As Christians across California grapple with the legalization of same-sex "marriage," the shock factor at one emerging church remains small.
And it's not because the young and growing church embraces a liberal theology or supports gay "marriage," but because they don't avoid talking about sexuality, including homosexuality.
"In our church, at least from the people I have been hanging out with, I have not yet heard too much 'Oh my gosh, look what happened,'" said Dan Kimball, pastor of Vintage Faith Church in Santa Cruz, Calif., and a well-known emerging church leader who subscribes to a more conservative theology. There wasn't much of a reaction at Vintage Faith to the May 15 court ruling that allowed same-sex couples to wed, he said. Many believed it was inevitable.
And Kimball had more conversations with pastors outside the state who were more curious about the impact of the ruling than those around his church. He believes people at his church were not shocked partly because of their openness in discussing marriage and homosexuality.
At Vintage Faith, they've created a culture of addressing and responding to such issues. Kimball encourages other churches to do the same – to create a culture of teaching the theology of these controversial issues in a way that people can understand and not approaching the issues just at the surface level.
"I hope then people will be able to respond in a healthy way and not [be] reactionary," he said in a recent interview with Skye Jethani, managing editor of Leadership journal.
Kimball is currently teaching out of the New Testament book 1 Corinthians in a series titled "Sin City: Being the light of Jesus in a darkened culture." Early in the series, which launched on June 15, he addressed marriage and human sexuality, teaching the theologically conservative position that marriage is designed for a man and a woman. An open forum followed the sermon last weekend.
While Vintage Faith does not endorse homosexual "marriage" theologically, the church – like any emerging church – is ingrained in the culture, a culture that has becoming increasingly tolerant of the homosexual lifestyle.
"To me, I really believe that if church leaders aren't involved in people ... [who] are gay outside of their church, that needs to happen so that they can just understand [their] lives more," Kimball said in the interview.
"So when they think about [homosexuals], it's not just this population of people that is faceless; they really can think of hearts and minds and eye expressions," he added.
Church leaders need to see every human being, regardless of their sexuality or lifestyle, in the image of God, he stressed.
"That to me is critical because then you respond differently," the emerging pastor said.
Kimball's seven-week "Sin City" series continues on Sunday with a message on "Single Like Jesus." The series aims to help Christians share the way of Jesus in their culture and avoid being consumed by a sin-saturated culture.
RSS
DP
All Christians believe the Nicene Creed or they aren't Christians by definition. It has nothing to do with being Catholic since catholic (small c) is the universal church without the Roman Catholic Church claim of the only church.
And your comment, "isn't the term 'emergent' the same as 'coming out of the closet'?" is juvenile at best, a broad brush false accusation which constitutes slander and is a serious sin (false accusation) in Yahweh's eyes. Although I am not emergent and I find much of the Emergent church to be heretical, making adolescent attacks on people is not how we are told we should think and act.
Grace and Peace,
Jim
from the history of Vintage Church(http://www.vintagechurch.org/about/history):
"Vintage Faith Church" (the first formal church plant of Santa Cruz Bible Church, a non-denominational church) merged with "First Presbyterian Church".
The Vintage Church website is http://www.vintagechurch.org/
The doctrinal statement is there. They are apparently Catholic and believe the nicene creed:
http://www.vintagechurch.org/about/theology/truths-in-the-nicene-creed
indy, what several people are sharing is their opposition to the emergent church as opposed to the way this church is choosing to deal with the issue, but I agree Dan Kimball appears to be biblically sound on this issue.
I am confused by the negative comments here. In this article, didn't Dan Kimball clearly state he is conservative theologically on this issue and say that he teaches his church that marriage is for a man and a woman? It states that twice in this article that he believes and teaches that marriage is for a man and woman.
isn't the term 'emergent' the same as 'coming out of the closet'?
"emergents are trying to spin God's Word in a way that hurts Christianity and convince whoever will listen that Bible believers are dumb and intolerant. "
I think its worse than you suggest. I think that at least some emergent leaders are and have said that we need to not focus on eternity, that we should not concern our silly little heads with whether Christ is the substitutionary atonement we need to be with God, but instead focus only on the here and now and only help people with their physical and emotional needs - rather than deal with the cause for those needs, their spiritual need.
Back to the point, emergents are trying to spin God's Word in a way that hurts Christianity and convince whoever will listen that Bible believers are dumb and intolerant. The best gift anyone can recieve is the gift of Salvation through Jesus Sacrifice on the Cross.
Wasn't Brian McLaren a "pastor" emergent of course.
from a recent AP story:
"Meanwhile, Obama's campaign is aggressively reaching out to evangelicals.
The Illinois senator dispatched former 9/11 Commission member Tim Roemer to meet with fellow Roman Catholics. He sent Brian McLaren, one of the country's most influential pastors, to meet with fellow evangelicals. And aides have conducted more than 200 "American Values Forums," soon to be followed up with house parties and town hall-style meetings aimed at young Catholics and young evangelicals."
The point being, of the three very plausible interpretations of 'except for porneia' – namely, unlawful unions within certain degrees of kinship, marital unfaithfulness during the betrothal period, or that the phrase simply refers to the matter-of-fact recognition that if the wife has already committed adultery then her husband cannot be held guilty of driving her into it by divorcing her, none of them allow for divorce and remarriage as many Christians would like this exceptive clause to allow. I think that we as Christians, although perhaps very sincere, have had a serious lapse in judgment regarding this issue, and this is clearly demonstrated by the fact that, by the moral laxity in this single area, the divorce rate among believers is virtually indistinguishable than that of unbelievers. So much for being salt and light...
Here's another scholar - Dr. William Heth. In his book Divorce, he states, "The 'except for marital unfaithfulness' clause does not need to mean any more than the fact that divorcing an unchaste wife would not make her an adulteress, for she has made herself an adulteress, adultery being the most common type of sexual offense covered by the term porneia . . . The exception clause in Matthew 5.32 is simply a matter-of-fact recognition that if the wife has already committed adultery, her husband cannot be held guilty of driving her into it by divorcing her . . .
"But immediately following, we find Jesus' absolute and unqualified conditional statement that 'whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery . . . [which] strongly suggests that Jesus never intended to sanction remarriage after divorce for marital unfaithfulness."
wbmoore,
But I still believe that my posts at 12:02 am, 11:56 am, and 12:13 pm (ignore the lengthy quote at 11:09 am) is very reasonable. The loophole that many Christians hinge their hopes on is the exceptive clause of Matthew, which is not supported by Mark, Luke, or Paul, so it seems reasonable that it have a certain significance to Jews. Many conservative scholars have come to this same conclusion, so I'm not sure why you believe that this position is not adequately supported.
wbmoore,
I apologize that I inserted a lengthy quote where I merely cut and pasted from some evangelical study that I had found. I usually try to use my own words and keep it much shorter.
I,
I went to begin a post in response to what you have written, but I realized what you had posted since I posted my latest response was a page and a half in Word. I appreciate that you have done considerable research to support your position.
However, I still do not think the position is adequately supportable, given what I perceive to be flawed examples and the usage of the word elsewhere.
But due to the obvious effort this would take to refute this theory in your eyes or confirm it in mine, and the fact this is not an important enough issue to me to attempt to type this up and I do not have access to the resources you mentioned at this time, I decided to not continue this discussion at this time.
Recall that when Mary was discovered to be with child by the Holy Spirit, Joseph had in mind to divorce her quietly (Matt. 1:19), yet they were only in the betrothal period. Matthew perhaps had reason to clarify why Joseph's planned course of action was legitimate, given what Jesus said later regarding marriage.
I completely forgot to mention another possible reason for 'except for porneia' being unique to Matthew's gospel. Some scholars have taken it to refer to unchaste behavior before the marriage is consummated; i.e., during the betrothal period. At that point, it is possible to dissolve the marriage, for marriages become indissoluble only when they are consummated. Since this would be relevant in particular to a Jewish audience, this again lends credence to the specific nature that this phrase may have had for Jews, and possibly explain why this exceptive clause is contained in Matthew's gospel and omitted in Mark's and Luke's. If 'except for porneia' merely meant any sort of sexual immorality, then certainly the Greco-Roman world would have needed to know this as well, if not more, than the primarily Jewish community to which Matthew was directing his gospel.
There is no 'trap door' in the Bible. It is clear as to what the conditions for remarriage are.
It gets back to Karl Marx saying the US Constitution is the best foundational document for running a country as long as it is implemented properly. Of course, those of us here in the US would take exception to his 'interpretation' of our Constitution! The same is said by Christians to those who do not accept the Bible as the Word of God. It's apples and oranges.
The following excert came from an evangelical paper; however, I could not find the author's name:
Based on these observations these scholars are able to rest firmly in the position that they may take the "natural" understanding of porneia as "unrepentant adultery," "sexual unfaithfulness to the marriage," or "sexual sin of any sort." Divorce and remarriage can be legitimate since the sexual promiscuity of the one partner has fundamentally broken the "one-flesh" union.
At first glance, this position seems safe from refutation, but such is not the case. On account of space limitations, the problems inherent with this view can only be addressed briefly. (1) The idea that the "one-flesh" union is created by the act of intercourse and thus can be broken by an act of intercourse is not in fitting with the text. Though the sexual union appears to be the means by which the two are brought together, it is not what joins them together--God is the one doing the joining. This is why Jesus says, "What God has joined together, let not man separate" (19.6). If it were the case that "one-flesh unions" were broken by adultery then it would only follow that if a wife committed porneia, the husband would HAVE to divorce her since she has become "one flesh" with another man and therefore, she is no longer his wife. For him to remain with her, then, would be adultery. This is clearly not what the text is saying. Moreover, if a lustful glance is adultery (5.27-30) and "sexual sin of any sort" is grounds for divorce (5.31-32), then it is difficult to see how Jesus is being strict on divorce at all. This argument amounts to nothing more than a "Christian statement of the Shammaite position" excepting that where Shammai demanded divorce, Jesus merely allows it. This hardly accounts for the disciples' shock in 19.10.
Well, I found an article regarding divorce from a book where FF Bruce is a consulting editor that said porneia was adultery. This does not invalidate the idea that the illicit sexual acts that occurred during marriage (adultery) were what was described in Lev 18, 20; Dt 24;13-30. Of course, this does not mean Bruce wrote it.
I'm still looking.
looks like someone has flagged all of Prophet's posts. ddddd (formerly ccccccccc) must still be angry with him.
wbmoore,
I think F.F.Bruce makes this argument in his book "Paul: Apostle of the Heart Set Free." L. Carl Laney's book "The Divorce Myth" treats this subject as well. I believe David Bercot addresses this as well in one of his books, but cannot remember which one.
wbmoore,
But are there really any who come in here who are actually seeking? It seems that everyone is pretty much set on one side of the fence or the other, though some are wolves in sheep's clothing.
wbmoore,
Another implication that 'except for porneia' does not merely mean adultery. Mark's and Luke's audience (who were primarily Greeks/Gentiles and Romans, respectively) were not given this exception and would have missed out on this point. It's one thing if one of the gospels choose not to narrate a particular story or account, but in this case, the conversation between Jesus and his disciples concerning divorce is recorded in all three synoptics, but with subtle differences. Compare Matt. 19:9 and Mk. 10:11-12. Notice how Mark's gospel includes Jesus addressing the case of a woman divorcing her husband. Matthew didn't include this part of Jesus' statement because a Jewish woman was not permitted to divorce her husband. Similarly, 'except for porneia' must have had a certain significance to the Jews that it may not have had with the Greeks or Romans. Also, by translating 'porneia' too broadly, Jesus would not be teaching anything above and beyond what the school of Shammai taught. It would be difficult to understand why the disciples would ask such a question in Matt. 19:10 concerning Jesus' supposedly strict teaching if His teaching was not anything different than what some others were already teaching.
Prophet,
"But I do dislike these people masquerading as Christians coming in here trying to flaunt their humanistic, carnal view of the Bible. It's really annoying. I'm gonna stop responding to them."
I also dislike it. I consciously choose to respond so as to provide refutation for the ones who are seeking truth. If I were to leave the bad hermeneutics without refutation, unbelievers or believers who are spiritually immature, would be led astray. Otherwise, I too would not offer a refutation.
You want to talk about marriage fidelity...think about the disciples/apostles. They left everything, work, home, family for the cause of the Gospel. And I am fairly certain that they didn't divorce their wives, or vice-versa. Even when they went abroad. Though the Bible doesn't say whether the wives accompanied them, but I doubt it.
"F.F. Bruce ... Dr. Carl Laney "
I'll see if I can find their commentaries. I don't have them.
It is my experience in dealing with people concerning marital problems, regardless of what they are, it is always a matter of the condition of the hearts of the people involved. They have, for one reason or another, hardened their hearts against one another, and against God. They each often feel they have a 'right' to some feeling or thought or behavior.
If I can help them begin to soften their hearts towards God, then they will soften their hearts towards each other.
I totally agree with everything you said. I too have counseled separation for certain circumstances.
irenaeus,
"If 'porneia' refers to adultery or marital infidelity,"
I hold that porneia refers to various sexually illicit behavior. Doing these things while married is what makes it constitute adultery.
"then there's a loop-hole. Let's present a hypothetical case here... if I wanted to get out of my present marriage, yet understanding that Jesus clearly teaches the permanency of the marriage bond which cannot be separated by man, how would I dissolve this supposedly indissoluble bond. I cannot divorce my wife if no marital infidelity or adultery has occurred. Why? If I divorce my wife and marry another woman, I commit adultery (according to Jesus) � right?. "
I agree so far.
"However, if I am unfaithful and commit adultery while still in my marriage, I have now dissolved the indissoluble bond and am free to re-marry. So what's the difference? In either case, I'm guilty of divorcing and adultery... "
No I think you miss the point with your example. Let me modify it a little.
If I want out of my marriage, I can not because I would be considered an adulterer. However, once my wife commits adultery, then I am free to divorce without being an adulterer.
"The only difference being that my remarriage in the first case is invalid (because I was not free to re-marry since no infidelity had occurred), and my re-marriage in the second case is valid because I dissolved the previous marriage bond through my infidelity. "
No,the problem is not the marriage. The problem is the adultery. The marriage is not valid because of your adultery - you would already be an adulterer. The marriage would be allowable only if the other person's adultery broke the bond.
"Some may argue that only the innocent party is allowed to remarry. But if the marriage bond is dissolved, it's dissolved for both; i.e., one person cannot be bound in marriage while the other is not. And in a sense, there is but only one case here. For at the moment that I illicitly divorce and re-marry, I committed adultery. Would this not constitute marital unfaithfulness in which case I am now allowed to divorce and re-marry?"
As I said, if your partner commits adultery, she is an adulteress and you are free to divorce. If you commit adultery, you are the adulterer and she is free to divorce you. There must be just cause for the divorce inorder for the marriage. If you commit adultery you are an adulterer. You might be able to divorce, but you are still an adulterer.
wb, I agree that I would never recommend divorce, but I have recommended separation in the case of serious abuse out of concern for the well being of the individual. I guess because I have been a pastor I may see this issue a little different then some, but in most of the cases I dealt with not only were a husband and wife involved but children as well. Identifying divorce and remarriage as sin is one thing, that's the easy part, but the repentance and reconciliation process is very different and very difficult. And as a pastor I have learned in this area we must be patient and compassionate to all of those who are involved and if couples think that I as a pastor have a one size fits all mentality to this issue there is a good chance many couples would be hesitant to seek my counsel and would continue to live in sin rather than even attempt to seek reconciliation.
porneia, that's where the word pronography comes from
wbmoore,
If 'porneia' refers to adultery or marital infidelity, then there's a loop-hole. Let's present a hypothetical case here... if I wanted to get out of my present marriage, yet understanding that Jesus clearly teaches the permanency of the marriage bond which cannot be separated by man, how would I dissolve this supposedly indissoluble bond. I cannot divorce my wife if no marital infidelity or adultery has occurred. Why? If I divorce my wife and marry another woman, I commit adultery (according to Jesus) – right?. However, if I am unfaithful and commit adultery while still in my marriage, I have now dissolved the indissoluble bond and am free to re-marry. So what's the difference? In either case, I'm guilty of divorcing and adultery... The only difference being that my remarriage in the first case is invalid (because I was not free to re-marry since no infidelity had occurred), and my re-marriage in the second case is valid because I dissolved the previous marriage bond through my infidelity. Some may argue that only the innocent party is allowed to remarry. But if the marriage bond is dissolved, it's dissolved for both; i.e., one person cannot be bound in marriage while the other is not. And in a sense, there is but only one case here. For at the moment that I illicitly divorce and re-marry, I committed adultery. Would this not constitute marital unfaithfulness in which case I am now allowed to divorce and re-marry?
But I want to point out that while I am discussing what I understand to be Biblical reasons that divorce is allowable, and whether remarriage is acceptable before God, I have yet to advise anyone to divorce. I suggest people need to work things out. While there might be a legal loophole, it is clear that God intended marriage to be till death do us part.
irenaeus,
I think you have to take what Christ said and what Paul said together. They do not contradict each other. So there must be a way to understand them in concert.
irene,
"Yes, and the only exception is if one of them is an unbeliever, and the unbeliever wants to leave the relationship. With regard to two believers, the only options mentioned in this passage are to be reconciled with your spouse or to remain single."
or death...don't forget death. why does everyone always skip over the obvious? remember, til DEATH do we part.
hmm. I need to slow down and proof my work more.
I meant to write
Mt 5:31-32 also mention divorce being NOT allowable except for the things known as sexual immorality as defined in Lev 18, 20, Dt 24:13-30,
Iraneus,
I wrote "A narrow interpretation of porneia would have made it less demanding, not more."
You replied, "Wrong! A narrower interpretation of porneia makes it more demanding, not less. Think about it - taking the limiting case such that porneia is so norrow as to render absolutely no exception, then that would be even more demanding, right? Going the other way, expanding porneia to mean burning breakfast would of course make the teaching less demanding."
No, you miss my point. To take a narrow definition of porneia to would reduce the qualifications of what is adultery. But in fact, Lev 18, 20, dt 24:13-30 all deal with multiple variations of adultery and other sexually illicit behavior (sex with animals for example). What Christ was saying is that if you divorce without the excuse of the other person having committed sexually illicit behavior, then you cause that person to become an adulterer. Otherwise, they are already an adulterer. Christ was saying people should not divorce for just any reason, but for the reason God gave in Dt 24:1-4, and rather than 'indecency', Christ spelled out what that meant with the term porneia.
wbmoore,
"Also, 1 Cor 7:10-15 give reasons a believer may divorce and not being bound by the marriage."
Yes, and the only exception is if one of them is an unbeliever, and the unbeliever wants to leave the relationship. With regard to two believers, the only options mentioned in this passage are to be reconciled with your spouse or to remain single.
wbmoore,
" think you are mistaken concerning porneia. Christ used both porneia and moicheuo in Mat 5. The two are very distinctly different terms. Porneia covered all sexually immoral acts (such as mentioned in Lev 18 and 20, Dt 22:13-30), while Moicheuo specifically means to commit adultery."
F.F. Bruce advocated this as a possible meaning. Dr. Carl Laney of Western Conservative Baptist Seminary also advocates this as a plausible interpretion, as well as a number of others that I don't currently have at my fingertips.
wbmoore,
Yeah, that scripture from I Corinthians 7 is pretty cut-and-dried.
I wrote, "sinful men and women can and have terminated it."
irenaeus replied, "This is untrue. Men and women can act as if they have terminated it, but in actuality, they haven't, which is precisely why if a divorced believer remarries, they are committing adultery."
Actually, you are wrong.
Dt 24:1-4 deals with the fact of divorce - and it does not mention the man doing something wrong unless he remarried the wife whom he had divorced and whom had married a second husband and then was later frees from that marriage through divorce or death.
Mt 5:31-32 also mention divorce being allowable except for the things known as sexual immorality as defined in Lev 18, 20, Dt 24:13-30,
Also, 1 Cor 7:10-15 give reasons a believer may divorce and not being bound by the marriage.
So, while marriage should be until death, the Bible recognizes the weaknesses of mankind and provides reasons why it is allowable.
wbmoore,
"A narrow interpretation of porneia would have made it less demanding, not more."
Wrong! A narrower interpretation of porneia makes it more demanding, not less. Think about it - taking the limiting case such that porneia is so norrow as to render absolutely no exception, then that would be even more demanding, right? Going the other way, expanding porneia to mean burning breakfast would of course make the teaching less demanding.
But, then again, when dealing with a poser like him, maybe it's not.
hahahaha...that's not right! yeah, i think that might be a little much.
i almost went with "isquealfine" but thought that would be too much.
believer,
"The gray issue how do Christians and churches deal with these sins. For us to set blanket standards of discipline is in my opinion to try and make this gray issue a black and white issue."
I agree that there can be various approaches to how to deal with these sins from a pastoral perspective. But there are certainly some things surrounding this that remain black and white – namely, that remarriage following divorce is adulterous – period. To remain in this state is to remain in an adulterous relationship. Repenting in this situation means to turn from the sinful adulterous lifestyle and turn toward God, so by definition, to remain in a sexual relationship with one's 'second' spouse is to remain in an adulterous relationship. Where the pastoral approach can differ between cases is when a couple should separate, when one or both parties should reconcile with their 'previous' spouse, or whether they should remain together (say, for the sake of children of the 'second' marriage) but live as brother and sister; i.e., as chaste singles.
hahaha, jester,
You picked up on that? LOL. I like that... "ifeelswine"
now, proph, could you be speaking of someone in particular (*cough* ifeelkine *cough*)?
I,
5th, Christ taught the only reason to divorce is if the other committed some sort of sexual immorality a defined in the Law. Some teachers taught Dt 24;:1-4 saying the indecency should be some sort of immorality, but other rabbis taught differently, to the point that in practice the men would put aside the women for what ever reason they chose - regardless if immorality had occurred.
6th, It was not just marital unfaithfulness Christ wanted to convey - it included the entire gamut of illicit relations between a man and woman seen in Dt 18, 20. Otherwise, he would have used the term Moicheuo.
7th, I agree that the Jewish nature of Matthew's audience is what required Christ to mention porneia as an exception to reasons to not divorce, specifically because of Dt 24:1-4.
8th, There was no need to issue the exception to Paul's Gentile audience because they would not be familiar with Dt. 24:1-4, so there was no need to address this issue.
9th, If the man in 1 Cor 5:1-8 had been married to his step-mother, surely Paul would have addressed this when he dealt with marriage. but as you mentioned he did not mention an exception .
I,
I think you are mistaken concerning porneia. Christ used both porneia and moicheuo in Mat 5. The two are very distinctly different terms. Porneia covered all sexually immoral acts (such as mentioned in Lev 18 and 20, Dt 22:13-30), while Moicheuo specifically means to commit adultery.
You are the first to mention that porneia could mean unlawful marriage. I have never heard it, nor read it. I had to go look at many commentaries to find a single mention of this idea.
1st, After searching many commentaries, I found only one that mentioned the term 'has' referring to marriage, as in the incestuous marriage Herod had his brother Phillip's wife (Mt 14:2-4). All other commentaries stated the term 'has' is a euphemism for sexual relations. This is supported by the discussion of sex within marriage and the term 'have' in 1 Cor 7:1-5. 1 Cor 5:1-5 refers to a man having sex with hist father's wife. It is unclear whether they were married. She was probably an unbeliever, since there was no mention of sanctioning her - which would be appropriate if she was an unbeliever. It may be the father was dead. Even if this was the case, porneia would still apply as this would be covered by Lev 18:8, 20:11.
2nd, Acts 15:20,29 refer to immoral sex as defined by the old testament, which we can see in Lev 18, 20, Dt 22:13-30. This would include sex with kin.
3rd. Christ is the Son of God. He would have taught what God the Father told Him to teach, regardless of whether some human school taught it or not.
4th, Christ was dealing with the issues of the heart in Mt 5, and took the law further than had been humanly interpreted to that point. Ie. murder:anger, adultery:lust, divorce:adultery, oath:honesty. To say that Christ would not broadly interpret porneia is to ignore the context of the text of Mt 5. He took the normal meaning of what the rabbiis taught concerning the law and made it more demanding. A narrow interpretation of porneia would have made it less demanding, not more.
But I do dislike these people masquerading as Christians coming in here trying to flaunt their humanistic, carnal view of the Bible. It's really annoying. I'm gonna stop responding to them.
ifeelfine,
Of course I kept the money....and paid tithes on it too!
Um, no, I'm not walking lightly. I know where I stand. And it is solid as a Rock, thanks.
believer - Where does God allow for remarriage if the other partner was cheating? He only allows remarriage if your spouse passed on. You meant divorce, right? Not remarriage?
i see that ifeelswine is back. what's up bro!
lay me some skin soul brutha!
i understand what your saying, iffy, but your still full of it.
believer,
"For instance several have said the couple should proceed with divorce and then return to their former spouses, what do you do if in the second marriage children have been conceived and birthed? What if the former spouse has remarried and has children from that marriage and/or they don't want to divorce and go back to the former marriage?"
And so you do not believe that for them to live as brother and sister is an option?
wbmoore - Is Paul's word more authoritative on this issue than Jesus'?
believer,
"God calls all divorce a sin but allows for remarriage in the case of adultery only and only for the spouse who did not commit adultery."
I have already elaborated how adultery is not what was meant by Matthew's exceptive clause. Also, let's take a look at what Jesus appears to be saying if we take 'except for porneia' to mean 'except for marital unfaithfulness' or adultery. Jesus is saying do not get divorced, but if you do get divorced, then do not get remarried because that would be adultery. But you are allowed to divorce AND remarry if there is any marital unfaithfulness. One could even take this further by stating that if you want to divorce your spouse and be allowed to remarry, make sure you have sexual relations with your second wife-to-be BEFORE you are re-married. Why?... because your unfaithfulness dissolves your first marriage (provided you repent), thus making you free to remarry your mistress. So, what reason would Jesus have for stating this exceptive clause, when it has no moral effect? It would make no difference.
And nowhere does scripture make an exception for the one who did not commit adultery.
Prophet - I agree with your embezzlement analogy but a better one would be to take it a step further and say "did you keep the money?" Peace.
prophet: It sounds like you are a little touchy on this "trap door" you've built into the issue of divorce (which by the way isn't found anywhere in scripture).
You tell me to get a grip on Christianity? Right back at you pal.
Considering the number of possibilities I think the first thing that must be done is to separate the black and white issues from the gray issues with regards to divorce and remarriage. Black and white: God calls all divorce a sin but allows for remarriage in the case of adultery only and only for the spouse who did not commit adultery. Other than the right of an unbelieving spouse to end a marriage with a new believer those are the only two cases where remarriage is allowed. The gray issue how do Christians and churches deal with these sins. For us to set blanket standards of discipline is in my opinion to try and make this gray issue a black and white issue. Does it seem odd to anyone else but me that no where in the New Testament do we see any guidelines as to how a Christian or a church is to correct this problem. So the question we have to ask ourselves is why not? My personal opinion is because each situation is unique and must be handled as such. For instance several have said the couple should proceed with divorce and then return to their former spouses, what do you do if in the second marriage children have been conceived and birthed? What if the former spouse has remarried and has children from that marriage and/or they don't want to divorce and go back to the former marriage? Please guys I'm not looking for answers to these hypothetical possibilities, my point is that both the couple involved as well as the church need to bathe the whole situation in prayer, examine the whole situation, and then seek God's wisdom in resolving the situation that will result in true repentance on the part of all involved with the situation, as much reconciliation as feasibly possible, and causes as little damage as possible in the lives of all those involved, the life of their church, and the cause of Jesus Christ.
Also, Paul uses the same word 'porneia' when addressing the issue of the man unlawfully married to his father's wife (obviously prohibited in Lev. 18). This is probably where we get the 'modern' wedding vows that state "I take you as my LAWFULLY wedded wife/husband" – e.g., the marriage would be 'invalid' or 'unlawful' if she is my sister or my brother's wife, or my stepmother, etc.
I'm not sure that 'marital infidelity' can be confidently supported through scripture in reference to Matthew's exceptive clause 'except for porneia'. So, what is encompassed within the meaning of 'except for porneia'? Why would this word be used rather than a more direct word for (marital) infidelity or adultery? I don't believe that this exceptive clause means (marital) unfaithfulness or adultery for a couple of reasons.
First, 'porneia' can merely mean 'unlawful marriage' in the particular context of Matthew's gospel as it does elsewhere in scripture. Yes, 'porneia' can mean any unlawful sexual relation, but it can also refer specifically to unlawful marriages within certain degrees of kinship as demonstrated in 1 Cor. 5:1 and Acts 15:20, 29. Secondly, by translating it too broadly, Jesus would not be teaching anything above and beyond what the school of Shammai taught. And if that were the case, then this would break the parallelism of the other teachings of Jesus in Matt. 5. Third, it would be difficult to understand why the disciples would ask such a question in Matt. 19:10 concerning Jesus' supposedly strict teaching if His teaching was not anything different than what some others were already teaching. Fourth, if marital unfaithfulness was what Jesus wanted to convey, then the Greek word 'moicheia' could have been used to make this clear. Fifth, Mark's and Luke's audience (Romans and Greeks, respectively) are not made aware of this exceptive clause in their gospel accounts, which would lend credibility that the exceptive clause would have special significance to the Jew (Matthew's primary audience). Sixth, Paul does not issue an exception in 1 Cor. 7:10-11 when giving the Lord's commands concerning 'no divorce.'
wbmoore,
"sinful men and women can and have terminated it."
This is untrue. Men and women can act as if they have terminated it, but in actuality, they haven't, which is precisely why if a divorced believer remarries, they are committing adultery.
you are mistaken. Marriage should last until death. However, sinful men and women can and have terminated it. The Bible recognizes this, as you have seen. God also expects us to deal with the consequences of our sinful choices.
"If a person divorces for an unallowed reason and remarries and comes to the church, we can not expect them to divorce (do something God said to not do) in order to fix the problem."
I must disagree with this statement. As marriage lasts until death and cannot be ended (except for infidelity), then the remarriage would not be valid or recognized, and it is reasonable to expect a civil divorce between the remarried couples. If, of course, you take the Bible literally...
Also, just because divorce is allowed does not mean it should be pursued. Remember, we are to forgive others as models for how God forgives us.
Too often adultery occurs because both parties in the marriage have become selfish and rather than seeking God and surrendering to God, they seek divorce at the slightest 'allowed' excuse.
Matthew 19:9
I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."
So as I read the scripture, If a believer divorces and remarries his/her original spouse, it is not sin.
If the other person commits adultery, divorce is allowed; it is not sin.
If an unbeliever leaves the believer, it is not sin.
If a believer divorces for an unallowed reason, then it is sin. If then either party then remarries, it its adultery. It is adultery for both parties in the new marriage.
If a person divorces for an allowed reason, it appears to me that it is not adultery upon marriage to a different person.
We know a young widowed person should remarry. 1 Tim 5:11-14
If a person divorces for an unallowed reason and remarries and comes to the church, we can not expect them to divorce (do something God said to not do) in order to fix the problem. We can, however, try to see if these people are believers. Many times they have never repented and turned to God, church is just a club to them. In which case, the act of divorce by a non-believer is not sin, as all things are made new upon coming to Christ. So the marriage also would not be an adulterous one.
We can try to counsel them, and help them address the attitudes that led them to the action. The actions we do are examples of the attitudes we have. If we feel we are better than X Y or Z (person or situation), then we have a bad attitude. We are not Godly. We need to repent and let GOD be sufficient.
To repent for a particular sin, one must first stop practising that particular sin.
I wanted to look up the verses specific to divorce and remarriage again. To remind myself what God says.
Lk 16:18 "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and the man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery."
Mk10:11-12
11 He answered, "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. 12 And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery."
1 Cor 7:10-15
10 To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. 11But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife. 12 To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her. 13 And if a woman has a husband who is not a believer and he is willing to live with her, she must not divorce him. 14 For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy. 15 But if the unbeliever leaves, let him do so. A believing man or woman is not bound in such circumstances; God has called us to live in peace.
Romans 2:2-3
2 For example, by law a married woman is bound to her husband as long as he is alive, but if her husband dies, she is released from the law of marriage. 3 So then, if she marries another man while her husband is still alive, she is called an adulteress. But if her husband dies, she is released from that law and is not an adulteress, even though she marries another man.
2 Cor 5: 17 Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come!
i, the difference is our different view of what it takes to repent of the sin of both divorce and remarrying, gotta go before my wife feeds the cats with my dinner and please guys can't we change the subject?
Quote from believer: "If the divorce had not occurred then they would not be in an adulterous affair"
I do not believe this to be true. It is possible to be in an adulterous affair without a divorce having occurred. Besides,if the covenant of marriage truly binds two people until death, then a civil divorce could never hope to sever that relationship, and a person's first marriage would still be valid post-divorce. The sin is not so much the divorce, but rather the sexual actions with a new person that follow the divorce. Therefore, it is not for the divorce alone that remarried couples must repent, but for all sexual activity post-divorce.
prophet, you know I love and respect you, but the example you gave of your pastor, if what you and iraneus are saying is true he and his present wife are willfully living in sin God will not hear their prayers and can not effectively use them in ministry. I believe that your pastor and his wife repented of their sin and made things right between them and God and their former spouses and each other and God has forgiven them and is affirming His forgiveness by continuing to effectively use them. Now I'm going to supper, catch you later bros!!!
believer,
"if you continue to have sex with a woman you are not married to you have not repented of that sin, so no you can't continue with your neighbor's wife."
Now let's take this same statement, but make it reflective of a divorced and remarried believer: if you continue to have sex with your 'new' spouse that you are not [technically] married to (since you are covenantally bound to your first spouse, and a Christian cannot have two spouses) you have not repented of that sin, so no you can't continue [sexual relations] with your 'new' spouse.
"But with the divorce issue are you saying that the only way a person can repent of the sin of divorce who has remarried is to divorce their new spouse and go back to thier first spouse?"
No, first, they should not remarry in the first place. The only two options are to be reconciled to their spouse or remain single. If they have already remarried, then they are to either separate or abstain from sexual relations and 'live as brother and sister.' If they do not abstain, then how is that any different than the above example where you yourself stated that I cannot continue with my neighbor's wife?
human, I believe you can still abide by the literal interpretation of God's Word in this matter. The difference of agreement we are having involves what constitutes repentance in this issue. As I said I believe the adultery issue is resolved when the perosn or persons repent of the sin that caused their marriage to be considered adulterous, the divorce. If the divorce had not occurred then they would not be in an adulterous affair. So once the divorce is repented of the adulterous affair comes to an end. Because the person has remarried I don't believe the first marriage can be reconciled, but the relationship with the first spouse can be with regards to forgiveness of each other and the admission of the wrong-doing on the part of both spouses that led to the divorce. But unfortunately that is not always possible or feasible and sometimes the forgiveness and admission is only one-sided, but I believe God understands that and will forgive the spouse who is attempting to do just that.
But also on another note, if my wife and I were to someday divorce (by God's grace I pray it won't happen), I would not remarry for the very reason that we are discussing.
Well,
To give you all a real world idea of my view on this.
I used to go to a church where the pastor and his wife had divorced previous spouses and married each other. He is still a great man of God, speaking in power and wisdom with signs and wonders following. I've seen miracle after miracle happen in that church. My wife is a recipient of one of those miracles. So, if I put myself under subjection to a pastor who was in that situation, I'm sure you can see my heart.
Does that suffice? LOL. I'll never understand God. But He is still good.
prophet, it really appears we are beginning to strain gnats here, as a Pastor I would not recommend to a couple they get a divorce because if they don't they'll be continuing to commit the sin of adultery, so they have to get a divorce and go back to their first spouse. If anyone in an evangelical church has had a pastor do that I've never heard of that in my whole Christian life nor have I ever heard it recommended in any book I've read or marriage seminars I've ever attended.
It would seem to me that the most obvious way to "deal with the sin of divorce" is to end whatever is causing the sin. But here, Mr. Prophet, I think we may see a contradiction between reason and a literal interpretation of the Scriptures. As you have aptly pointed out, it would be unfair to demand that those who have divorced and are now in new marriages are to dissolve their new union. At the same time, the Scriptures clearly condemn the practise of divorcing and remarrying as adulterous. It makes me wonder if a literal interpretation is the best interpretation....
Not to nitpick, but divorce is only a sin if it is for a reason other than infidelity. I think the topic is of divorced people remarrying. That seems to be the hot topic.
human, no one is saying divorce isn't a sin we are discussing how to deal with it in the church. And if you would look at my posts you will see I've never condemned homosexuals for their sin, but I do as God does call the sexual practices of homosexuality a sin.
Though I believe in grace, I also don't believe in using grace as an occasion to sin.
A person who divorces, is still married to their first spouse in God's eyes (otherwise it would not be adultery to get remarried). So, to remain "married" to the second spouse is willfully living in sin. Kinda like embezzeling money from your job...if you say "God forgive me for stealing" and then keep doing it...are you truly repentant? Is there forgiveness?
But grace extends this far...if a Christian man divorces his wife and remarries, but is not aware of the scriptures view of divorce (believe me, I've known it to happen), then I believe that God's grace extends to cover. There are things that I've done for a time while I was a Christian, that I didn't realize was a sin until I came to the understanding of the scriptures. God's grace covered me during those times. But once I came to the understanding...then there was no excuse.
I can almost see in this discussion a shred of hypocrisy. On the one hand, I see that just about everyone here is all too eager to condemn gays and lesbians for sexual immorality. On the other hand, I see some of the people here equivocating for the sins of divorce. If you take a literal interpretation of the Bible to condemn homosexuality, then you must do the same for the sins of heterosexuals- divorce is no exception.
i, if you continue to have sex with a woman you are not married to you have not repented of that sin, so no you can't continue with your neighbor's wife. But with the divorce issue are you saying that the only way a person can repent of the sin of divorce who has remarried is to divorce their new spouse and go back to thier first spouse?
BTW, just for the record, I am NOT having an affair with my neighbor's wife... just in case my previous hypothetical raised a few eyebrows.
believer,
"Unless, once again your suggesting He would have them get a divorce from their new spouse."
But this other person is not their 'new spouse'; this other person is an adulterer. I'm rather confused, as you are usually very thorough and articulate in your biblical reasoning.
Wait a minute. The relationship is no longer adulterous because they repented of the sin that made it adulterous. But that's just it. They haven’t really repented if they continue their sexual relations. And by the way, a divorce does not release them from the ‘bond’ of their marriage to the first spouse. Remember, Paul said that only by death are they released from the marriage bond; divorce does not accomplish this. You mean to tell me that provided I repent of sin, I can continue my affair with my nextdoor neighbor's wife. After all, provided that I repent (whatever that means here), then it is no longer regarded a sin? I'm confused here.
i, the relationship is no longer adulterous because they repented of the sin that made it adulterous. God has forgiven them for the divorce and for remarrying prior to repenting of the sin of the divorce in the first place. When God forgives He forgives completely and no longer holds the sin over us. Unless, once again your suggesting He would have them get a divorce from their new spouse. The sexual practices of homosexuality are sin in God's sight and the only way a person can truly repent of those sins is to commit themselves to stop doing them.
believer,
Also, when had the adulterous condition of the divorced and remarried believer ceased?
believer,
Prophet is correct when he states, "Now you've opened the door to homosexuals. They claim the same thing....God's grace."
You responded, "not really unless they have repented of the sins of homosexuality, but if that doesn't answer your concern please let me know."
But what then do you mean by repent, since you are claiming that a divorced and remarried believer can repent and yet willfully maintain his adulterous relationship. What's your definition of repentance?
prophet, not really unless they have repented of the sins of homosexuality, but if that doesn't answer your concern please let me know.
believer,
Now you've opened the door to homosexuals. They claim the same thing....God's grace.
i, when a person confesses their sin and repents of that sin God completely forgives them for that sin regardless of what that sin is. If the sin of divorce and remarriage are not forgivable then there are a whole lot of Christians who are living with known unconfessed sin, whose prayers won't be heard by God, and who therefore are useless to God because they can't effectively join Him in fulfilling the Great Commission. That is unless you think God expects them to divorce their new spouse and either go back to their old spouse or stay single. As I stated earlier when it comes to the issue of divorce and remarriage I prefer to error on the side of grace and not the law. If a person has done all they can to reconcile with their former spouse and they have chosen to remarry I believe that God has forgiven them for the divorce and would not consider them as adulterers, because if not it appears we have discovered the unpardonable sin. That being said I think we have come to the point of having to agree to disagree on this issue and move on, but as usual I appreciated the discussion.
ire
That is right on! She is a great example of God taking what Satan meant for bad, and turning it into good.
Too bad the carnally minded don't view things from God's perspective. It would make things a lot better if they did.
Daniel
You said "Becoming a Christian and repenting of sin is never politically acceptable. I'm sure it will get worse."
True. I've seen you on the article about the gay man suing the publishing company for publishing a Bible that says homosexuality is a sin. There's a prime example.
I watched a video on chastity some years ago with our youth at church. I don’t remember the woman on the video, but about two-thirds through her presentation, she stated that she was the result of a rape. She then said something that I will never forget: she said, "I did not deserve the death penalty for the crimes of my father." Whoa! Enough said.
Correct Prophet. A believer who has divorced their believing spouse and remarries commits adultery. So the question is, when does the adultery cease? Certainly, if they remain married and engage in the marital act, then the adultery persists. So those who persist in an adulterous relationship should then be considered (at least potentially, according to believer) for leadership positions in the church? If you disagree with this, believer, then when does the adulterous state end?
"Would a woman who's been raped be justified (and not sinning) if she got an abortion?"
The answer is no...she would not be justified. The Bible states children are a gift from the Lord. Adoption is an option.
"If a Christian "comes out of the closet" as being gay, they are applauded. If a gay becomes a Christian and is transformed from their lifestyle, something must be wrong with them."
Becoming a Christian and repenting of sin is never politically acceptable. I'm sure it will get worse.
One of the points that is made by this article is that people who are gay ... are PEOPLE (a point which I believe many Christians here have continued to point out). Gay people need the true gospel of Jesus the Christ just as much as straight people.
Not only didn't Jesus separate himself from sinners...He made it a point to hang out with them. This is a point many Christian people seem to forget.
believer and ire,
If I am right in assuming...perpetual adultery is a believer who divorces and remarries is in perpetual adultery.
i, with all do respect, the issue of leadership roles is what got this discussion started in the first place with regards to how different churches deal with divorce when they are considering a divorced person for a leadership role, but define what you mean by "perpetual adultery"?
believer,
"I would not say opposite answers, but different answers."
I would. If one answer came back on a situation of a divorce and remarriage of a certain couple as acceptable, but the answer from the other church for the same couple came back as unacceptable, then they are not only different answers, but opposite ones.
"As for the repentance issue, what do you do with a couple who are remarried and are being considered for a leadership role, do you tell them they must divorce each other and remarry there former spouses if they are to be considered for a leadership role."
How come has no one addressed the issue of perpetual adultery? And leadership roles are secondary. No one has a right to a leadership role. Leadership roles are not part of the discussion. The point is the remarriage to another person by a believer who has divorced their believing spouse. Do you affirm them in the perpetual adulterous situation?
I've always noted...
If a Christian "comes out of the closet" as being gay, they are applauded. If a gay becomes a Christian and is transformed from their lifestyle, something must be wrong with them.
Anything wrong with this picture?
prophet, Micheal Johnston, "On Wings Like Eagles" is a great example of someone who came out of the homosexual lifestyle. But some people believe if somethings not easy to do then it's not meant to happen. I too, as I believe you said you do, struggle with porn, I know if I hang around it long enough I can easily get caught up in it. I was exposed to hard core porn at the age of 8 and even though I didn't know what it was I liked it and was drawn to it like a bee to honey. Based on what people like ifeelfine say, I should just say oh well that's my lot in life so why not. Praise God, He has given me great victory in this area but for whatever reason has not chosen to totally release me from it. Chance are I will have to fight this battle until I hit the grave, but as long as I trust and lean on God and a few brothers who hold me accountable I know I'll continue to have victory in this area of my life. And the same is true for any true believer who struggles with a particular sin in their life, as long as they hold on to God and have accountability partners they will see victory, they may and probably will fall along the way, but hopefully they'll fall in the right direction and God will pick them up and get them back on the path of victory and holiness.
Christian Homsexuals is the perfect example of this:
This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.
2For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,
3Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,
4Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;
5Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away."
2nd Timothy 3:1-5
"Christian" homosexuals have a form of godliness, but they deny His power to change them.
Pathetic, really. We need to pray that the true power of God would be shown in their life.
Why not raise the child to be a man/woman of God. Therefore, God can take what Satan intended for evil, and make it for good. I'm not gonna punish an unborn child for something that isn't his/her fault. Would you?
Get a grip on Christianity.
ifeelfine,
There is your problem. You serve an impotent god (small letter g). My God can change people completely. My wife is a good example.
So don't tire me with your lazy "christian" views. God can and does change people. Your god doesn't.
i, I would not say opposite answers, but different answers. Prophet hit the nail on the head when he introduced the word Grace to the discussion. There are churches who choose to error more on the side of Grace and other churches who choose to error on the side of law. For instance I have churches in my association who have a problem with a person who is married to a divorced person even though that person has never divorced taking a leadership position in the church, while most of my churches have no real problem with that. As for the repentance issue, what do you do with a couple who are remarried and are being considered for a leadership role, do you tell them they must divorce each other and remarry there former spouses if they are to be considered for a leadership role. Or if you consider as some do that a marriage is consummated in the sight of God when a couple has sexual intercourse, then are you saying that if a teenager has premarital sex with another teen they are married or if a man visits a prostitute he is married to her. So therefore when those teens marry another person or that man marries another woman, what do you do if they are being considered for a leadership role, for the sake of discussion let's say that the teens and the man are Christians when these incidents occur. That is why I believe we must consider each divorced person in our church on a case by case basis.
Prophet - Here is a legitimate question I'd like answered . . . Would a woman who's been raped be justified (and not sinning) if she got an abortion? . . . I believe you and I are agreement on abortion and I'm curious, given your "trap doors" on remarriage.
Prophet said: "You show me a homosexual that changes when they're converted, then we can talk."
Right, exactly, human sexuality is so engrained in us that it isn't something you can change without serious negative consequences. Were you gay and then converted after becoming a Christian? I'm pretty sure you told me you were always straight. I was always a heterosexual. I know several gay people who got married and then later came out of the closet and got divorced and they said they always knew that they were gay but repressed it because they didn't want to be gay. All of their wives have reported horrible sex lives, etc.
I agree that if one of the parties is an unbeliever, then separation and divorce is permitted because that person is not 'bound.' So it sounds as if the situation given by Daniel was a morally acceptable option as provided by Paul. But the primary issue of the discussion here is between two believing persons. Does divorce and remarriage constitute a perpetual adulterous relationship? I am not disputing forgiveness and grace. What I am challenging here is the acceptance of divorce of two believers and remarriage of at least one of them. If a divorced believer desires to remarry another person and determines to go through with it, can it be said that he/she has truly repented, since remarriage constitutes adultery? After all, the person from whom they have separated is still their spouse since they are 'bound' to them via the covenant of marriage.
I guess this is where I chime in.
My first wife was deemed an unbeliever who choose not to live with me. She refused to even explain her side to the church (which was on her side at that point). Then the truth came out. When we met and married everyone who knew us believed she was a Christian.
She had 3 affairs during the marriage and had left 13 times in 14 years of marriage. Sometimes it was with the kids and sometimes without. I eventually got custody. She pushed the divorce and I was left with no choice.
I taught a small group in the singles for a while on not dating. "If you really believe God has someone special for you to marry, why are you dating everyone else?" was one of the lessons I taught.
It became very clear I didn't think I even needed to go looking. It was clear to everyone (we had about 100-150 in the singles group) that the Lord had brought my current wife to the group long before we figured it out. She is quite the wife and had on her heart to move here from two states away and wanted to marry a single parent!
There does come a point where Paul said people in my situation were not bound anymore. It is written as such. At the same time, I understand those on the other side of the issue.
Here's the bottom line...I am responsible for my sin and not hers. My current wife says she has never met the person my first wife claimed to be married to. Truth be known he never existed. People in sin tend to view people and situations the way they want to. The same is said of homosexuals.
The Bible is clear.
I believe that Paul and Jesus were right. Remarriage after divorce is a sin. But I also believe in grace.
A person who's spouse divorced them, even though they didn't want to, are they under the same law? They didn't want a divorce. They are a victim. Much like saying that a woman who is raped needs to repent from adultery, because she had sex with another man.
A person who is divorced before they are saved. The Bible says that we are new creatures in Christ and that old things have passed away and all things are new. What has happened to us in our unsaved life has been erased. Forgotten. Forgiven.
That first scenario I'm not sure about...it's kinda sketchy. But the second scenario, I am sure God's grace covers.
believer,
"I believe each divorce situation should be considered on a case by case basis with the common denominator being the Word of God. Each church should prayerfully seek God's direction and desire in these matters and use God's Word as a guide. Then as God leads, the church should be obedient to that leading."
This only begs the question regarding autonomy... for is it possible for one SBC church to prayerfully seek God's direction and desire in these matters and use God's Word as a guide and determine one verdict, then the same couple moves to another SBC church that arrives at the opposite conclusion. This would necessarily mean that one of the churches did not discern God's direction and desire correctly. So I'm not sure the relevance of the topic of autonomy between churches.
"It's a pretty sad situation when a former convicted felon can take on a role of leadership in a church, but a divorcee who remarries or simply because they're divorced can't."
I agree that it's a pretty sad situation. But the difference is whether or not the convicted felon has sincerely repented. In the case of a Christian marriage (marriage between two believers) and subsequent divorce and remarriage, there is no sincere repentance if they are living in a perpetual state of adultery. Unless the two people in the 'second' marriage choose to live as 'brother and sister', how can it be said that they truly repented?
i, one of the reasons I became a Southern Baptist is because of our high regard for the autonomy of the local church. This issue is a great example of how important that is. I believe each divorce situation should be considered on a case by case basis with the common denominator being the Word of God. Each church should prayerfully seek God's direction and desire in these matters and use God's Word as a guide. Then as God leads, the church should be obedient to that leading. But for me personally I don't believe divorce or remarriage are unpardonable sins nor do I believe they should automatically disqualify someone from holding leadership roles in the church. And as I said earlier we should seriously look into each situation on a case by case basis before a decision is made. It's a pretty sad situation when a former convicted felon can take on a role of leadership in a church, but a divorcee who remarries or simply because they're divorced can't.
believer,
"... but Paul also says if you're struggling with lust you should get married. The problem is this is a real problem and a problem with no easy or perfect answers."
Yes, Paul did say that, but he was speaking to the unmarried, and from a Christian perspective, a person who is divorced is not considered unmarried. They are still married to the spouse from whom they are separated... remember that the marriage covenant is not broken unless one of the spouses die. Is this a hard saying? Certainly. Similarly, if my wife was injured in an accident and was in a coma or was incapacitated for some time, say a couple of years, I would not be free to remarry simply because I was struggling with lust and I simply wanted to follow Paul's admonition to bridle that lust through marriage.
Good night.
i, how's that, well I'm heading for the sack, so I won't see your response till the morning, but Paul also says if you're struggling with lust you should get married. The problem is this is a real problem and a problem with no easy or perfect answers. But fortunately we serve a very patient and loving God and just think one of these days we'll all be in heaven and all these issues won't mean a thing, be blessed and have a good night, believer
believer,
Sorry about the screen name, and I suppose there are no good nicknames for 'irenaeus.'
believer,
I agree with you that marriage is taken quite lightly, or you may have heard the saying that 'many spend more time planning the wedding than they do planning the marriage.' And you are exactly right that many do not fully understand the 'vows' that they make, and certainly most do not actually believe in 'til death do us part.' They interpret this to mean (at least subconsciously) 'til I find a better person,' 'til you abandon me,' or 'til you cheat on me,' or 'til we fall out of love,' or 'til you <fill in the blank>.' They interpret it to mean anything and everything but death. I also agree with you that divorce is not unpardonable, but again divorce is not the crux of the problem – it's remarriage. So if remarriage is adulterous, then as long as the 'second' marriage endures, would this not be a case of perpetual adultery? From what is the person repenting if they continue in an adulterous relationship?
You stated that "the best outcome of reconciliation would be if the couple become one again and I have seen that, but what happens when one or the other has remarried or the marriage for whatever reason is not reconcilable." Scripture gives us the answer – it tells us the other alternative is to remain single.
irenaeus, no offense but you should consider picking an easier name for me to spell, but as usual enjoying your posts, believer
iraneus, I agree the best outcome of reconciliation would be if the couple become one again and I have seen that, but what happens when one or the other has remarried or the marriage for whatever reason is not reconcilable. That's why I said last night that the real problem is it is too easy for a couple to get married and many in America have such a flippant attitude toward the vows of marriage. But once again neither divorce or remarriage after divorce are unpardonable sins and when we repent of our sin God completely restores us, so should we not be willing to do the same for Christians who have sinned in these areas as well.
Prophet,
It would seem to me that a person who divorces prior to becoming a believer would be similar to the person who became a believer after marriage, but is freed from the unbelieving spouse if the unbelieving spouse wants to abandon the union. The point being, the dignity of marriage between two believers is different than that between two unbelievers or even one believer and one unbeliever. The marriage between two believers is a covenant and is of the dignity and type as between Christ and the Church. This is why two believers are not to divorce. And if they do divorce, then they are to remain single or be reconciled. These are the only two options given by Paul (and implicitly by Jesus). BTW, being reconciled does not merely mean being at peace with one another and then remarrying different people; it means to 'rejoin' in marital union. And while divorce is wrong, this is not the real issue we are discussing here. It's the remarriage that makes the situation sticky. Since the marriage covenant is only broken by death (according to Paul), then to divorce and remarry is adultery. Too many Christians like to rationalize this part.
ifeelfine, plus prophet and I were discussing church polity and not the law of the land and there is a huge difference.
ifeelfine, plus you have still not defined what you believe a couple has to do to be considered married in the sight of God?
ifeelfine, please site one time you have ever heard me make a blanket statement about homosexuals? Whereas, you on the other hand have said that any Christian who believes in the literal six day creation as taught in the Bible is ignorant and you have said this in several posts you have made.
ifeelfine,
You show me a homosexual that changes when they're converted, then we can talk. Until then, it would be best to keep silent and be thought a fool, then to open your mouth and remove all doubt.
prophet, to determine the circumstances that led to the divorce, for instance was it a result of adultery, that person becoming a Christian, serious verbal or physical abuse, or they couldn't get along so for the sake of the kids they divorced. Of those four examples I'd be disappointed the divorce occurred, but if the person has made things right between them and God and as best as possible with the former spouse I would not be opposed to them taking on a position of leadership in the church. The last however, I would be really uncomfortable with because I see a lot of immaturity in that person and I would not see them ready to take on any role let alone a leadership role in the church.
Regarding divorce: What a bunch of "cultural Christians" we have here . . . I'm looking your way prophet and believer.
I find it interesting believer that you favor blanket decisions with gay people but not with divorcees - very interesting.
Hear them out for what?
prophet: We talked about that a long time ago - we were talking about kids and you stated you were surprised that I was a heterosexual with children. It was probably about a year ago that we had that conversation - I can understand if you don't recall. Cheers!
Cheala34life - Oh I see, when you want to say that a passage isn't to be taken literally, it's a "metaphor." When I state that a passage isn't to be taken literally or perhaps our understanding isn't spot on, I'm a "heretic?" Is that the way this works?
prophet, I do agree we are more accountable after we're saved than before, but I really hate blanket decisions. I just think in all fairness to the person we need to really hear them out before we make a decision.
I agree. Our church frowns on remarried people having leadership positions (i.e. pastors, deacons, etc). But their view is if they divorced before conversion, their old life has been made new, and therefore "have a clean slate", so to speak. I agree. God would not punish us for what we did before we accepted Him as our Lord.
prophet, I had a professor at a Christian college who said this, the Bible means what it says and says what it means, but the Bible doesn't always say what it means or meam what it says. Divorce is one of those issues that sometimes falls in the later with regards to specific cases. As a pastor when a divorced person came to me to be wed I would ask that person if they have made it right between them and their former spouse if possible. Needless to say some came out of a very violent relationship and I would not expect them to be able to settle that one other than them choosing to release the matter into God's hands and forgiving the other person. If they refused to be reconciled my concern was that they were destined to fail in their next marriage as well. To the best of my knowledge each one that I married did all they could on their part to reconcile with their former spouses prior to getting married. As a minimum they simply chose to forgive the person and release them into God's hands. That way they could start the new marriage off on a clean slate. In many Baptist churches divorce can be the kiss of death when it comes to serving as a Pastor or Deacon and even in some other leadership roles in the Church, I personally see divorce as an issue that needs to be considered before putting a perosn in a position of authority, but I do not see it as an automatic disqualifier regardless of whether it occured before or after their salvation experience. That's why I get kind of tickled at ifeelfine when he says we ignore or condone divorce because we're not trying to make it illegal. I can't speak for his church or denomination, but in the Southern Baptist Convention it is still a serious issue. And to answer your question I don't see any problem with a person who caught their spouse in adultery remarrying regardless of if they were a Christian or not as long as they have dealt with it as I shared and put it behind them. This is too long to proof so please excuse my goofs!
iranaeus and believer,
What are your thoughts on a woman who caught her husband in adultery and divorced him before she came to know the Lord. Then years after her conversion, got married again?
lina - you never commented whether you support these other moral evils. You previously stated, "the new testament fulfills the old and thus does away with all those frivolous commandements. Evidently, God changes his minds. The only exception is homosexuality, the Ten Commandments, that whole Genesis story....basically the whole story minus all the "rules." It makes it so much more palatable to follow (if you're not gay)."
If homosexuality is the ONLY exception, then I suppose this means you accept incest, bestiality, adultery, etc as morally licit. I mean, if you do not have the theological acumen to determine the difference between ceremonial and purity laws versus moral laws, then the logical conclusion is that you must accept these also.
Ifeelfine,
"Jesus was very specific - the only reason for divorce is adultery (despite what some think Paul said). In any case, remarriage is only permitted in the case of death . . . again, only if you take it literally, which we all know is impossible."
Why is it impossible to take the Bible literally? One of course has to understand the genre, audience, intent, etc for valid interpretation, but this goes with understanding any literary piece. But back to your point: Yes, Jesus was very specific, divorce and remarriage is adultery, except in the case of porneia, whatever that means. Many believe that this is due to an invalid arrangement, such as that between too close of kinship. Be that as it may, divorce between two believers is prohibited, and if they divorce, they are to either remain single or be reconciled. Paul also allows an exception for a believer to be released from the marriage union with an unbeliever. And also, scripture is unequivocal that marriage is between a man and a woman.
"Eating can be a "sin of the flesh" as much as adultery, pornography, etc."
Wrong! Eating (in excess) can be a sin, but eating is not always (and most often not) a sin. However, adultery, pornography, etc are ALWAYS sinful.
lina, I'll talk with you even though I'm still disappointed that you won't humor me about the love issue we were talking about, but that being said I'm always willing to dialogue with someone from the windy city, by the way my older brother got busted there during the 68 Democratic Convention. He and I both were really involved in the anti-war movement.
ifeelfine, so enlighten us in the sight of God how does a couple get married? In the USA by law whether your a Christian or not you are required to have a marriage license signed by the person who performed the ceremony regardless of how or where the ceremony was done and in most states signatures of witnesses are required as well. But I'm very interested to hear your spin on this and no I did not know you were a man and married with children. But that does lead me to ask you this, based on your view of how God for lack of a better term "approves marriages" if your son at the age of let's say 16 or 18 comes in and says that he an his girlfriend or boyfriend are married but he has no paperwork to prove it will you and your wife tell others that he's married simply because he said God said so? What would he have to do to prove to you that he is really married?
"Lina - So Matthew, if the Bible says, that settles it, right? No need to pay attention to all those mental health professionals who for the last 30 years have declared homosexuality a harmless, biological, immutable coincidence. Right? I mean, it's not like you can spend 10 years obtaining a PhD in human sexuality from Stanford. The Bible says it so I believe it! That said, why aren't you out making executing apostates and stoning disobedient children?"
Th fallacy with this is that psychologist can only assess man in his fallen state. God does not do that. God deals with man as he has created him. God instituted sex. Mans attempt to analyze it is still faulty even with the most profound scholars. Seculiar reasoning cannot trump Gods reasoning and it will never understand it. At times God's wisdom goes contrary to seculiar reasoning. This is why those who have accepted Jesus Christ need God's word. God's word is his mind.
Secondly, you are correct stoning children and executing apostates apostates was allowed by God. However, you must remember the sovereignty of God is hard to fathum. Additinally, some of the rules were to purge out sin in the land. God wanted the Israelites to be holy nation to represent his glory in the earth.
Thank God for Jesus Christ! you see by having faith in Christ God empowers you to live Holy for him.
Ifeelfine,
You commented last night "believer: I think you know this already but I'm a "he." I'm married . . . to a woman and have a son. Surprised? - prophet was."
How can I be suprised when I know nothing about you other than you support gay rights? Why are you infering that I know that about you?
Lina, butt out. We Christians are having a debate. This has nothing to do with secular heathens.
Ifeelit - my appologies, I did rush to conclusions on you being a pastor. Never-the-less, adding to my point: your position is a good band-aid for your concience.
So Matthew, if the Bible says, that settles it, right? No need to pay attention to all those mental health professionals who for the last 30 years have declared homosexuality a harmless, biological, immutable coincidence. Right? I mean, it's not like you can spend 10 years obtaining a PhD in human sexuality from Stanford. The Bible says it so I believe it! That said, why aren't you out making executing apostates and stoning disobedient children?
You might want to go back and read those passages Paul is talking about obesity. Paul is using the term temple as a metaphor. He is speaking about what makes a person the “temple†of God. Remember God’s presence dwelt in the temple in the Old Testament, but now he dwells inside of you. And yes there are thing you can do to defile that temple, but overeating cannot be applied to this because it is not a moral law to begin with.
Furthermore, take a look at what Jesus said about food defiling the body or man:
Read this: Matthew chapter 15: 15-20: The issue was that the Pharisees were telling the disciples that if they did not wash there hands and their tradition stated ten they were sinning. Jesus basically tells them you guys are focusing on the wrong issue. Even they don’t wash their hands they food is only going to pass through and decay. However, your moral compass those things which are in your heart is what defiles a man. Although homosexuality is not listed it is implied because it is a sib against God. Hermeneutically, this would be a more sound application even though it is not dealing with obesity directly.
Furthermore, to balance it out Paul says in another letter that all things may be lawful, but not expedient. Let me explain. Eating is not a sin. if that is case we sin all day long especially when we snack. Can a person overindulge in eating yes. Is it wise to do? No. Why? Because we should be good stewards of â€Âeverything†God has given us including our health, but the only time eating was a sin was during the Old Testament when God instituted dietary laws. These dietary laws restricted what the Israelites could and could not eat.
But what you fail to remember is that Christ’s death at Calvary has fulfilled all of the requirements of the law. Dietary laws no longer apply to you and I, but the Moral law does. Eating or overeating is not a moral law that is to be broken. Now, is it good commonsense to overeat and cause harm to your body? No, but if a person dies as result of obesity and they were in Christ, then they get to meet God early.
What are YOU suggesting? Are you suggesting that obese people are born that way? ;)
No…and even if they are, again, medically there options for a person lose the weight. Medically there is no way for homosexual to lose homosexuality. No homosexual is born that way. To say is to contradict all of scripture. God stated when he created man he created him in his image. If man was born Gay then in essence God is Gay and we know that is not true. Everything that God created in the beginning was “Good†Man’s sin against God has perverted everything.
Matthew: pay attention, I never said I was a pastor - I was talking to believer (who claims he / she is a pastor) and his / her less than Christian-toned comments.
See, that's where you fall into heresy. The Bible says that men having relationships with men is wrong, sinful, and unnatural. So gay marriage is wrong, sinful, and unnatural.
But I can't be bothered to provide all the details scroll below. If you're a pastor, you should know better anyways.
Cheala34life - You're wrong. Eating can be a "sin of the flesh" as much as adultery, pornography, etc. There are a couple of passages in Corinthians that command us to not defile our bodies as they are temples. What do you think obesity is? It is the number one cause of disease in the US - if that isn't defilement, I don't know what is.
What are YOU suggesting? Are you suggesting that obese people are born that way? ;)
matthew: well you're wrong about that - that's not a sin. that's your own prejudice - not God's.
"Cheala34life - Overweight are we? . . . Obesity is as much a sin as homosexuality so you're wrong about that. Obesity can keep you out of heaven . . . at least according to your logic it can."
No...I'm not overweight and no, being obese is not a sin. Scripture never alludes to that. More importantly if you want to argue that overeating is a sin then you are wrong there also. The bible never states that overeating is a sin. Is it good for you?...No because there are certain health problems associated with overeating and becoming obese. Thirdly, there are people who because of hereditary traits are more likely to become obese, but even still proper diet is the key to that.
Now, overindulgence of anything is not good. Paul uses a word in one of his epistles called expediency. Basically all things may be lawful, but that does mean it is good for you to do. There is nothing wrong with having good food, but too much of it can become a problem if it persist into a habit that causes harm to your body. Every person’s food intake is different. Some can eat whatever and it not affect them and some people have stay within a strict calorie intake. For some anything over that will result in weight gain.
I know this sounds facetious, but to compare homosexuality to obesity is not accurate. Paul also tells us to cast aside every weight. Basically anything that is controlling or stopping you from accomplishing God's will, you need to consider letting those things go.
If overeating is a problem for someone then of course they need to seek help. So to some degree homosexuality can be a parallel, but there are distinctive contrasts. First homosexuality cannot be put on and off as weight can. Homosexuality is a heart and moral issue. As I stated in an earlier post you cannot diet away homosexuality. Well…for argument sake lets say obesity is a sin. If what you propose is true then you do not Christ to rid you of the sin. All you need in today’s culture have a surgery or try the many weight loss programs out there to solve the problem. The problem with that is Christ is the only one who can solve the problem of sin; nothing or no one else. This is the key. Homosexuality has to be dealt with by you and God no one else. Lastly, homosexuality should not be viewed as something that cannot be overcome. Christ’s blood can overcome the power of sin any day.
IFEEL IT....: matthew: Where did I say, "gay sex isn't a sin?" I've always maintained that gay sex is only sinful in the same way heterosexual sex is - outside of committed loving relationships (preferrably marriage).
So, you say, if two gay men 'love' each other. It's okay if they get married? I believe we've already said this is sin too, Ifeelit.
Unless those aren't your views, in which case, please elaborate.
Because I think we've arrived full circle here.
matthew: what are you talking about? Keep up; you're falling way behind.
I'm not gay (not that its any of your business). I've always been heterosexual just like all the gay people I know have always been gay. I made my views on homosexuality clear earlier, if you would spend more time reading and trying to understand instead of jumping to conclusions you might know - I already said that homosexuality is sinful in the same way heterosexuality is sinful. Where have you been?
They think they are reinventing church. There are plenty of problems in the church in today's society, but ignoring the word of God is NOT the way to fix them.
Does Kimball think people are going to just miss him breaking the third commandment? What is with these emerging guys and cursing?
Ya, Mr. Gum-balls forgot one big thing - the Fall of Man. After the Fall, Man no longer has the image of God, it's only by the grace of Christ that we are restored into the image of God.
" 'To me, I really believe that if church leaders aren't involved in people ... [who] are gay outside of their church, that needs to happen so that they can just understand [their] lives more,' Kimball said in the interview. 'So when they think about [homosexuals], it's not just this population of people that is faceless; they really can think of hearts and minds and eye expressions,' he added. Church leaders need to see every human being, regardless of their sexuality or lifestyle, in the image of God, he stressed."
Oh really, Dan? Do you allow openly homosexual (meaning active homosexuals) to participate in your "emerging" congregation? Because that sounds an awful lot like you do. If so, then how did you teach about 1 Corinthians 5:1-4...and verses 12-13 - you know, where Paul castigates the Corinthian church for allowing a man who married his stepmother to participate in their congregation? He not only tells them "expel the immoral brother" from the congregation but he even says "turn him over to Satan". How, exactly, does Paul's instruction to the Corinthian church over the sexual immorality of one of their "brethren" jive with your statements? No active homosexual can be allowed to participate in a congregation without going against Paul's very instructions in 1 Corinthians. Any pastor should know that.
I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to say. You one minute say Gayness is not a sin, the next you say you're married and have children.
Now I realize that if Homosexuals repent, and turn from their wickedness, God will forgive them.
Ifeelit - so what are you trying to say? Gayness is not a sin, or is it?
Oh wait, I guess they do have that hypothetical religion 'gayism' - it's called humanism.
believer: I think you know this already but I'm a "he." I'm married . . . to a woman and have a son. Surprised? - prophet was.
believer: you're being obtuse. I did answer the question. A marriage doesn't have to be performed in a church. a marriage doesn't have to be notarized by the county / city / state for it to be valid in God's eyes.
Prophet, go get a nap.
WB, you've went over and above refuting the heretics.
webmoore,
Yes, the Bible says that judgement begins in the house of the Lord.
I can't we're still dealing with this old argument.
I see feet wrote to me, and I wasn't even posting here yet. I just found this article.
Let me make my point one more time.
But before I do, let me make myself clear. If you are not a Christian, I am not directing this to you - as you are not part of the church and you behavior is not an issue to me, other than its effect on society. It is only those in the church who are called to a higher standard.
Jesus was clear that sexual immorality was a sin (Mt 15:18-20; Mk 7:20-23). He used the old testament to define sexual immorality (Lev 18:22; Lev 20:13), and it included sex with someone of the same gender, bestiality, incest, and rape. This does not mention passion.
Although, Homosexual desire and sex are spoken of in Romans 1 as sin, and are variously called sexual impurity, degrading, shameful, unnatural, indecent, and perversion, and something that ought not to be done.
The word used by Christ and translated as sexual immorality is defined as
1. illicit sexual intercourse
A. adultery, fornication, homosexuality, lesbianism, intercourse with animals etc.
B. sexual intercourse with close relatives; Lev. 18
C. sexual intercourse with a divorced man or woman; Mk. 10:11
In the eyes of God, homosexual desire and sex are sins. If you call Christ savior, then you have the responsibility to change (which is the meaning of repent). If you are not a Christian, then no worries, as I said at the beginning of this post, I was not speaking to you.
Well the sandman is getting me so will see you brothers in a while, be blessed as you serve Him, believer
Speaking of which, I better hit the sack. I've got to be up for work in about 2 hours
The wolves got 'em.
Speaking of Wild Kingdom has anyone seen ifeelfine it appears she may be lost somewhere?
HAHAHA
Mutual of Omaha's Wild Kingdom! I used to love that show.
prophet, I don't know where Carl Perkins is but I did get to work with the guy who replaced him two weeks ago when he brought his Remote Area Medical (RAM) Team to our area. It must be late because I've totally forgotten his name.
Feet: I suppose we really haven't answered your question yet. I believe we've sufficiently answered that in previous blogs (from a week or so ago), so I can't be bothered to prepare an entire refutation again.
I will say, Feet, that the Devil used Scripture when Jesus was tempted in the wilderness.
Where's Carl Perkins when you need him?
I'm getting those images of those BBC nature documentaries flooding into my head now. "The ravenous wolf is out prowling for the unsuspecting sheep. He's got the whole pack of younger wolves waiting back at the den, licking their chops for a tasty meal of sheep..." all in British accent.
ifeelfine, in the USA a couple in order to prove they are married must have a valid marriage license signed by the person who officiated the wedding and in most states the signature of two witnesses. Now please answer the question, thank you.
"'Oh my god, look what happened,'" said Dan Kimball"
It is hard to take a pastor who takes the name of the
Lord in vain seriously.
ruff ruff, bark bark, .... W O L F
believer: I'm assuming that since you didn't answer my question that you agree with me that all you have to do is publiclly say you are married and it is so? And as such gay people could already get married in the eyes of God.
What, Ifeelit is a pastor????????????? Can you say - w-o-l-f ????
ifeelfine, you said that you believe that homosexuality is a sin in the same way heterosexuality is a sin. To have sex outside of marriage is a sin, so unless a homosexual couple is married they can not have sex because if they do it will be a sin.
ifeelfine,
Try not to get legal with me. You don't like getting legalistic.
By the way...I didn't misspeak. I did say lifestyle.
prophet: you mean sexual orientation, not lifestyle, right?
feet,
Um....what does that have to do with anything. Or are you saying that we hate homosexuals because we don't like their lifestyl?
believer: I did miss it . . . and don't spend so much time jumping to conclusions or making wild accusations, its unbecoming - especially if you are a pastor. Are you suggesting a marriage is only legitimate in the eyes of God if its done in a church with the white dress and tuxedos etc?
why do you four constantly confuse legal with sin.
one sins grievously for not loving.
21"You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not murder,[a] and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.' 22But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother[b]will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, 'Raca,[c]' is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell.
Ok, I've got an idea: Let us all repent before the Lord, we've all sinned. From here on, we'll take the Bible seriously, and call sin for what it is - sin.
Gayness, marriage of divorcees - all sin. Let us all turn our backs on our sins. Let us all repent before the Lord.
Whoever thinks he's too good for that, too proud, doesn't 'feel' like calling sin, sin. Well form that new religion - Gayism.
ifeelfine, please check my 9:33 post, thanks believer
Jesus said marriage was between a man and a woman. Anyone says otherwise, calls Jesus a liar. Simple.
So no comment? as usual?
believer: I must have missed it. what did you say?
prophet: you missed the point entirely.
And yet, since you don't take the Bible literally, you literally think that polygamy and incestuous marriages are wrong.
ifeelfine, apparently you agree with what I said about your view of the same-sex marriage issue since you did not respond to it?
I am no more silly than saying "But Jesus didnt say "only a man and a woman". That is silly. At least everyone knows I'm joking. You actually believe what you said. THAT is silly.
ifeelfine,
I didn't put words into your mouth. I made an observation. Hence the words "I think...." Try not to get too touchy. You only prove people's points.
prophet: now you're just being silly. :)
prophet: you're the one who claims to take the Bible literally. And in your example, yet it would be a sin.
That's too funny. He didn't say "only" a man and a woman.
Well, we're all goin to hell. Because John 3:16 says that "For God so love the world....." He meant the world at that time. Not the world today, because He didn't say otherwise.
believer: Its pretty obvious what you're doing - you're softening the sin of divorce. Jesus was very specific - the only reason for divorce is adultery (despite what some think Paul said). In any case, remarriage is only permitted in the case of death . . . again, only if you take it literally, which we all know is impossible.
Prophet: I think lpepperw is angry for two reasons: 1) the clear tone of his / her post . . . and 2) the angry face avatar he / she picked :) . . . but thanks for putting words in my mouth again! ;)
O LORD!
Welcome to Loophole, Kansas....the mayor of this fine metroplis is .....IFEELFINE. He can make a loophole out of anything....
I know someone who was divorced before they became a Christian. Would they still sin if they got married, or do you believe that they are a new creature and that old things have passed away and all things have become new?
Prophet: I won't dodge it at all - it didn't say "only" a man and a woman . . . in any case, I said before that I don't take the Bible exactly literally - its not possible - I'm just honest about it.
pepper
I think that ifeelfine feels like you're angry because it hit a nerve.
ifeelfine, the Bible does call divorce a sin and only in certain cases are divorce and remarriage allowed and I believe it's too easy to get a divorce and unfortunately even easier for a couple to get married. But your saying since one practice that is called sin by God has become legal we should allow another practice condemned by God to become legal. That being the case then why not make murder and stealing legal as well in fact lets do away with all laws and let vigilanty justice take over. And by the way I would not recommend that we make divorce totally illegal since the Bible teaches that there are some exceptions, but I do believe we need to tighten them up and even more importantly as some communities have done already make marriage requirements more stringent to include premarital counseling and classes to hopefully get marriages off to a healthy start so there will be a lesser chance of divorce down the road.
ifeelfine72 I'm not angry are you?
Just sad, I know people who have left Christiaity
due to emergent confusion. Also have relatives who
never recovered from the abuse. It is not a game.
Feet, I'm afraid I do not make your point. For I, sir, am not a heretic.
Just because I say this or that is sin, I don't go on to then 'shrug my shoulders' and say "oh well... Someone else is sinning, so I guess noone really knows what the Bible says... therefor I'm going to commit every godless act under heaven"
Ifeelfine,
And it was straight from Jesus' lips too, that marriage is between a man and a woman. How are you gonna dodge that?
welcome to the fold matthew..................you make my point.
do you think historically that the french protestants and catholics, the antibaptists, lutherans, the calvinists and eastern orthodox and european catholics spoke any differently to each other, while they were occasionally killing each other over their differences of belief.
ifeelfine,
I'd like to add to your delusion about me being a liar, but if I said that I was lying about that....then I'd be lying.
I take my view of sin from the Bible. I know you don't like to hear that, but it's true.
If you're so keen on the other sins, it's quite strange really that you can play so dumb with the sin of homosexuality, and homosexual marriage.
Ifeelit - we agree on one point: "if you are against gay marriage there is no excuse for marriage to a divorcee." Both are sin. Both ought not to be done. Both are adultery.
However, the Bible does make it quite clear we're not to engage in homosexual behaviour. So, let no two men marry each other, for it is an abomination.
ifeelfine, so are you saying that until recently all homosexuals were living in sin if they were having sex with one another because they were not married and now unless same-sex marriage laws are passed as opposed to same-sex union laws they will still be living in sin because they will not be considered to be married in the sight of God? Because the Bible does teach that only married couples are allowed to have sex or is that another teaching of the Bible that you don't believe?
lpepperw - why are you angry? He died for your sins too.
Why do emergents think they have the inside scoop on
everything? They want to be so "cool". Everyone has known
a gay person. For many years the church was so naive about the subject girls and boys were abused by gay youth workers and priests and too ashamed to report it.
Jesus died for all sins and sinners. Emergents need to shed their filthy rags of self-rightouness.
The Bible doesn't say anything about gay marriage - it is very specific (right from Jesus himself) about marriage of a divorcee.
In the interest of honesty and fairness to Prophet, I'm not certain that Jesus' mandate on divorce is to be taken literally (maybe it is but I haven't studied that hermenuetic as much) but if you are against gay marriage there is no excuse for marriage to a divorcee.
So marrying a divorced person is a sin, yet two men marrying each other isn't?
Haha, I prefer to call them 'maddening.'
But where does it say in the Bible that if two homosexuals get together in a 'loving' relationship, that's 'okay?'
matthew: Where did I say, "gay sex isn't a sin?" I've always maintained that gay sex is only sinful in the same way heterosexual sex is - outside of committed loving relationships (preferrably marriage).
You claim to be a Christian and yet all I see from your comments are wild accusations, crazy conclusions and a complete lack of logic. If you can judge a man by his fruits . . .
(we both know marriage to a divorced person is sin)
Of course I know it, Ifeelit. So what's your point?
Prophet said: "You are half right. I pick and choose what is a sin by what the Bible says."
I'm not interested in picking a fight but if you're going to lie then I'm going to call you on it. Must I remind you of your marriage to a divorcee? Its a sin and you know it.
Ifeelfine - It's quite amazing that you claim that Gay-sex isn't a sin, yet you're able to pick up on the fact that divorce is a sin. Talk about a bandage for your concience. It seems to me, you know what is biblically right, and biblically wrong, yet you revel in the sinfulness of gay-sex.
marteblackmon - are you gay? Is that why you "know gays weren't born that way?"
Cheala34life - Overweight are we? . . . obesity is as much a sin as homosexuality so you're wrong about that. Obesity can keep you out of heaven . . . at least according to your logic it can.
believer: The exact same question could be asked of divorce and yet no constitutional amendment is being proposed banning divorce, no one is protesting divorces, the Phelps family isn't shouting "God hates divorcees." It sounds to me like there are a lot of "cultural Christians." Oh wait, I think I get it now, most Christians aren't gay and you're either gay or your not, so let's rail against the gay people. Gee, why didn't I think of that before.
feet,
You said "wouldnt a correct summation be..........we pick and chose what is or is not a sin according to our belief system, and then judge all those who disagree with us as either not christians or lesser christians."
You are half right. I pick and choose what is a sin by what the Bible says. If I were as shallow as you think, then I would not call drunkeness and fornication a sin, because that is what I (my flesh) wants to do. So before you go saying that I pick and choose, first see that I do not. Even things that I am prone to, and have an urge to do, I consider a sin.
I am not like the homosexual "Christians" who do that. They don't want to change, they want to submit to that sin, so they claim that God "didn't really say that" or "God didn't really mean that". The same thing that Satan told Eve. And yet he still uses that ploy with amazing results.
Feet, why don't you take my advice and form that new religion: The religion Gayism. You'd be free from any sort of conviction from us thorny Christians, you'd be free to pursue your own lusts, your own desires, what you feel is ultimately good. You could be your own god, or you could worship the gods that I have mentioned previously (the god of gayness, the god of lust, the god of self-indulgence, the god of self- love, the god of self-pride). The United Church could split and worship with you, or worship themselves along with you.
That would also leave the Christians who want to seriously pursue Scriptures, free from knobs who only want to put a stumbling block in front of Christian's feet.
prophet,wbmoore,believer
wouldnt a correct summation be..........we pick and chose what is or is not a sin according to our belief system, and then judge all those who disagree with us as either not christians or lesser christians.
feet,
You said "i didnt know you've had so mmuch fellowship with gay believers." I never have, because there is no such thing. If they were believers then they would know they were sinnning, if they are gay then they don't believe the Word of God. It's acutally quites simple.
Ther may be gay religious people, but they are not believers or Christians. I hope that answers your question.
lina and chicago,
"the new testament fulfills the old and thus does away with all those frivolous commandements. Evidently, God changes his minds. The only exception is homosexuality, the Ten Commandments, that whole Genesis story....basically the whole story minus all the "rules." It makes it so much more palatable to follow (if you're not gay)."
If homosexuality is the ONLY exception, then I suppose this means you accept incest, bestiality, adultery, etc as morally licit. I mean, if you do not have the theological acumen to determine the difference between ceremonial and purity laws versus moral laws, then the logical conclusion is that you must accept these also.
And best of all, since they left Christianity, it would leave the Christians, who want to pursue a relationship with the Lord, to their devices of holiness, godliness, righteousness, hatred of the world's devices, etc..
Don't worry though, Prophet, the Beast walks among us, we're at the very last hour, and before the End comes 'like a flood,' the Church will be purified, pure and spotless. No heretic will want to be in the Church in those days.
They can worship the culture, and the latest fad. Heck, why don't they set up a series of gods, just as the Greeks did: the god of gayness, the god of uncleanness, the god of adultery, the god of sin, the god of sexual perversion, the god of self-love: which we all know these gods to be really just demons. They can fill the pews with all sorts of 'understanding' people. And 'love' would be the binding factor of the community.
Honestly, I don't even know why people like that call themselves Christians. They don't believe in the Bible, they act exactly as the Heathens do - since they are of the world, just as the Heathens are. So why do these heretics even stay? Why don't they just form their own religion, have gay-sex in it. And commit all kinds of indecent acts. Call the religion Gayism or something (haha, that was just a joke). The United church could even be the major congregation of Gayism.
Prophet: That's precisely what Chicago is trying to point out. He's trying to build a (false) contradiction between two testaments.
chicago,
Get with the New Testament...Jesus did come, ya know...
You know, Believer, you're on to something. The more close we get to the fundamentals of reality, the more faith we must put into believing it. Take the physical world for example; Philosophers have good reason to doubt the physical world exist - They're called 'Idealists'. If you're interested, read George Berkley "Three Dialogues." He lays out philosophical arguments casting doubt on the existence of the physical world.
I myself believe the physical world exists, but the maddening thing is, philosophers can't prove it by sheer reason. So I've got to take it by faith!
lina, I had to go a Crisis Pregnancy Care Center meeting, so I wasn't ignoring you. In one of your posts to matthew you said we Christians believe in things that cannot be scientifically proven. Several nights ago you told me you believe in love and I said but you can't scientifically prove that love exists, we can see the evidence of love, the results of being and not being loved, the practices and expressions of love, but we can not scientifically prove that love exists. We both believe in love and yet for both of us there came a point where faith entered into the equation, we had to believe in something that we could not actually see. I believe in God and like love there is no way at this point in time to prove scientifically that God exists, but like love we see expressions of God all around us if we choose to the same way we choose to see expressions of love all around. But as with love there had to come a point where a person chose to believe in God the same way a person chooses to believe in love. So to choose to say there is a God is not a matter of fact but a matter of faith and choice, but to choose to say there is no God is not a matter of fact either, but a matter of no faith and choice. The same way choosing to say there is love is not a matter of fact, but a matter of faith and choice and to choose to say there is no love is not a matter of fact, but a matter of no faith and choice.
"No Chicago - the new testament fulfills the old and thus does away with all those frivolous commandements. Evidently, God changes his minds. The only exception is homosexuality, the Ten Commandments, that whole Genesis story....basically the whole story minus all the "rules." It makes it so much more palatable to follow (if you're not gay)."
If you actually were interested in knowing, I would have been glad to explain. But clearly you are not interested (as is clear in how this argument is set up), so I won't explain.
Lina - no one's forcing a homosexual to become Christian. You know, people say Masturbation can't be helped - it's healthy, and it's unhealthy and impossible to stop. Well clearly people have been delivered from such sin and bondage. If a homosexual wants to become a Christian, that's great, but he's (or she's) got to give up the active lifestyle.
Chicago - clearly your understanding of Scriptures is very, very rudimentary. Don't you know the Law has been 'nailed to the Cross'? Ahh but you say, now we're free to reign in sin - no - we're free to reign in righteousness. Homosexuality is clearly disapproved of in both the OT and the NT.
No Chicago - the new testament fulfills the old and thus does away with all those frivolous commandements. Evidently, God changes his minds. The only exception is homosexuality, the Ten Commandments, that whole Genesis story....basically the whole story minus all the "rules." It makes it so much more palatable to follow (if you're not gay).
You know, I NEVER wear clothing that's made from two or more different fabrics as is clearly outlawed in Leviticus 19:19.
I find it horribly offensive when others do. And what's worse, is when they claim to be Christians and go around wearing cotton and polyester - - and in front of children!!! Some people think this abomination should be allowed in schools!
Clearly, this is the End of Days. . . .
It's likely a combination of genetics, biology, and environment. However, its fixed at an early age and immutable. In fact, its harmful even to try to change according to mental health consensus. Yet Christians continue to do just that. How many needless suicides could have been prevented?
The problem is, Psychologists don't know for sure either way. I've looked at Psychological studies: Some identical twins are homosexuals, while other twins only one of the identical twins are homosexuals. So is it purely Biological? I don't think so. Do genes play a role in producing homosexual behaviour? Maybe.
I think becoming a homosexual is a very complex, not entirely understood process. I think there are a million factors that contribute to someone becoming a homosexual, and maybe genes play some roll in it (though it's impossible for genes to be a sole factor) - I don't know.
I think Science has done a lot for us as a society, in no way do I have a distaste for it.
Again, I think Christians ought not to judge homosexuals outside the Church. I believe this to be unbiblical (e.g. 1 Corinthians 5:12). My claim is only against the practice of homosexuality inside the church.
You know, I think we're both getting a little too emotional. Forgive me for any cheap shots that I might have given you.
(sorry for my horrendous spelling mistakes for the previous comment, product of the internet generation)
'We know scientifically they can't happen' Now you really are showing your pure ignorance. Miracles are by definition a supernatural act of God. Miraclulous events are impossible or Science to explain.
Cults = you celebrate a personality, Jesus. Correct? I see no difference between your blind obedience to Jesus than North Koreans to their dear leader Kim Jong II. Second, you have faith that the absurb sayings and impossible miracles described in your holy book actually happened, which scientifically, we know they could not have. Yet, still you have "faith" because this book tells you to faith. What could be more naive? At the same time, you push your views on the rest of us. What could this be more so than a cult?
Ugg. You're perverse comments are far from Religion and godliness. Far be it from me to fall into the heresies of the cults (using the modern meaning of the term cult). Your ignorance and absurd views of religion is abhorrent.
You say I'm a cult member, I say I adhere to Biblical Christianity. From that, I could care very little about your perverse views.
What's God's word matthew? The Koran? The Gita? Matthew's interpretation of an invisible sky-fairy?
Matthew - re-read your posts. Don't they sound cultish to you? Almost delusional?
Well Chicago, I'm assuming you're joking with 'it's okay as long as they're heterosexual.'
But if not, then what's wrong with Gay-animal sex? If people think it's okay for animal-sex, the next logical step is gay-animal sex. You see, once we do away with the Eternal Word, anything's up for grabs. The ancient Greeks did infact have gay-child sex (no need for citation, as it's common knowledge). Let us cling to God's Word, and forget the fads of the culture.
Oh my goodness! Some of you were right - - here's a site advocating marriages between humans and their pets:
www.marryyourpet.com
I guess that's okay - - as long as both parties are heterosexual.
Your perverse misrepresentation of the Holiness of God is 1. discusting and 2. for the sole purpose of easing your concience into your sinful lifestyle.
Butt out? I've already said, Heathens have no say in Church issues, you're the one that ought to 'butt' out.
lina, so you're saying your not willing to discuss this issue with me?
terriergal - I'm not exactly sure what you mean, could you please elaborate?
lina, yes they can study the expressions of love and the effects of being loved and/or not being loved as well the practices of both giving and receiving love, but they can't produce a product called love. Do you see where I'm coming from and if you do would you respond to my first post to you? If nothing else just humor an old-timer!
We'll ask you again, on Judgment Day. See you in 30.
what a joke. If you preach through the Bible, you'll talk about sex about as much as the Lord thinks we needs it, and won't say anything that's not in the Bible. Our pastor just talks about it when it comes up in the text and no one is bashful about it in our conservative Lutheran congregation. Why all this accusation about us being afraid of sex? We just don't make titillating campaigns of it to attract people to church.
Lina - I'm not making any judgments, whatsoever on Heathen Homosexuals. I'm only talking about 'Christian' Homosexuals.
Male? Well, I can't blame you if you have a poor knowledge of God. God manifests himself as 'himself' in the Bible because He has predominantly 'male' attributes. God is neither male, nor female, that is a gross error that Heathens tend to bask in. God has also manifested himself as 'female' in the Bible too.
Lina - I'll be the first to admit the Christian Religion is built off faith. Christ has manifested Himself to me (to give precise details would take too long), therefore I believe. If He did not, then I would consider there to be no evidence for godliness and I would still be a Heathen just like you. So what's you're point?
lina, needless to say you and I will have to agree to disagree on the same-sex marriage/union issue, but since we've missed each other lately in the times were on the same site I wanted to ask you if you're willing to revisit the love issue we were discussing. You shared that although love can not be scientifically proven to exist, none the less we see examples of it all around us in the animal kingdom. We can see examples of both the giving and receiving of love and yet we can't prove beyond a shadow of a doubt it exists. Somewhere it requires faith/trust to believe that love indeed exists. That being true could not the same be said of God, even though there is no way to scientifically prove that God exists we can still see expressions of His presence all around us, but ultimately like love if we are to believe in God it requires faith/trust. And like love simply choosing not to believe in God or love does not mean that they don't exist nor can one say because you can't scientifically prove either love or God they do not exist.
Cult, right woman, if you call the Christian Religion a cult, by all means do so.
Homosexuals are decieved that they were born that way.
I love them, but their lives do not give the credit to
our Saviour, who is the great Deliverer and Healer. There is Nothing impossible for God. Let us pray that that message can become a reality to those of our friends who remain in that life style.
Sure a child can, if the 40 year old man consents with the 10 year old boy if they 'love' each other.
As for animal-sex marriage, why do the animals need to consent? The man loves the dog, or goat, so what difference does it make, the dog loves the man too.
All we need is love, don't we?
Look, if you're a Heathen, why should we even give you an ear on how we Christians ought to take care of the Church? Heathens have no say, whatsoever, in Christian Morality. I could care less of what some big bantering Heathen has to say about the way of godliness.
Jesus died for everyone, not just ones we agree with. There are many things I don't understand, like war, cancer, starvation, poverty. I do know that for the most part these things are not always the fault of the people who are suffering from them. I do know that God's work on earth must truly be our own, and sitting around on this site is not getting it done. It's an opinion forum, nothing more, nothing less.
believer
When you guys wake and smell the coffee and understand things are so much worse off now than they were 7 years ago, and do not lay it at the feet of 9/11. Bush hid behind the war on terror, when the whole time he was dimanteling the middle class. Thats my problem with Bush.
I'm impressed at the pure lawlessness of some of the posters on this site. What's next after Gay-sex marriage? Child-sex marriage just like the Mormon polytheist polygamists? Giraff, goat, donkey marriage? It's only logical - after all, we do share common ancestors don't we?
Cheala34life:
I guess it is kind of strange to identify one's self as a gay Christian. I'm just a Christian who happens to be gay. But I don't think it's fair to equate being gay with adulterous or lustful. Those are sinful actions that are harmful to others and by equating my being gay is making assumptions about my behavior just because of who I am. That's pre-judging. When I was in a Catholic religious order for eight years, I was celebate but still gay. Would you consider homosexuality a sin in that case? Yet, so many people make assumptions about one's behavior simply due to their sexual orientation.
I refrain from committing the acts that Paul addresses in 1 Cor 6:9, (we all should) but I'm still gay and ascribe to Christianity.
Thanks Matthew. It's great to know you have the power to define people better than they can define themselves. Can we worship you?
To call yourself a 'gay Christian' is equivilant to saying that you're a 'Mohommedan Christian.'
Cheala34life, how about "fat Christian?"
No....not quite the same.., but they do have similarities.
Being fat won't keep you out of heaven and it is a physical condition that can be overcome with proper diet and excercise. However, you can't diet away sin. However, you can wash sin away with the blood of christ.
ifeelfine, thanks, but I know that already the question I have is how can a person who is opposed to same-sex marriage because they believe God is opposed to it be in favor of same-sex unions which with the exception of not being performed in a church appears to be the very same thing? And both allow for the practice of the very sin they believe God is opposed to in the first place.
Cheala34life, how about "fat Christian?"
Believer, let me take a stab at it. Marriages are performed in a church and churches can marry whomever they please (and that includes gay couples) but the state (federal and actual states) really only performs civil unions anyway (and call them marriages) so the state should be required to marry two men or two women if they so choose.
jhs, I have no problem with your opinion of George Bush, I don't agree with it, but just about every site I see your posts on you sooner or later regardless of the issue take a shot at George Bush, I mean what's up with that?
believer
I know you bible thumping neocons love Bush, his economic policies are detroying the middle class, the Iraq was a huge expensive mistake, we are retaking land in Afghanistan that we lost, Bush has been a disaster.
I am really making an effort to understand a few things. #1) What kind of benefits is homosexual trying get other than regular job benefits? currenlty it doesn't matter whether you gay or not. Insurance is insurance. if a person is gay and has through their job what prevents them from going to the doctor? or having supplemental insurance. What are the other benefits? # 2) I know this may cause some controversy, although that is not my intention, but chicago 24, help me understand you are defining how "gay christian?" I ask because the term christian itself is historically not a chrisian term. It is a label adopted by the church to identify someone with Christ. The bible refers to all believers as believers those who are called of God or Sons of God. Additionally, the term christian was more derogatory. You must remeber Christ was considered a criminal and he was shunned by Jews. Today the term Christian is put on almost anything religious. However, if you study out how God defines those who are considered Sons and daughters of God, you will find that biblically you cannot be a "Gay Christian." I don't know if this is how you choose identify yourself, but God does not identify people as "alcoholic Christian", lustful christian, adulterous christian. to do this is in essence to say you still that which God has delivered you from. However, 2 cor 5;17 says otherwise. If you have infact been born again and accepted Christ by faith, then you have a new identity in Christ. Selah -
jhs, is there any problem in the world today that George Bush isn't responsible for? I mean what is this fixation you've got with him?
Listen, I don't pretend to understand homosexuality, although I don't mind lesbians ,LOL, with that said all joking aside, Marriage is a church institution and Civil unions should be the government. You can seperate the 2 and I do. I am tire of the bible thumping crowd judging gays, but then turn and stuff their gut so full of food they are over weight, or support leaders who say they are against abortion, but when they could change it, they did not I could go on for an hour. I work for a company that has same sex benefits. God is not sitting on his throne wringing his hands saying to himself, OH MY ME THEY HAVE SAME SEX BENEFITS!!!! After the mess Bush has created, I think he has better things to worry about!
chicago, I know you profess to be a Christian and I've asked this question before but let me ask you personally. Many Christians are opposed to same-sex marriage because they believe God is opposed to it and yet some of them are okay with same-sex unions. As if to say God wouldn't be as opposed to same-sex unions as He would be to same-sex marriage. Can you help me better understand this view? Because I see them as one in the same except one can take place in the church and the other can't.
JHS - I agree with you. Even though I am a gay Christian and support gay marriage, I think it's all happened too fast and that there will be a negative backlash.
Also, if civil unions were accepted on a federal level, then gay couples could receive federal tax benefits and social security benefits. As long as gay marriage remains on the state level, gay couples miss out on these significant benefits.
Gays have rights too, although they should make civil unions the law of the land, and this gay marriage debate would go away.