so."
    That statement alone shows that it was not God's perfect will, just as polygamy was not God's perfect will. God allowed it. He did not sanction it.
    Deuteronomy 22:11 Thou shalt not wear a garment of divers sorts, as of woollen and linen together.
    Deuteronomy 22:20-22 But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel: Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you. If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel.

    Do you just pick and choose the laws that you want. If you are going to keep the law, then keep all of it. Have you stoned anyone recently?

    There's nothing like taking Scripture out of context to prove a point.

    Ezra 10:2 And Shechaniah the son of Jehiel, one of the sons of Elam, answered and said unto Ezra, We have trespassed against our God, and have taken strange wives of the people of the land: yet now there is hope in Israel concerning this thing.

    Israel was a theocracy, and was forbidden to take wives from other nations for the sake of the purity of their nation. This has nothing to do with "certain sexual sins." It has everything to do with God's command not to intermarry with other nations, something that does not apply to us today.
    I have already given a Scriptural definition of porneia—illicit sex before marriage. You cannot divorce someone you have not married. Read again my post.
    It doesn't say divorce; it gives reason to depart, to remain single, to remain separated. It gives no reason to divorce. Does the Bible contradict itself?
    God permitted polygamy in David and Solomon's time. Are you advocating that one can have a thousand wives such as Solomon did? Is this the way that we apply the Old Testament to the New Testament dispensation?

    Again you are supporting your case on the law of the Old Testament. It was never God's will. Because of the hardness of Israel's God permitted it (as he did polygamy), but from the beginning it was not so.
    I interpreted the "exception clause" in the Biblical fashion, not the popular fashion. I supported it with Scripure. If people don't like what the Word of God teaches that is not my problem, I am only the messenger.
    Is this the Scripture you are referring to:
    1 Corinthians 7:27 Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife.

    You are taking Scripture out of context again. Paul uses this Scripture explicity to advise them not to take a wife but to remain single. He says if you are married don't seek a divorce; if you happen to be divorced don't seek to be married but remain single. The meaning couldn't be any plainer, and you try to "wrest the Scripture to your own destruction." Shame on you!
    And so it is. The statement is made to unmarried men, not to married men. It is good for a man not to touch a woman. Read the context. If he cannot contain himself, then it is better that he live the married life, and his sexual urge be satisfied within the married state. This has nothing to do with divorce or remarriage.
     
  11. DHK

    DHK <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    137
    God did not command divorce. He commanded the nation to put away their strange wives. Read the chapter again. He commanded the nation of Israel to purify themselves. We don't have that situation today. It is inapplicable.
    From the beginning it was not so. He permitted it; not sanctioned it. He permitted polygamy too.
    Yes it is. The word used is pornei—illicit sex before marriage as demonstrated in Matthew 1, in the lives of Mary and Joseph.
    [QUOOTE]4. Assuming the finality of the shorter clause leads to Christ contradicting himself. Assuming the finality of the exception clause removes that contradiction.[/QUOTE]
    It would be a contradiction if porneia did not mean what it says. The passage in Mark has no such clause. If you marry, divorce, and remarry, you commit adultery. Case closed. It is sin. Christ said it.
    Paul said no such thing. You have yet to demonstrate it.
    In my original post I simply stated my position quoting Scripture. I made no reference to anyone, or anyone's position. I only stated my position. There was no animosity at all. It clearly must have hit a nerve with you somewhere.
    DHK
     
  12. Craigbythesea

    Craigbythesea Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    5,535
    Likes Received:
    21
    If you were to do that yourself, it would be much easier for me to reply in like manner. But the truth is that you grossly distort almost everything that I have to say and write as though you have studied and I have not, even though you know very well that is not at all the truth. You are not the only one who has studied this matter, and your posts very strongly suggest that you have not studied it with any degree of thoroughness.

    Anyone who has made a detailed study of the history of the interpretation of the passages being discussed knows that the interpretations that I have presented are found throughout the history of the church by the very most leaned scholars. The interpretation provided in these two threads by you are strictly modernist and uneducated views that not only grossly distort the Scriptures, but promote the most horribly licentious conduct that has ever been known to man.


    Larry has posted that my exegesis and hermeneutics are unsound, but he knows very well that I am following the same exegetical and hermeneutical procedures that have been followed by the most Godly and learned Bible scholars throughout the history of the church, and the same exegetical and hermeneutical procedures that have restrained the Church to a substantial extent from wandering away from the truth of the word of God.

    Larry’s exegetical and hermeneutical procedures, however, are nothing but a crude hodgepodge, a mixed conglomeration of distortions, partial truths, and outright error permitting him to come to conclusions that contradict the explicit teachings of the Bible. If Larry really had studied the history of the doctrines pertaining to marriage and divorce, he would be familiar with the arguments put forth by scholars who argue for remarriage after divorce, and he would not be limited to putting forth his ridiculous (as I am being very polite in use this word) arguments that no responsible scholar would even dream of putting forth.


    If you, the reader of these two threads on divorce and remarriage, really want to know which one of us is telling you the truth and responsibly interpreting the Bible, all you have to do is study of the history of the interpretation of the verses being discussed along with a study of the history of the Biblical doctrines of marriage and divorce. If you will do this, you will find very many Godly and able scholars telling you what I have told you, but you will not find any scholars at all telling you the absurdities that Larry is telling you. Yes, there are many preachers and popular “Christian” writers who will tell you some of the things that Larry is telling you, but you will find that they are all contemporary writers who are either tickling the ears of their readers, or who have had their own ears tickled so much that they have lost the ability perceive the truth.
     
  13. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry <b>Moderator</b>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    I say again, as I have before, that I agree that Paul would not contradict the words of Christ. But I think sound exegesis has demonstrated that you have not fully reckoned with the words of Christ.

    1 Cor 7 specifically says that you are not bound. A person not bound is free to remarry (though some dispute that). It is fine to dispute it, but the fact remains that it is a viable and consistent interpretation to allow for remarriage.

    I am not in anyway suggesting that we follow the law. I was directly answering your assertion that divorce/remarriage is living in adultery. The law shows plainly that it is not. God gave stipulations for when remarriage was forbidden, therefore indicating that there were times when it wasn’t. That is not applying the law. It is showing that your understanding, on that point, was faulty. Every comment you made in this post about the OT completely misunderstands the point I was making. The point is simply this: You said God never condones divorce, but Ezra 10 proves you wrong. You said that remarriage is never permissible, but the law proves you wrong. Under the Law, one could remarry and be in a right relationship with God. That is the point. God did permit remarriage after divorce.
    But go back and look at the point. Then you will see that I didn’t take it out of context. You said the Bible never condones divorce. I showed a place where God clearly condoned divorce. Vv,. 10ff show clearly that divorce was pleasing to God. It was not about sexual sins (which wasn’t the point I was making). God condoned divorce and that contradicts your position.

    But that is an inadequate definition. Porneia is referring to any sexual misconduct, not simply unmarried. And Matt 5 and 19 show that to be the case. I understand the argument about Mary and Joseph and disagree with for a variety of reasons. The fact remains that moicheia (adultery) is a subset of porneia.

    You later appeal to Matthew 1 to support your notion of porneia being premarital relations. Matthew 1 doesn’t even talk about porneia. 1 Cor 5:1 uses porneia with a married woman in view. In the OT, the porneia word group is used of married women as well. So that shows your contention that porneia is only for premarital sex to be insufficient. It clearly refers to all kinds of sexual sin, not just premarital.

    Please don’t go down this road. We have enough of that attitude from Craig and DD. It is very uncharacteristic of you. I do like what the Word of God says. I happen to believe, along with most of orthodox Christianity, that it says something different than what you think it says. I could make the same comment to you (but won’t). Assuming your position doesn’t help. I think you have turned the exception clause on its head by making it refer only to part of the issue, not the whole issue.

    Talk about wresting from context. V. 28 is the context. Why did you ignore that? It plainly says if you are loosed from a wife, you should not seek a wife. But if you do marry, you have not sinned.

    Verse divisions have become easy ways to ignore the thought. V. 28 is the continuation of the thought of v. 27. When you failed to read on, you took it out of context.

    Exactly, right up until the last sentence. To say that it has nothing to do with divorce or remarriage is to assume that divorced people cannot burn with passion. They can. And when they do, they should marry rather than burn. As Craig did, you added to the verse by inserting your idea about “never married men.” The text doesn’t say any such thing.

    BTW, the ‘It is good” statement is a Corinthians slogan that Paul is refuting. Paul is not teaching that.

    What do you think divorce is? It is putting away. You just contradicted yourself. When he commanded the nation to put away their strange wives, he was commanding divorce. I don’t need to read the chapter again. I know what it says. The situation itself is not applicable to us. I agree. But it is an explicit refutation of your point that divorce was never condoned by God. It clearly was … so that Israel could purify herself.

    Exactly, but why? If you take Mark’s statement at face value, the Christ contradicted himself, because in Matthew he gives an exception. Why, if it were never permissible, did he say it was permissible?? He wouldn’t. The clearer explanation is that Mark gives the simple form, and Matthew gives the full form. You can read discussions of that elsewhere.

    No, I wasn’t referring to you in specific. That was more of a general statement to all, particularly with respect to Craig and DD who need to adopt a more gentlemanly attitude, IMO. Perhaps it hit a nerve with you though ;) … Until a few comments in your last post, I haven’t considered you even close to being out of line.
     
  14. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry <b>Moderator</b>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    I have. I haven't accused you of the kind of stuff you accuse me of. I am not questioning whether or not you believe the Bible on this issue. Please don't question me on that issue.

    This is what I am talking about. I have read virtually every major work on this subject, dozens of articles, and written a series of papers addressing every single passage in the Bible remotely connected to this. In a seminar class with 8 post graduate seminary students (i.e, post MDiv) we kicked it around for hours over the course of a semester. I don't imply that you haven't studied. I do believe that you are overlooking some important issues.

    That's simply not true. These opiniones are far from unlearned, and you know that. This is the kind of stuff I am talking about. You are distorting the truth.

    Again, prime example of what I am talking about.

    I am very familiar with the arguments for your side. Every single opinion I have put forth here is the opinion of some major scholar. The only exception is my interpretation of 1 Cor 7:27-28, which I am still thinking through. You want to accuse me of not studying and therefore not knowing the legitimacy of the arguments on your side (even though I do). But all the while you indict your own study by apparently not knowing the legitimacy of arguments on our side. IN either case, your approach to my study is improper.

    Partially true. If you want to know, you can read the history and study the issues. On the other hand, you will find most scholars today give sound exegetical refutation of the position that Craig has attempted to defend. They are godly men and they present their material is an decent and gentlemanly way. I encourage you to read and study from that perspective.
     
  15. Craigbythesea

    Craigbythesea Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    5,535
    Likes Received:
    21
    Partially true. :D
     
  16. Craigbythesea

    Craigbythesea Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    5,535
    Likes Received:
    21
    Isn't that amazing! Larry believes that prior to 1500, everyone resorted to an "abnormal" reading of the text, and that prior to the early 1960's almost everyone was still resorting to an "abnormal" reading of the text. Anyone who sees the norm as abnormal does not see very well, and very likely has other problems far worse than poor vision.


    It is not more “scriptural” if it is a scribal gloss. I have already posted the reasons why many scholars believe the exception clause to be a scribal gloss, but Larry has not posted the reasons why other scholars disagree, he has only posted the reasons why he disagrees, and he tells us that he has studied this matter and implies that we have not. But I suppose that is Larry’s view of what is normal. Larry is normal; the whole world is insane!
    But even if the exception clause is genuine, it explicitly rules out exceptions other than πορνεία, and πορνεία does not include abandonment!

    So what does Larry do? He resorts to the most ambiguous chapter in the New Testament, selects two very ambiguous verses, tells us that sound exegesis and hermeneutics demands that we interpret these ambiguous verses to suit his theological prejudices, and then re-write the Bible to bring it into conformity with his theological nonsense. And then he tells the rest of us that we should be more polite in our posting.
     
  17. Craigbythesea

    Craigbythesea Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    5,535
    Likes Received:
    21
    [ July 23, 2004, 04:26 PM: Message edited by: Craigbythesea ]
     
  18. Craigbythesea

    Craigbythesea Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    5,535
    Likes Received:
    21
    I encourage you to objectively study the data, and not just the recent, modernist data; and not just from one, single perspective.
     
  19. Craigbythesea

    Craigbythesea Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    5,535
    Likes Received:
    21
    Many, but certainly not all, modern “Christian scholars” have told us that divorce is OK, and that remarriage is OK—and many Christians have believed them. What is the fruit of this licentious teaching?

    An increase in the divorce rate among Evangelicals of over one thousand percent in the last 40 years, millions of drug-addicted youth, and an epidemic of teen and pre-teen suicide (not to mention what it has done to the adults themselves).

    Jesus said that divorce is not OK, and that remarriage is not OK. Paul, of course, agreed with Jesus, but modern “scholars” are spending countless hours searching for loopholes in the Bible. Some have imagined that they have found them in a few isolated, ambiguous texts, and have attempted to teach us that they are right. Personally, I do not believe them.
     
  20. Daniel David

    Daniel David New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Messages:
    5,316
    Likes Received:
    0
    I would encourage you to consider studying New Covenant Theology. You would at least understand what I am saying with regards to the law.

    I agree with the dispensationalist that we are no longer under ANY of the mosaic law. I disagree with their reasoning and the path they take to get there.

    Christ fulfilled the law like a butterfly fulfills a caterpillar.

    The law (all of it) has taken a new form and is wholly different, and wholly the same.
     
Loading...