by Isaac Barrett
This review will analyze John Piper’s four main arguments in his exegesis of Ephesians 2:8-9. Two of these arguments, he makes from outside the text in question. One argument is from Ephesians and the others are from Philippians and 1 Corinthians. This first article in the series will focus on those external arguments. Piper believes that this passage, and others, directly teach that faith is effectually given or is a gift from God. Effectual faith, according to Piper, is given by God, and an individual cannot resist this gift. Faith happens when God changes the will of an individual. Piper concludes that there is nothing an individual can do to have faith.
Piper’s exegesis can be found from this video entitled, “Is Faith a Gift of God?“. His arguments will come with timestamps as references.
First, the text of Ephesians 2: 8-9 (ESV):
For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.
The basic argument John Piper will be making is that faith in Christ is an effectual gift and that, outside this effectual gift, man has no ability to have faith in Christ. For his first stab at proving his case, Piper turns to the preceding paragraph:
“And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world…But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved— and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus.
Eph 2: 1-7 (ESV)
Dead Like a Corpse is Dead
Timestamp: 3:47
Piper’s first argument is that ‘dead’ means ‘corpse like’ and therefore ‘faith must be a gift’. He points to verse 5 where it says “even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved”. Piper believes that dead means a complete inability towards God. This is the foundational argument behind the doctrine of Total Depravity or Absolute Inability. Under this doctrine, it is believed that man must be given grace in order to be enabled to believe. This grace is described as an inner working of the Holy Spirit, not merely hearing the Gospel. The claim is that we must be made alive in order to be able to put our faith in Christ. Dead men can’t do anything, including believing, repenting, or having faith.
The problem with the corpse like dead argument is that the Bible clearly defines spiritual deadness as a separation:
Death As Separation
Isaiah 59 ESV
“your iniquities have made a separation between you and your God, and your sins have hidden his face from you so that he does not hear”
Luke 15:24, 32 ESV
“For this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found”
“for this your brother was dead, and is alive; he was lost, and is found”
Romans 6:11 ESV
“So you also must consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus.”
James 2:26 ESV
“For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so also faith apart from works is dead”
Genesis 35:18 ESV
“And as her soul was departing (for she was dying), she called his name Ben-oni; but his father called him Benjamin.”
St. Clement Of Alexandria 190AD
“death is the separation of the soul from the body”
“Death is the fellowship of the soul in a state of sin with the body, and life is separation from that sin.”
Unless we assume that Paul offers no clarity to the text of Eph 2: 8-9 in the surrounding verses, we cannot ignore that this is what Paul has to say about separation in the sentences immediately following the passage Piper is exegeting:
Ephesians 2:11-19 ESV
“…— remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. 13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. 14 For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall…so making peace, and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross,…18 For through him we both have access in one Spirit to the Father. So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God”
Biblically all forms of death are a separation. Physical death is the separation of body from soul. Spiritual death is man’s separation from God. Believers are supposed to be separated from sin, yet we are still able to sin. Piper’s interpretation focuses on characteristics of a corpse, instead of the separation. He then applies these characteristics to us in order to say that we can’t respond to God positively at all. The problem is that there is no verse that actually says this or one that compares spiritual death to a corpse. The Bible uses many words to refer to our fallen spiritually dead condition, including being “separated“, “alienated“, “strangers“, “far off“, “lost“, and having God’s face hidden from you. Adam and Eve died the day they ate the fruit, but their death was a spiritual separation from God. They had to leave the presence of God. It didn’t mean they couldn’t hear God, as they and their children spoke with God after being separated. Being spiritually alive is defined as “alive”, “brought near“, “made us both one [us & Christ]”, “reconciled“, “found“, “fellow citizens”.
The definition of death as only corpse like is a definition that ignores the spirit. To the Israelites, physical death meant that person’s spirit was separated from its body. Their spirits are in Sheol while their corpses remain here. When you are dead, you are not simply a corpse, you are a spirit and a corpse. The parable of the prodigal son provides us with a full application of this Biblical definition from a soteriological perspective. The son was “dead, and is alive”, he was “lost, and is found“. Piper’s argument that spiritually dead means corpse is not directly supported scripturally. So far, it does not seem sufficient to claim that faith is effectually given by God, let alone that Ephesians 2:8-9 specifically teaches it. Deuteronomy 30 has the opposite order where the Israelites are commanded to repent and return (notice implication of separation) to the Lord. Only then, does God “circumcise your heart”, which is being made alive. We are not made alive in order to repent and return.
https://www.bible.ca/d-death=separation.htm
Can the Dead Not Have Faith?
There is an underlying assumption of John Piper’s that cannot go unchallenged. He assumes that the spiritually dead cannot have faith. But is that so?
In the text of Eph 2: 8-9, there is no direct connection of being “dead in trespasses” to faith. Actually, verse 4-5 support the opposite conclusion. The statement, “made us alive together with Christ”, is immediately followed with a disclaimer that this being made alive is to be saved by grace. Immediately prior, it says that this saving happened “even when we were dead in our trespasses“ (i.e. spiritually dead). We were spiritually dead at the time that we were saved by grace. Verse 8 & 9 then clarify that this grace that saves is received by “faith”. If we need to be made alive in order to have faith then we would have to be saved in Christ before having faith. The problem is, you cannot be in Christ without faith. Piper’s interpretation flips the order that is clearly seen in the text. This is done in order to claim that faith must be a gift from a logical perspective.
Faith As a Gift Outside of Ephesians 2
Piper argues that there are other passages that show faith is an effectual gift:
Philippians 1:29 says it has been “granted” to you to “not only believe in Him”, “but to suffer for His sake”. Therefore, faith is a gift in Paul’s understanding.
1 Corinthians 1:28-31 says that “God chose what is low and despised” so that “no human being might boast” (same concern as Ephesians 2) and that “from Him you are in Christ”. It is from God that we are in Christ Jesus, we did not put ourselves in Christ Jesus. From God you are grafted into Christ Jesus. You didn’t raise yourself from the dead (i.e. Lazarus) and therefore you didn’t create your faith. Don’t rob God of the glory in saving us, including of giving us saving/effectual faith.
To Grant Means to Enable
Piper assumes that the word “granting” means the exact same thing as the word “gift”, and therefore saving faith is effectually given to us. Under Sola Scriptura, if Paul meant gift, he would have written gift. Instead, Paul wrote granted, which means enabling or allowing. We can safely assume that Paul used a different word because it has a different meaning. Did God enable or allow us to believe in His Son? Absolutely! He sent his Son to die as the propitiation for the sins of the whole world and then He sent messengers into the world proclaiming the Gospel that we might hear it and to be received by faith. If a father is “granting” permission to a man to marry his daughter, did the father effectually make the man propose or ask for permission? No, he did not (that is called a shotgun wedding). Granting simply does not mean effectual causality. Did God causally give suffering to the Corinthian church? No, but He enabled/allowed his children to both believe and suffer for His sake. If God didn’t give the suffering to the church, then why would we assume that he gave faith to them? Concluding that Paul understands faith as being effectually given because he uses term enabled/allowed, seems incorrect.
Faith Does Not Make You Alive
Piper confuses the regeneration process of being made alive with a person having faith. He says ‘we did not put ourselves in Christ Jesus’, which is true. The Bible makes it clear that this happens by grace through faith (Ephesians 2:4,8 “[God] made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved… through faith”). Being made alive or regenerated is the work that saves us and it happens by grace. Romans makes it clear that our faith is “counted as righteousness”. Faith is the first event, in this verse, as it says that the gift of salvation by grace is “to be received by faith”. Faith itself does not make anybody alive.
Piper asserts that we “didn’t raise [ourselves] from the dead and therefore you didn’t create your faith”. The problem with his analysis is the order of events. Romans and Ephesians say we are to receive the gift of justification/salvation, which is to be made alive in Christ, through faith. If faith comes before regeneration, how can one conclude that in order to have faith we must first raise ourselves from the dead? Piper’s assertion seems to be a direct contradiction to Paul’s writings. Our faith itself does not save us and does not justify us. God makes faith a requirement to Him to justify, regenerate, and to save us. In no way can we assert that faith itself has the power to raise us from the dead. Faith without God’s work is a meaningless dirty rag. Faith itself is powerless.
Deuteronomy 30 reaffirms this order. It says first “return to the Lord your God… and obey his voice” and “then the Lord your God will… have mercy on you… And the Lord your God will circumcise your heart”. Piper, as well as many others with his position, assert that the circumcision of the heart is regeneration. They leave out the fact that God says he will do this only after they return to Him and obey his commands. God making us spiritually alive allows us to become like Him through the work of sanctification, but is not necessary to have faith. All of God’s work occurs after we respond in faith.
When we put their faith in Christ, God says that He will make us spiritually alive in Christ. If our faith was the result of free will, would that rob God glory? Since faith is not a work, is non-meritorious, is not worthy of boasting, and is not under the law of works but the law of faith, then no! Romans 4 profoundly affirms that the faith credited to Abraham gave the glory to God. God did all of the work to save us and God gets all of the glory. The only time God is robbed of glory is when our salvation is not sought through faith. God monergisticly saves us because He does all of the work. The only thing we do is to have faith to receive God’s work. God commands us to believe, repent, and to live by faith and that is what we must do.
God Chooses What is Wise, Not Who is Saved
1 Corinthians 1 is a passage that is specifically focused on wisdom. It does not state that ‘faith is a gift’ or discuss the origin of faith. It focuses on the pursuit of human wisdom by the Greeks. Paul compares and contrasts human wisdom to God’s wisdom saying that we do “not know God through [human] wisdom”, but that “it pleased God through the [human] folly of what we preach to save those who believe”. Paul is talking about the nature and origin of the wisdom the Corinthian Christians are drawing from to help steel them against their culture who is telling them their behavior is foolish. God’s decision to save those who believe and humble themselves, and calling them to subsequently live out His revealed wisdom, is foolishness to the world, just like it is in modern culture. By doing this, “God made foolish the wisdom of the world”. When he writes “because of [God] you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, righteousness and sanctification and redemption”, Paul is speaking about being made alive and justified. All of this happens through faith. This passage does not appear to support a deterministic interpretation of the nature of faith.
So far, we’ve shown that Piper’s references outside of Eph 2: 8-9 are not sufficient to establish his case. In the next installment in this series, we’ll dive into the text of Eph 2:8-9 itself and evaluate the grammar and sentence structure as well as Piper’s arguments for why these two verses teach faith as an effectual gift. Stay tuned!
Test
Another reason the corpse analogy is fallacious. They claim a corpse can’t hear, respond, seek, do good etc…
They stop there. While I agree a corpse can’t do any of those things, neither can a corpse sin, ignore something, make a decision, or rebel against anything.
The analogy fails because it cannot be consistently applied to all actions and all characteristics of an actual corpse.
Thanks so much Isaac. Seems like there may be a (dead 😉 duck and rabbit question here. BTW, apologies I have so many things to say and your post deserves a careful response, but I am so busy with other stuff today. Perhaps you make some of the points I am making. Eph 2:8-10 hits close to home for me though, since reading that is what saved me from (Lutheran) determinism. i was always taught works righteousness, which is a different gospel (Galatians 1-3, eg this is “Who has bewitched you?” , drop-dead serious stuff).
Not really sure how Piper can miss the concept that Paul is writing to living people, when he flat out says “And you were dead in trespasses and sins (Eph 2:1). If “Dead is Dead!” then Paul is writing to those that have literally died??? Naw, at least for the last 20 or so years since I’ve been saved, I have always assumed Paul meant “doomed” more than dead. As in “Dead man walking!” from the movie, The Green Mile.
That makes perfect sense all the way back to Genesis 3, when the devil tells Eve “you will not surely die” in a day (a 24 hour yom), but she did surely die (in a thousand year yom). Paul tells Timothy this is deceit, but God never deceived her (not trying to pump my new site, but there is more background at wordlight.net/adam_not_deceived.html :).
I probly have too much to comment on this, but similarly in 1 Tim 6:4, the rabbit pops up again. Perhaps it could be interpreted differently, but when a Lutheran asks “What do you mean by faith?” (as if even pistis in the Little Kittle wasn’t clear enough) I see the determinists “doting about questions and strifes of words…” For me, how dare they use a different dictionary and the same vocabulary. Total deceit to me. Pit of hell stuff. (sorry, Leighton, I’m trying to be cordial over here:).
Since I can’t edit, my apologies that I did not seem to understand the depth of the weirdness here, re: what Calvinists mean when they say “Dead is dead!” I am understanding now that they acknowledge that the dead can be regenerated, but I am no where near understanding exactly how (and I guess I don’t need to know anyway).
How on earth can they mince words like this and not feel convicted? Seems like they are trying to “bufallo the sheep”? Seems like their conscience has been seared with a hot iron? May God have mercy…
TULIP is claimed by Calvinist as a doctrine that properly divides the Word of God, and explains the Gospel. What it really is is a doctrine that explains divine causal determinism and then fits it to the Bible.
Instead of considering that divine causal determinism may be false, they presuppose that it is true. They then used that presupposition to read the Bible, and when they came upon a verse that affirmed it, they called it a proof text. When they found one that contradicts DCD they changed the meaning of the text.
Then they formed a “cohesive” system (TULIP) to explain why DCD is what the Bible teaches. It all goes back to hanging on to that presupposition.
br.d
It is critical to understand that a great deal of Calvinist statements are designed as red-herrings.
If you are familiar with that term – it is used to describe a fox hunt – and something that is designed to get the hounds off the scent of the fox in order to give the fox time to achieve distance.
The hunters would be totally bored if the hounds surrounded the fox at the onset of the hunt.
They want plenty of time to savor the whole experience.
So the red-herring is designed to get your focus in a direction where it can be controlled.
One of Calvinism’s favorite red-herrings is getting your focus on the state of man’s nature – with their private definitions of things like “Total Depravity” and “Dead”.
The strategy is to control your focus and keep it on something the Calvinist controls – in order to keep you from seeing something he DOESN’T want you to see.
The whole business of Calvinism’s “Total Depravity” and “Dead” are simply a strategies of obfuscation.
What the Calvinist does not want you to see – is that per the underlying doctrine of decrees – the state of creation – (including man’s nature) at every nano-second in time – is 100% meticulously predestined and FIXED by infallible decree.
Creation cannot possibly be other than what it was decreed to infallibly be.
Man’s nature cannot possibly be other than what it was decreed to infallibly be
Don’t allow yourself to be fooled by Calvinism’s deceptive strategies of misdirection.
Calvinists soon discover they can trick unsuspecting Christians very easily.
It is all to easy to draw unsuspecting Christians into spider’s webs of Calvinist design.
He needs to control your focus.
He needs to keep you from seeing things about his doctrine – which if you clearly see – you won’t be lured into his corral.
So true, as a recent discussion with a Calvinist demonstrated. He refused to acknowledge that the essential difference between his Calvinist theology and non-Calvinism is whether God desires, and provides the opportunity for ALL or only SOME to be saved from sin and death. After endless deflections, obfuscations, distractions, etc., the best I could pull out of him was ‘We wouldn’t frame it that way.’ Yeah, no kidding.
He wanted to talk about God’s ‘holiness’, God’s ‘justice’ or anything other than the fact that, A2C, God only loves and desires to save a select few, and all others have absolutely no opportunity or ability EVER for anything but sin and destruction.
Great post TS00!
How to watch a Calvinist change himself into a greased pig in 5 micro-seconds! 😀
What he didn’t want to tell anyone is:
1) When it comes to the eternal destiny of all human creatures – Calvin’s god has only 2 decrees
2) His first and foremost decree is “THE DEATH DECREE”
3) This is where he creates/designs the vast majority of his creatures for eternal torment in a lake of fire – for his good pleasure.
4) His second decree – is simply his decision to save a FEW creatures from his first decree.
He is not saving souls from sin.
He is not saving souls from themselves
He is saving them from his decree.
So what the Calvinist calls “Grace” is Calvin’s god using a decree to save people from a decree!
Calvinists have their own private definitions for everything! :-]
As we would say in Ireland, “Yer dead right.”
You wrote: “The analogy fails because it cannot be consistently applied to all actions and all characteristics of an actual corpse.”
They are unwilling to make the “necessary inferences” that everybody else makes about corpses. But this is what happens when people not only ignore common sense, but also the bible’s explanation of what it means to be dead even though you are alive. Again, it is so true what you say, they are inconsistent because it suits them to only deal with half truths rather than face the whole.
“Dead means dead” is like a Democrat bumper sticker – catchy, oversimplified, and wrong.
Hey Steve!
Great to see you – and hope all is well with you and yours :-]
I’d sure appreciate that the mocking politics was modded out. And FYI, I’m more conservative than anyone I know.
Also, from what I learned, Greek words are gendered, and if one word signifies another, it has to be the same gender, such as if “gift” was referring to “faith” then the genders must match. But they don’t. Apparently, faith is female, so gift should be female if faith is the gift. But it’s not. It’s neuter. Therefore it’s not referring specifically to faith as the gift. In fact, grace is female too, so gift isn’t referring specifically to that either.
This blows the Calvinist idea that God gives the gift of faith to certain prechosen people out of the water. Because faith isn’t the gift. The gift is the whole thing, the offer of salvation by grace through faith. And it is offered to all and can be accepted by anyone.
Why, one wonders, do Calvinists like Piper strive so to deny that grace has been offered to all men, and can be readily received by all who believe? It’s not like they don’t understand this, for this is the way most believers interpret scripture – including most Calvinists at one time in their lives. And they have surely, at least the teachers, heard the alternative interpretations of scripture that render Calvinism unnecessary.
So, it seems, they desperately want to be a part of an elite club. Like junior high girls striving to be part of the ‘in crowd’. True fact: I found that junior high nonsense both childish and unhealthy. Because I had high grades and was involved in extracurricular activities, a lot of my friends were in the ‘in crowd’ but my best friend, and many others, were not. And I made an effort to be friendly and accepting to all – particularly the unlovely and unloved.
Seems like the Spirit of God within me, since my early childhood, encouraged me to love all men, just as He did. Nothing in the world would convince me that He had an elite ‘in crowd’, reserved for a special few, while all others were rejected and considered less valuable. Nothing.
Well said, TS00. I think it’s both man’s need to feel special, unique, above others, and his desire to feel more intelligent than others, that he found out “secrets” no one else knows, and his need to think he is more honoring/pleasing to God than others. I think it all comes down to pride, disguised as humility. Or maybe it’s insecurity and low self-esteem.
To say God loves all and Jesus died for all and all can be saved puts us all in the same boat. And Calvinism can’t accept that.
But there’s nothing new under the sun: It’s just like the Pharisees and teachers of the Law and Jews back in the day (and so many cults today) who thought they were special and above others, that they alone had God’s favor and spiritual wisdom/truth.
And Calvinism is one-upmanship. If we think sovereign means God is in control over all (watching over all, deciding what to allow or not and how to work things together for good), they one-up us by saying sovereign means God controls all. If we think God plans some things, they go farther, thinking He plans everything. If we say man is depraved, they say we’re so totally depraved we can’t do anything good at all unless God causes it, even wanting/seeking God. If we think God will be glorified in spite of evil, they take it to the next level and say He is glorified by evil.
It’s all about setting themselves apart from others, above others. And their delight in being “chosen” comes at the expense of the souls of millions of others. It’s sad. And so destructive to God’s character, Jesus’s sacrifice, and the true gospel.
When the genuine, simple, life-saving truth, which every single living individual needs to hear is: “I love you, have always loved you and always desired that you not perish, but turn from wickedness and live.” That’s why Jesus came to seek and to save the lost, because the heart of God is love, not narcissistic glory seeking.
I said something similar, and it was pointed out I was being too harsh, but I did make the point of pride. Where this is harsh is there are different “levels” of Calvinists. There are the dogmatic experienced Pastors, Elders and members of the congregation who are studied and spread it, and even argue in defense of it. These are the prideful ones.
Then there are those who believe it as it is all they have been taught and don’t really seek or question, and don’t think of the logical implications. They just are trying to honor God the best they know how.
Then there are those who don’t even realize what is being taught because of how indirectly it is taught through double speak and subtle deception.
A2A: You took the words out of my mouth. In fact, as I was just driving home, I was thinking I needed to modify my comment to say exactly what you pointed out.
Some of my favorite friends are (unfortunately) Calvinists (but we don’t talk anymore after we left that church). They were/are some of the nicest, most humble, God-fearing, gentle people I know. I think there is a big difference between the sheeple in the congregation who have been brainwashed, shamed, manipulated into Calvinism and those who teach it and do the manipulating.
Many of the good sheeple are sincerely trying to do their best to be the good Calvinists that the Calvinist leaders teach them to be. But it’s the teachers, the educated higher-ups, the MacArthurs and Sprouls and Whites and even the local domineering Calvinist pastors, that I am talking about. They – many of them – are the ones who I think have a pride-disguised-as-humility or insecurity problem. And that’s why they need to find a bunch of followers who hang onto their every word and who run to THEM for the answers that can easily be found in the Bible (answers that the Calvinist leaders twist until they don’t match the Bible anymore).
When I critique Calvinists in general, it’s usually about the dogmatic, teacher-type ones, not the average person in the pew who I think is a victim of the domineering leaders. I pray that those in the congregation will wake up and pay attention to what’s being taught to them, to stop letting the higher-ups spoon-feed them twisted Scripture full of poison.
It is the arrogance too. I teach this because it is what the Bible teaches. It doesn’t have to make sense, but it is true. There aren’t really any good reasons given by the Calvinist as to WHY their theology is true, just that it is (because of a few verses).
The non-calvinist, from what I have seen, doesn’t claim their interpretation as absolute truth, but rather gives reasons on why what they believe fits together with the Bible and is consistent. We don’t say “It doesn’t make sense, but it is true!”. We say, this set of beliefs and interpretations makes more sense, and DOESN’T have logical inconsistencies while fitting with the Bible.
A2A: “this set of beliefs and interpretations makes more sense, and DOESN’T have logical inconsistencies while fitting with the Bible.”
Amen!
TS00″ “When the genuine, simple, life-saving truth, which every single living individual needs to hear is: “I love you, have always loved you and always desired that you not perish, but turn from wickedness and live.” That’s why Jesus came to seek and to save the lost, because the heart of God is love,”
And amen again! How sad and lacking the Calvinist half-gospel is because this isn’t part of it.
That is in part 2! Coming soon!
Welcome Isaac!
Can Piper define what faith is, before he concludes that it is a gift?
Second, in order to be dead, you must first have been alive. Death only happens to the living.
I believe it’s 1 Cor 15:51 which states that the strength of sin is the law.
If that is true, then sin has no power where there is no law.
Romans 5:13, a verse that is ignored by everyone, on both sides states… well, you look it up.
Ed Chapman
“The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law” is 1 Cor 15:56, but that’s close (FYI Google is far better at looking up verses than any Bible search I’ve ever found).
I appreciate your first two points too.
Rom 5:13 is part of a big package of deep theology. NASB20 seems to use sin, transgression and offense for Adam’s same act. Anyway, a lot of this problem tracks back to Augustine’s definition of Original Sin, which most people understand is kooky:)
Eric,
Thank you. I was trying to go off memory. John 3:98, For God so loved the world… lol.
Yes. Augustine was completely wrong on original sin, and Pelegian, or whatever his name is, was close… but he was condemned. If I were alive in those days, I’d be a dead man.
Most reformed folks would be declared heretics. It’s funny hearing James White say that Martin Luther would have him ex-communicated or killed over infant baptism.
The problem with church fathers!!
Now, I’m not reformed, nor a Baptist.
I look at this:
Deuteronomy 1:39
Moreover your little ones, which ye said should be a prey, and your children, which in that day had no knowledge between good and evil, they shall go in thither, and unto them will I give it, and they shall possess it.
Then I look at:
Romans 7:7-9
7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.
8 But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead.
9 For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.
Now. Paul “died” once he knew the law. Children don’t know sin. They are not taught the law in Judaism until bar/bat mitzvah.
Until then, their parents are responsible for the children’s sins.
But, church fathers… people still listen to them for some odd reasons. They aren’t fans of Jews in any way, shape, or form.
Ed Chapman
The other thing missing, regarding the correct explanation that Adam died a spiritual death, meaning separation from God, is that this separation was only temporary, because it was restored based on killing of an animal, in which skins were used to cover their shame.
So to continue that God/ man relationship, God taught them that a sacrifice was needed.
And that’s also how the Jews maintained that relationship as well.
In other words, even tho they were spiritually dead, sacrifice “covered” their sins… until Jesus could finally take them away.
Calvinists only tell 1/4 of the story.
The other side misses things, too.
Ed Chapman
Before I had even studied this or heard the Calvinist interpretation, just my own reading of the Bible, I didn’t take those verses to mean literally completely dead like a corpse. I took it more to mean doomed, or fate was sealed (save for accepting Christ). So the second we sinned our first sin the wages we earned for it was death.
There was nothing we could do to change that. No amount of good deeds, no amount of work, no amount of saying “I’m sorry”. In the court we were “found guilty” of the crime of sin. Our punishment of death was certain. So while there was nothing WE could do to change it, Christ did. He took our punishment for us with work HE did, not work we did.
We just have to have faith He did that and offered that pardon for us. Since Paul clearly explained faith is not a work, it still falls in line with us not being able to save ourselves.
A couple things.
1. What was the name of the Tree in the garden?
The first time you ever sinned doesn’t impute the sin.
Knowledge of the sin does, however.
That’s why the name of that tree is important.
1 John 3:4
… sin is transgression of the law.
Romans 3:21
… the law is the knowledge of sin.
Romans 7:7-9
…I had not known sin but by the law.
2. Works is only pertaining to the law of Moses.
The phrase ” Good Works” is not what “Works” means.
Altho there is no about of good Works that one can be saved, that is true, but the whole use of the word Works only pertains to the law of Moses. All the does and don’ts.
Now, as far as death, the article correctly states that death is when your spirit leaves your body.
James 2:26 states that as well.
Now, contrast that with spiritual death.
That’s when God’s spirit departs you.
Eternal life is when God’s spirit returns to your body.
That is a spiritual resurrection.
That is what born again means. Note the word again?
That has nothing to do with flesh at all. Not the first time, and not the again time, either.
1. Your Spirit in your body is life.
2. Your spirit plus God’s spirit in your body is spiritual life.
We all had spiritual life before knowledge of sin.
We died. We weren’t born dead.
They have not interpreted David’s conception correctly.
Ed Chapman
THE CREATION OF THE WORLD
Once upon a time – there was a divine robot creator in the sky
He created 100 robots to live and move and have their being on planet earth.
All 100 robots were given the GIFT of an infallibly decreed program.
Since it was a program of infallible decrees – it could not be countervailed.
The program was IRRESISTIBLE
THE FALLEN CONDITION OF THE CREATURE
One of the sub-routines within the divine program was called the DEAD IN TOTAL DEPRAVITY AND HATE GOD sub-routine.
This part of the program made it the case that all 100 robots would be infallibly DEAD and infallibly TOTALLY DEPRAVED and infallibly HATE GOD
Consequently – all 100 robots were born IRRESISTIBLY hating god by infallible decree.
THE GOSPEL OF SALVATION
However – the divine robot creator – intended for one robot to be saved from the DEAD IN TOTALLY DEPRAVITY AND HATE GOD program.
So the divine creator gave this robot a GIFT OF FAITH
He removed the DEAD IN TOTAL DEPRAVITY AND HATE GOD sub-routine – and replaced it with the GIFT OF FAITH sub-routine.
And just as it is for all robots – the program is a program of infallible decrees which cannot be countervailed.
Thus the GIFT OF FAITH sub-routine – just as all programs are – is IRRESISTIBLE
Thus 100 robots are divinely and infallibly controlled by programs which are IRRESISTIBLE
But the “Good News” is – DEAD IN TOTAL DEPRAVITY AND HATE GOD robots – can be saved by IRRESISTIBLE GRACE :-]
I am OK with mocking Semi-Gnostics, to a degree. Seems like someone should make an app that displays responses to all their nonsense. I suppose that wouldn’t seem very Christian though…
Calvinists always say “dead people can’t seek God”.
But Amos 5:4 says: “Seek me and live …”
If these people are not yet “alive” then they are currently dead. And yet God is telling them to seek Him. I guess dead people can seek! And more than that, God expects them to.
Excellent verse Heather, I must remember that one.
Thank you, Aiden. 🙂
br.d
There is one more option.
Option 3:
Calvin’s god treats what he knows to be TRUE *AS-IF* it is FALSE
For example:
Calvin’s god knows that he infallibly decrees person_X will NOT seek him
But he communicates the opposite to person_X.
Thus he treats what he knows to be TRUE *AS-IF* it is FALSE
Calvin’s god knows he infallibly decreed Adam will eat the fruit and no other options is granted to Adam.
But he communicates the opposite to Adam
Thus he treats what he knows to be TRUE *AS-IF* it is FALSE
Calvin’s god knows he infallibly decreed Cain would murder Able and no other option is granted to Cain. But he communicates the opposite to Cain.
Thus he treats what he knows to be TRUE *AS-IF* it is FALSE
etc etc etc.
The question then becomes – where does this pattern come from?
Two options:
1) Calvin received divine knowledge of the divine pattern by his super-Apostle divine revelation
2) Calvin simply created a god after his own image
Which option would be the most probable? :-]
Calvin sanctioned the 10/27/1553 burning of Michael Servetus, because Servetus taught against Calvin’s understanding of the Trinity.
Luther led an army to persecute and kill Anabaptists, because Anabaptists refused to baptize their infant children.
My questions are these:
1) Would God save and seal men who committed the above atrocities?
2) Could these men have committed these atrocities if they were being led by the Spirit?
Note: Without the indwelling Holy Spirit they could not understand the things of God. 1 Cor. 2:14
I maintain Calvin and Luther were “false prophets dressed in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly ravenous wolves”.as forewarned by our Lord. Matthew 7:15
Jesus taught, A bad tree cannot produce good fruit and a good tree cannot produce bad fruit; by their fruit you will know them. Matthew 7:16-18,20.
Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Matthew 7:19
Choose good trees with good fruit for your doctrine, for they are being led and taught by the indwelling Holy Spirit.
Reject bad trees and bad fruit for they cannot understand the things of God.
Amen, and Hallelujah! Both those brought forth Catholic baggage, and did not do any favors for the reformation. Those outside of Catholicism, Luther, and Calvin had things more correct than those three sects ever did. And they were condemned.
John 16:2
They shall put you out of the synagogues: yea, the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service.
1saved
1) Would God save and seal men who committed the above atrocities?
br.d
Yes – if their consciences were not seared with a hot iron – such that their consciences could no longer be convicted by the Holy Spirit sufficient to repent
2) Could these men have committed these atrocities if they were being led by the Spirit?
br.d
Absolutely not!
They were under the influence and deception of the spirit of the age.
That spirit which rules all principalities and powers within every age.
We must remember – both Luther and Calvin were the product of Catholicism.
I didn’t know how to leave a random comment so whilst this might not totally fit this article I thought I’d dive in here.
I was bought up Welsh Presbyterian though haven’t followed that way myself. However, passages and thoughts on election and predestination have haunted me down the years. The whole issue reared its ugly head for me earlier this year and thankfully I came across Soteriology101. Great content and I learnt a new, clever sounding word! I’ve literally saturated myself with info and to be honest have learnt so much more about calvinism than I already knew. None of what I’ve learnt makes me any less horrified by the idea it might be true but I know that feeling warm and fuzzy is not a good test of doctrinal soundness.
I got the books about the roots of Augustinian calvinism and The Potters Promise and really enjoyed reading both. However, as soon as I got to the end of the latter book and it suggested reading Romans 9 to 11 I got the wind up again. I can really see how someone even with no calvinistic background could see limited salvation in there. If Calvinism is true then I cannot see any hope of joy or peace. I honestly can even see why people with that believe would have kids. I have two and hope they’ll become firm believers. It’s hard enough knowing there’s no guarantees but on calvinism it’s a real Russian Roulette stake!
This whole issue honestly terrifies me… I don’t find being a Christian the easiest thing anyway but truth isn’t about easy. But if Calvinism is true then I can’t even contemplate how to honestly worship. If it’s true I must believe it and submit to it but I can’t see how I can ever have ripening fruit of the Spirit as a result of it. Submission yes, fear yes, grief yes but not the things that Jesus seemed to want to bring… Like life to the full and peace and a light burden.
How do you decide what’s true when Leighton is intelligent but so is Piper et al. And I’m in a totally different intellectual league where I have to read and re read things to get them to even begin to make sense sometimes. And if I go to the bible it just fuels my anxiety. So I sit on a very painful fence like a rabbit caught in headlights.
Sorry this was so long…. I want to embrace truth, not stuff that is philosophically palatable. Thanks for listening.
Hello Sian and welcome
Your post was totally wonderful!!!
Very thoughtful!
What we all have for many years observed with Calvinism -is how it seeks to propagate itself. The Calvinist knows he will face a believer who has a Biblical understanding of God, and the divine nature, which entails a loving desire for his creatures well-being.
The Calvinist knows – in order to indoctrinate such a person – he has to first tear down that person’s Biblical understanding – in order to replace it with Calvinism’s image of a “Good-Evil” deity who creates the vast majority of his creatures specifically for eternal torment – for his good pleasure.
I would ask you to simply continue taking the careful steps you’ve wisely chosen to take so far.
However – I personally do not have some of your burden.
I was 30 years in the Lord before I became aware of the “Good-Evil” deity of Calvinism.
So I have no problem reading any scripture at all
My mind has never been conditioned to read scripture the way Calvinism conditions the mind to do.
If that can be the case for me – then I believe it can be the case for you.
I think perhaps the key for you will be something I found however.
In examining Calvinism – I discovered it is in fact a doctrine of “Good-Evil”
And it is the aspect of the doctrine – that the Calvinist has an extreme urgency to obfuscate.
The Calvinist is a professing Christian.
So he understands – dishonesty is not a fruit of Christ.
But he cannot comply with the requirement for honesty – because if he tells the WHOLE TRUTH about his belief system – he know people will reject it – and so won’t he.
So the practice of withholding the truth is critical for promoting and defending the doctrine.
Not only must the Calvinist withhold the truth from others in order to make Calvinism acceptable – he must withhold the truth from himself.
Consequently – many Calvinist statements function as lies of omission -in order to obfuscate aspects of the doctrine the Calvinist calculates people will reject.
Many Calvinist statements entail ingenuously deceptive language designed to paint false pictures of things which underlying doctrine actually rejects.
And many Calvinist statements entail a form of dishonesty known as “Altruistic Dishonesty”
This is the dishonesty that you observe – for example – with a wife whose husband is abusive. She covers up for him. She is dishonesty – but for “Altruistic” reasons.
As time goes by – I believe you will recognize those as critical tell-tale signs to look for within the Calvinist world-view.
Those tell-tall signs have become a powerful antidote for me – against the poison of Calvinism.
My prayer for you – is that the Lord will graciously give you the same insights he gave me and others – which function as such a powerful antidote to the poison of Calvinism!
Blessings!
Br.d
Hello Sian and welcome, great to hear from you.
I understand the struggle. And that’s a good sign, because so many people just swallow Calvinism whole without questioning it or looking into it deeper.
When Calvinism first took over our church under a new pastor, I freaked out, wondering if what he was saying could be true. Actually, first I raised my eyebrows like “What is he teaching!?!” Then I got alarmed like “THAT’S what he’s teaching!?!” Then I got concerned like “What if he’s right in what’s he’s teaching?” And then when I began to research it and see that so many big-name theologians are Calvinists, I freaked out, wondering if they were all right and I was the only one who thought Calvinism was wrong.
Thankfully, I decided to look into one more pastor I always liked – Tony Evans (the pastor we watch online now that we left our church) – and I decided that if he agreed with Calvinism like everyone else then I would just have to accept it as true. But I was so relieved to see that he didn’t, that his teachings match up with the plain understanding of Scripture, which contradicts Calvinism. It gave me the courage and hope to go on, to continue in my beliefs that Calvinism was wrong and to keep researching why it’s wrong. (And of course, Sot101 is a big help and all the commenters here, as is Kevin Thompson from Beyond the Fundamentals.)
Keep researching how Calvinism is wrong, how it twists the Bible, and how Calvinist pastors/theologians manipulate people into it. Any theology that relies on taking verses out of context, redefining biblical words/terms, and shaming people from questioning it ought to make us think that something must be wrong with it. (For my research into all this, check out my blog https://anticalvinistrant.blogspot.com/. The more I’ve researched it, the more confident I am that Calvinism is totally wrong and damaging to God’s character and the gospel.)
Remember it doesn’t matter how intelligent any teacher/pastor is. The Pharisees were super intelligent too, but super wrong. All that matters is if they accurately understand and teach Scripture, as it is written, plainly and clearly. And I think it is a huge red flag that Calvinism needs people to read big Calvinist books for months and months, being guided by Calvinist teachers, before they can begin to (supposedly) understand Scripture and the gospel. Is God that unclear in what He says in the Bible that He needs the help of Calvinist theologians to reword everything He said to make it “clearer”? Or is it only unclear because Calvinism messes it all up?
God bless you on your journey to truth. Keep going, you are on the right path!
Thanks so much Br.d…really appreciate you taking the time to reply.
I don’t think I can edit my first post but I made a bit of a typo… typical for me 🙄 What I meant to say re having kids is that I can’t see how anyone with that belief, ie a calvinistic one, would want to have kids. The sheer randomness of election means you’d have to really dissociate your hopes and dreams from what you perceive to be a very real potential reality. If that makes sense.
I want to sit and mull over all you’ve said… but wanted you to know I really appreciate your response and your empathy. I’m glad you’ve never come at scripture wired for condemnation… its not pleasant! It makes it very hard to listen to what God might be saying and adjusting thoughts appropriately. I once managed to feel told off by God just reading the ‘Be still and know that I am God’ verse… 😂 Actually it was cos I read the notes that said the original for BE STILL means STOP IT! A person who doesn’t have a condemnatory slant on the bible may well hear God gently saying ‘stop it… be still… be at peace!’ But I just heard ‘STOP IT!!!!!’ Like a stern, authoritarian grown up would say it. That’s why I believe it’s so important for core beliefs about God and His character and what the Bible really teaches about soteriology etc to be thoroughly worked out and correct. ( Yey… I got to use the new, long, clever sounding word!) If our beliefs are wonky, we’ll either be lulled into a false sense of security or terrified of God for reasons that are erroneous and insulting to Him. I do hope I end up fully believing that I’ve fallen into the latter camp rather than being convinced that calvinism must be true. And to counter the response that says, ” Who are you to question God. He is allowed to act however he wants…” I already know that…that’s what scares the living daylights out of me! 😱
Thank you Sian,
On you statement about having kids – it is highly understandable!
And as a matter of fact – it is an aspect of the doctrine which no NORMAL human can avoid.
But the human mind is extremely flexible.
Take for example a girl who has spent the vast majority of her young life reading romance novels.
Her bed-room is full of romance novels – and she has a particular set of novels that are special to her – which she reads over and over.
She meets a boy at a party who pays a great deal of attention to her.
Could this be the one she asks herself?
He courts her – and eventually asks if he can move into her apartment.
Of course she says yes! Her life-long dreams are coming true!
A little later – her friends and parents start to notice she has bruises on her face and body.
She tells them she is clumsy and has accidents.
But they know what signs to look for – and they eventually recognize what is going on.
When they confront her – they do so with loving kindness and with rational reasoning
She adamantly rejects all of it.
She will manufacture 1001 reasons why there is no problem
She will not allow herself to see the truth.
She has a belief that she is fully committed to – and she is not going to give it up.
If her case turns out like most – the beatings and abuse will simply become worse and she will eventually be forced into reality.
But in the mean time she lives *AS-IF* there is no problem.
She goes about her daily life *AS-IF* she is in a loving normal relationship.
As a second example – consider the man who adopts Solipsism as a belief system.
The doctrine stipulates that all persons outside of himself are figments of his imagination.
But what happens when he is TRUE to his belief system?
He knows – if he treats his wife as a figment of his imagination (especially in the bedroom) she is not going to take kindly to that. There will be consequences!
He knows – if he treats his boss at work as a figment of his imagination – there will be consequences!
So what does he do?
He treats his wife *AS-IF* she is real – in order to avoid consequences his belief system imposes on him. He treats his boss *AS-IF* he is real – also to avoid consequences.
And this is exactly what the Calvinist does also.
Solipsism is a radical belief system.
In order to avoid its consequences – the believer must live *AS-IF* Solipsism is FALSE.
Calvinism is just as much a radical belief system
In order for the Calvinist to retain a sense of human normalcy – and human personhood – he is forced to treat the doctrine *AS-IF* it is false.
Like the Solipsist – he asserts the doctrine is TRUE.
But he treats the doctrine *AS-IF* it is FALSE in order to avoid its consequences.
As you become more familiar with Calvinism – you will eventually recognized – Calvinism’s language is a language of DOUBLE-SPEAK.
Like the girl whose boyfriend is abusing her – the Calvinist lives *AS-IF* certain aspects of Calvinism are FALSE.
Like the Solipsist who needs to avoid the consequences of his belief system – the Calvinist treats various aspects of his belief system *AS-IF* they are FALSE.
That should answer your question – about how Calvinists can get married and have children and see no problem with making statements – like John Piper made concerning his children – when he stated he has no way of knowing if his children were created to be a part of the elect.
What Piper is acknowledging – is that he has no way of knowing if his children were created specifically for eternal torment in a lake of fire.
But Piper cannot allow himself to be that honest.
So he will try to frame the issue within language designed to obfuscate the “Evil” part of the doctrine
And frame the issue within language designed to maximize an appearance of divine benevolence.
The Calvinist has a “Love-Hate” relationship with the doctrine of decrees.
Just like the young girl with her abusive boyfriend – the Calvinist – in order to evade the dark implications of the doctrine – conditions his mind to treat the doctrine *AS-IF* it is FALSE.
He is forced to do that – in order to retain a sense of human normalcy and human person-hood
Blessings!
Sian – I believe you are on the right track. I had a similar crises of faith when I started to dig into Determinism. As mentioned above, my family comes from a long line of Lutherans, so even after I left the church I still had a great deal of respect for Luther. You asked above, who do we believe (sorry it’s difficult to chase down exact quotes)? Well for me, I had to basically give up on Luther so I could believe the Bible. It’s not about Luther vs. Leighton vs. Calvin vs. Piper, it’s about the Word that outclasses them all. I recommend you give up on trusting people (as I found I was) and keep studying Romans 9-11 until it looks clear to you.
You also mentioned a light burden, and Jesus does in fact bring that. That promise from Jesus ties in with Hebrews 3-4. Again I am not trying to pump my new site (ick, just found another typo), but I laid out a quick outline of Rest at wordlight.net/find_rest.html . I have not plumbed the depth of predestination, and I don’t think Leighton or Paul has either, but we shouldn’t be expected to understand timelessness. I hope you find peace as you study His Word.
And BRD – Thanks for your post as well. IMHO, I think the Determinist mindset is even darker than you mention. Despite Jesus extoling the virtues of light, here we have Determinists (like the hypocritical Gnostics before them) hiding their deepest teachings from the sheep. I think of Piper in the jail, where he angrily denounces an inmate for a very fair question, simply because Calvinism (as far as I can tell) is completely bankrupt on the issue.
I was given basically the same response for decades. Frankly, even though it may not seem cordial, I would prefer that soteriology101 consider that Determinists are preaching Another Gospel (Galatians 1) and say so plainly. As it is wrong that the abuser keeps the abused in silence, and keeps his crimes in the darkness, so too that soteriology is too important to hide the light. Am I wrong here??? John 1, says Jesus is light. Apologies if I am not being sensitive enough about the internal politics of the SBC, but so be it. And apologies if I am harping on that point.
I think of the blind leading the blind (as they both will fall into the ditch). My 2 cents, but I think the ministry should be geared more toward pulling the Sian’s out of Determinism, and warning the Baby Christians about Determinism, and less toward convincing the Young, Restless and Reformed of the error of their ways. To be honest, I see Mammon and pride that keep promoting the errors of Determinism, and that is why they keep abusing.
Regardless, many, many blessings to this ministry.
br.d
Thank you Eric!
And I thank the Lord that he delivered you out of Calvinism’s ensnarement! :-]
I’m replying to Eric, but it’s generally to all:
And this is hugely important, because Romans 9-11 is so controversial, and it’s all due to BOTH SIDES thinking it has to do with “predestination” or “total depravity”, or some kind of reformation doctrine about everyone.
You can’t read Romans 9-11 like that at all.
My goodness, it was the Jews only who was given the Law of Moses to seek THAT Righteousness. They were TOLD to seek that righteousness.
And this is the answer they gave:
Deuteronomy 6:25
And it shall be our righteousness, if we observe to do all these commandments before the Lord our God, as he hath commanded us.
Remember, God gave them THAT righteousness to follow. That righteousness wasn’t something that they just wanted to do. They were ORDERED to DO, to WORK.
Deuteronomy 29:4
Yet the Lord hath not given you an heart to perceive, and eyes to see, and ears to hear, unto this day.
And that is in Romans 11:8.
So you can’t interpret Romans 9-11 as a reformation doctrine at all. It’s dealing with a certain people, and those people are not us lowly Gentiles.
Romans 10:3
For they being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.
They are “ignorant” of God’s righteousness.
Romans 10:5
For Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law, That the man which doeth those things shall live by them.
Romans 3:21
But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;
The Jews “under the law of Moses” are blinded by that concept, and it is because they were ORDERED to abide by the righteousness of the law.
And what is the purpose of the law of Moses?
Romans 5:20
Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound:
The law was given to THEM “so that” sin would INCREASE, not DECREASE. It was so that Grace would have its meaning.
And what will they (Jews under the law get in the END?
Romans 11:31
Even so have these also now not believed, that through your mercy “they” also may obtain mercy.
Romans 11:32
For God hath concluded “them” all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.
Romans 9-11 is about them, not us.
Now, I previously referenced Deuteronomy 29:4 with ROMANS 11:8.
Let’s now contrast that with the following:
Romans 15:21
But as it is written, To whom he was not spoken of, they shall see: and they that have not heard shall understand.
Do you see, that is for the Gentiles?
So again, the Jews:
Romans 11:8/Deu 29:4
Yet the Lord hath not given you an heart to perceive, and eyes to see, and ears to hear, unto this day.
Conclusion, blind Jews, vs. Gentiles that can see. The only ones needing their blind to be healed is the Jews.
John 9:39-41
39 And Jesus said, For judgment I am come into this world, that they which see not might see; and that they which see might be made blind.
40 And some of the Pharisees which were with him heard these words, and said unto him, Are we blind also?
41 Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth.
Pay very close attention to the last verse.
I used to listen to Hank Hanegraaff on the radio, and I got so angry at him during one episode that I shut him off, and haven’t listened to him since. And I’m glad, because he later went to a different sect of Christianity that goes against the things he used to be the BIBLE ANSWER MAN for.
But what got me angry was his statement that said, “God is not some kind of a ‘cosmic racist’. I thought to myself, this has nothing to do with racism at all.
It’s that God CHOSE Israel to tell the story about himself, THRU Israel…hence Romans 9-11.
All “reformers” from both sides, or all sides, needs to rid themselves that Romans 9-11 is about themselves. It’s not.
Ed Chapman
Also, if one reads Romans 9 properly, Paul is basically telling us that “expository preaching” is not all what it is cracked up to be today.
The Jews were promised an inheritance of the physical land of Israel, thru Isaac. Promised Land and Seed.
But that same promise is ALSO a spiritual promise of Land and Seed, the seed being Jesus (Galatians 3:16).
But the Jews don’t see that spiritual interpretation at all. And that is what Romans 9 is laying out for us.
Romans 9:8
That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.
We are the children of God thru Jesus.
But as the Bible also insists:
Galatians 3:29
And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.
Galatians 3:7
Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham.
Romans 9 is contrasting the spiritual from the carnal. This does not negate out that promised real estate in the middle east. All it does is tell the story that Isaac isn’t the spiritual promise, but Jesus is, and the inheritance is not a small piece of real estate in the middle east, but heaven.
But the Jews are too blind to see that, all because they were ORDERED to follow the WORKS (Law of Moses) to obtain THAT righteousness to EARN a wage of eternal life…but the wages of sin is death. Therefore, the law of Moses was a set up for FAIL.
And God knew it, based on Romans 5:20, that the law was given (TO JEWS, NOT GENTILES) to increase sin, not to decrease it.
Good post, Brdmod. I think it’s telling the Piper’s son – Abraham – has totally abandoned the faith and gone the other direction, making nasty videos against Christianity. This is what happens to a lot of people (a lot of Christian musicians lately too) brought up under Calvinism.
Sadly, they have been led to believe that Calvinism is gospel truth, and so they end up rejecting the gospel and God instead of just rejecting Calvinism and finding out the truth of what the Bible really teaches. We’ll never know the whole scope of damage done by Calvinism to the Church and people’s hearts, faiths, and eternities until heaven. But I am sure we can thank Calvinism for many of the atheists and damaged, struggling Christians out there. it’s sad.
That’s unfortunate about Mr Piper’s son.
But totally understandable
At some point as a young man he may have listened to the tape of his father telling people he did not know if his god created his son for eternal torment for his good pleasure.
Listening to my father tell people that would have been a special moment!
Great post, Eric.
And you said: ” Frankly, even though it may not seem cordial, I would prefer that soteriology101 consider that Determinists are preaching Another Gospel (Galatians 1) and say so plainly.”
I totally agree! This is one thing I really like about Kevin Thompson from Beyond the Fundamentals; he doesn’t pussyfoot around or try to be overly gentle in opposing Calvinism.
(I think it’s good that Leighton is more gentle, though, because different personalities speak to different people, so we need both the bold “call it like it is” ones and the gentler ones.)
I agree with Kevin when he says that Calvinists will just use our politeness against us, and that’s one reason he speaks bluntly and calls it what it is plainly and clearly. If we are overly nice and gentle, concerned too much about hurting feelings or appearing harsh, Calvinists will just use that time and vagueness to continue pushing their theology in whatever ways they can.
I think there needs to be clearer lines drawn, to help those who are in Calvinism understand the significant error of their views and to help those who are struggling with wondering what the truth is and if Calvinists or non-Calvinists are right. There’s too much at stake to be too gentle and wishy-washy.
That’s just my two cents on it, and it’s why I write very forcefully against it and don’t mince words. (I am strong against the theology itself, but I do believe in being loving and gentle and respectful with the people as much as possible, the average Calvinist in the congregation. I think many of them are truly good people with good hearts who are just trying to do their best to honor God and live their faith the way they think they should. But I am much more firm against the Calvinist teachers, theologians, and pastors who are the ones leading people astray, stealthily, deceptively, and manipulatively.)
Brdmod: “At some point as a young man he may have listened to the tape of his father telling people he did not know if his god created his son for eternal torment for his good pleasure.”
And he might have heard “But if God didn’t choose my son, it might make me sad but I will just have to praise Him anyway because everything He decides is for His glory and for our good. I don’t have to like it, but I do have to accept His sovereign control over all. All that matters is that God is glorified. And if takes predestining people to hell, even my own son, then who am I to talk back to Him?”
Of course, we are just speculating here, but this IS Calvinist theology. That’s gotta mess with the heads of kids of Calvinist parents, to feel like God might not love you as much as your parents do, that there is ultimately no one to turn to, that there might not be any hope for you.
“But, hey, son, let’s keep our fingers crossed; you never know. You might have been chosen. And if you were, you can feel secure in knowing you’re one of the elected, saved ones. But you just won’t know for sure till you’re dead. And there’s nothing you could’ve done about it either way anyway, so let’s just see what happens.”
Yes! Well said Heather!
This reminds me of the story of the Calvinist pastor walking his little daughter home after the church service. She is quietly thinking about things he said in his sermon. She looks up to him and asks
Daddy – did god create me specifically for eternal torment in a lake of fire for his good pleasure?
Brdmod: “Daddy – did god create me specifically for eternal torment in a lake of fire for his good pleasure?”
Reminds me of a post my Calvinist pastor wrote on the church blog about God choosing to harden people’s heart, and a terrified believer commented saying “Dear God, please don’t harden me!”
How sad that this is the image of God they have. Lots of security and comfort in Calvinism, huh?.
br.d
“I have absolute assurance of my salvation” is what the Calvinist confidently told everyone – exactly seven days before the night he would go to bed and wake up in the lake of fire.
In the article, under the heading, “Death as Separation”, the following verse is referenced:
Romans 6:11 ESV
“So you also must consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus.”
The following needs to be added:
Romans 7:8
…For without the law sin was dead.
Romans 6:7
For he that is dead is freed from sin.
Now you can add verse 11:
Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Galatians 2:19
For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God.
Romans 7:4
Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law
Ed Chapman
Heather wrote: “There’s too much at stake to be too gentle and wishy-washy.” Right on.
As a suggestion for one of Leighton’s posts, there is a lot I can learn from him about how to be cordial. Maybe he did one? Yes I’ve seen him get tense at times, but God bless that man and his patience! I would love to learn more about his thoughts on being “cordial” and respectful and all those Biblical things that are a struggle for most of us. Hey, I’m a biologist, and it’s natural for people to manipulate their environment without any concern for the consequences. But I really stuggle with setting boundaries with people that love to violate them. In this case, the boundary is soteriology, the Good News, and Determinists are running it over with a Mack truck. Leighton has threaded the needle and I think the SBC should be honored to have such a Godly man on faculty.
If I didn’t make it clear above, I definitely think Galatians (ie contra works-righteousness) applies. As I see it, all of Determinism boils down to respecting persons (ie James) and working so hard that God will certainly choose you. The Determinst must think that at least, if God did wind up sending them to hell, the Determinist would have a reason to blame God, because of all those works.
What convoluted baloney. Abraham Piper is right. Don’t blame him a bit. Of course it’s sad tho…
I am very, very convinced that we should not just “Say nothing if you can’t say anything nice.” To me, that’s code for letting your fears dictate your actions, which is sin (Luke 12).
All that to say that I haven’t found the right balance yet, but I know that I should not present myself as angry to people that are leading others astray (or insult me, or are fleecing the flock,…). It is “my business” as a Christian to comment, even rebuke and argue, because I have been shown the light and it should not be kept under a bushel. How I would have loved to see how The Master did it, or at least Paul or James!
I hope those thoughts are germane to the topic, and I am not hijacking. This seems like a llogical conclusion to their twisted logic.
Hi Sian, here’s a thought for these Calvinists!
“But evil men and impostors will proceed from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived” (2 Tim. 3:13).
If everyone is born “TOTALLY Depraved” how could anyone become worse? Why does this passage say, “evil men” as if there’s any other kind? Because, if everyone is born “Totally Depraved” then EVERYONE is evil.
Calvinism just won’t work.
br.d
Good morning Aidan – and good question!
What we find – is that “Total Depravity” is what is typically called an “Accordion” phrase.
It is “Accordion” in the sense that its meaning can be shrunk down to whatever the Calvinist needs to shrink it down to – and expanded out to whatever the Calvinist needs to expand it to.
When any Calvinist – who has a propensity for honesty is painted into a corner – and forced to give a precise meaning for it – what we find is that it really should be called “One unique inability” rather than “Total Depravity”.
Because the Calvinist will eventually admit that
1) “IQ” has nothing to do with it.
The smarted man in all of human history can be plagued with it.
2) Human goodness and human benevolence has nothing to do with it
The most godly man in all of human history can be plagued with it.
So what it boils down to is simply that Calvin’s god has not endowed humans to be born with the capacity to believe on Jesus as one’s savior.
That is why it should really be called “One unique inability”.
But the Calvinist knows that if he acknowledges that as the TRUTH about Calvinism – then he is going to be faced answering the question – why does Calvin’s god not endow humans to be born with the capacity to believe on Jesus as one’s savior.
The Calvinist knows – the answer is
Calvin’s god creates/designs THE MANY specifically for eternal torment in a lake of fire for his good pleasure. So that is what he endows them with.
Thanks Brd,
I’m curious. Would they not say that man is born depraved (by God’s design of course) and that God only chooses (by His predetermined plan from all eternity) to save a select few and condemn the rest? Their depravity accounting for their unigue inability?
br.d
Hello Aidan
The Calvinist has a significant urgency to make Calvinism appear as benevolent as possible – in order to maximize the potential “buy-in” of NON-Calvinist Christians – hoping to get NON-Calvinist Christians to find Calvinism acceptable.
So on behalf of that urgency Calvinists will equivocate on this particular topic.
They will say – as you’ve pointed out – that out of the population of humanity – Calvin’s god chooses those whom he will save and those whom he will not.
But this is an example of the dishonesty Calvinism seduces Calvinists into.
The TRUE picture follows:
1) According to Calvinism’s interpretation of the “divine potter” in Roman’s 9 – we have a god (divine potter) who at the foundation of the world – first conceives of every human creature (vessel) he is going to create.
2) Certain vessels are conceived in his mind – to be specifically created/designed as “vessels of honor”
3) Certain vessels are conceived in his mind – to be specifically created/designed as “vessels of wrath”.
John Calvin
-quote
by the eternal good pleasure of god THOUGH THE REASON DOES NOT APPEAR, they are NOT FOUND but MADE worthy of destruction. – (Concerning the Eternal Predestination of god pg 121)
John Calvin
-quote
the wicked themselves HAVE BEEN CREATED for this very end—that they may perish. – (Commentaries Romans 9:18)
Now many Calvinists do not like this picture.
So they will try to obfuscate it – by trying to paint a picture of people who are FOUND to be worthy of destruction – rather than MADE to be worthy of destruction.
And by attempting to paint this picture – they are lying to themselves – and to you – about the doctrine – in order to remove the specter of divine evil.
Excellent Brd, you are a fountain of knowledge. Determinism seems to be at the back of every doctrine of theirs!
Aiden: “Calvinism just won’t work.”
I agree, and I think that’s why they discourage people from examining it too closely with manipulative, shaming things like “Who are you to talk back to God? Humble Christians accept God’s sovereignty.”
As if it can effectively shut down all contradictions and errors in logic.
And as if it’s really “talking back to God” anyway, when – in Calvinism – God preplanned/ordained/caused it for His glory.
And why, I wonder, would Calvinists criticize people for “talking back” to Calvi-god anyway, when he “ordained” it for his glory? Are they trying to deny him his glory? Do they think they know better what’s glorifying to him?
Calvinism really doesn’t work – on multiple fronts.
It only “appears” to work if they ignore everything wrong with it or slap on manipulative pat answers that really make no sense.
Agreed on all fronts! Then what gets really funny is they try to discredit the use of logic and reason as ungodly or “as the Greeks did” and then USE logic and reason themselves when defending their position. To me, logic and reason is so necessary, it is part of God’s orderly creation! We wouldn’t even be able to have a conversation about ANYTHING, let alone God, if we didn’t have logical and reasonable constants to work with!
What the Calvinist inadvertently (I hope not intentional) ends up doing is saying YOUR logic and reasoning is invalid, but MINE IS valid. Logic and reason is like math though, it is constant and universal. If properly followed, it leads to truth, just like properly solving a math equation gets a solution.
My experience is that after demonstrating the logical contradictions of his arguments, the Calvinist will inevitably shrug and fall back on ‘God’s logic being above man’s’ or some such nonsensical statement. In other words, since they cannot make a logical case, they will simply renounce logic. Which is, of course, illogical. 😉
A2A
Then what gets really funny is they try to discredit the use of logic and reason as ungodly or “as the Greeks did” and then USE logic and reason themselves when defending their position
br.d
Yes well said!
When it comes to logic – the Calvinist is like the dishonest lawyer trying to figure out a way of getting around the law.
The laws which govern language are extremely loose – such that language is easy to manipulate and use for the process of misleading people. Almost all politicians are all lawyers who are experts in manipulating language in order to mislead.
In stark contrast – the laws which govern logic have evolved over time – and have become FIXED. The law of non-contradiction for example – is a law the Calvinist is constantly trying to figure out a way of getting around.
The general list of logical fallacies are so readily available to anyone today – that if one is willing to learn them – one can readily recognize when a Calvinist is trying to get around a law of logic.
When a Calvinist argues that your logic is “Human” logic which cannot be applied to the divine things of god – he is playing the role of the dishonest lawyer who has a need to find a way to get around the law. In this case – the laws which govern logic.
Brethren,
James 1:18
Of His own will He brought us forth by the word of truth, that we might be a kind of firstfruits of His creatures. NKJV
Firstfruits refers to first among converts or believers (Rev. 14:4; 1 Cor. 16:15).
James epistle was the first New Testament document (45 to 50 A.D.). Therefore, it superseded the writings of Paul, John, Peter, Matthew, Mark, Luke and Jude.
James says he was brought forth by the word of truth and he was a kind of firstfruit of all God’s creatures (creation).
How can James this – he was not a disciple of Christ? He was a half brother of Jesus and his entire family thought Jesus had lost his mind (Mark 3:21).
I maintain James was a kind of firstfruit because he was chosen before God created the foundation of the world along with the prophets, disciples, writers of scripture and a few others.
Yours in Christ,
1saved
1saved
……..chosen before God created the foundation of the world……
br.d
Hello 1saved – can I ask you a question
Do you hold the Calvinist position that WHATSOEVER COMES TO PASS within creation at every instance in time – has been chosen by god – before he created the foundation of the world?
Thanks in advance
Br.d,
You asked, “Do you hold the Calvinist position that WHATSOEVER COMES TO PASS within creation at every instance in time – has been chosen by god – before he created the foundation of the world?”
No.
God is all knowing, all powerful; everywhere present, unchanging and cannot lie.
Therefore, I believe God can choose to know anything, but He can also choose to not know something.
He chose to know and elect His prophets, writers of Scripture and a few others before He created the foundation of the world.
God chooses to know how many hairs are upon our head, how many grains of sand are upon the beach, etc.
However, “A sparrow does not fall from the sky unless our heavenly father allows it” should not to be extrapolated to “God directs all things.”
Note: Jesus did not know who had touched Him in a crowd, which should not be considered evidence that He is not omnipotent.
1saved
However, “A sparrow does not fall from the sky unless our heavenly father ALLOWS it” should not to be extrapolated to “God directs all things.”
br.d
When you say “god directs all things” – I think what you mean is “god CAUSES all things”.
As you may know – because Calvinism is founded on EXHAUSTIVE DIVINE DETERMINISM (as enunciated in Calvinism’s doctrine of decrees) – the Calvinist has a “Deterministic” definition for terms like “Allow” and “Permit” which deviate from the standard and commonly held definitions for those terms.
The term “Permit” for example – is from the Latin “permettere” :
To let pass, to let go, to let loose, to give up, to hand over, to allow, or to grant.
For Calvin – conceptions of god letting something pass, letting something go, letting something loose, or handing over something, is simply anathema – because it would represent a compromise in divine sovereignty over all creation.
R.C. Sproul
-quote
“There is no such thing as a maverick molecule”
Calvinism thus rejects the STANDARD definitions for the terms “Allow” and “Permit” when it comes to Calvin’s god.
Divine permission in Calvinism works as follows:
1) What is divinely CAUSED is permitted
2) What is NOT divinely CAUSED is NOT permitted.
John Calvin
-quote
The creatures…are so governed by the secret counsel of god, that NOTHING HAPPENS but what he has knowingly and willingly decreed. (Institutes, 1, Chp 16, Par. 3)
Calvin himself – spent a lot of time and ink arguing against this detractors who took the opposite opinion. That god does “ALLOW” things – per the common definition of the term.
Calvin very harshly rejected these notions of god “ALLOWING” anything.
THE STRUGGLE OF TODAY’S CALVINIST:
Many Calvinists today do not find that aspect of Calvinism palatable.
They want an ARMINIAN god – who “ALLOWS” things to happen – because they don’t want to attribute their god as the CAUSE of evil events – as is the case in TRUE Calvinism.
Consequently – many Calvinists today wear their Calvinism as a kind of “wide phylactery”.
They are Calvinist on the outside – and Arminian on the inside.
These Calvinists are lovingly called “Calminians” :-]
Br.d,
You wrote, “When you say “god directs all things” – I think what you mean is “god CAUSES all things””
No, I think “directs” is what I meant and when you take what I wrote out of context you miss the meaning.
My meaning: God allowing something to happen should not be extended to mean God directs everything to happen.
Scripture was written under the direction/supervision of the Holy Spirit – did the writers have free will to write what they wrote? Yes, but God could also influence them through numerous ways. He could speak directly to them, He could have them receive dreams, visions, angels, prophets, etc. until what they wrote was inerrant and infallible.
In a sense “God caused all things” because He created all things.
1) Where there is no law, there is no sin. Sin came into the world through the law – the knowledge of all good and evil – when Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit.
2) God created man in His own image, for His own purposes and reasons.
3) God created all matter, all life, and directs/causes weather.
1saved
Scripture was written under the direction/supervision of the Holy Spirit – did the writers have FREE WILL to write what they wrote?
br.d
Creaturely freedom is another conception defined uniquely in Calvinism – because once again – the foundational core of Calvinism is EXHAUSTIVE DIVINE DETERMINISM. So many concepts have to be defined Deterministically.
Once again John Calvin explains:
-quote
The creatures…are so governed by the secret counsel of god, that NOTHING HAPPENS but what he has knowingly and willingly decreed. (Institutes, 1, Chp 16, Par. 3)
Thus in Calvinism:
The creature is “Free” to be/do ONLY that which was knowingly and willingly decreed.
Simply because NOTHING but that which is decreed is permitted to happen.
Therefore in Calvinism – the only impulses and perceptions which can come to pass within the human brain – are those impulses and perceptions which were knowingly and willingly decreed.
Academic Calvinism classifies creaturely freedom as “COMPATIBLISM”
Reformed scholar Dr. Oliver Crisp:
-quote
A theological Compatibilist would say, god determines what comes to pass. And that is CONSISTENT (i.e. COMPATIBLE) with me being free…..provided our account of freedom is THIN ENOUGH that it can be made CONSISTENT (i.e. COMPATIBLE) with god determining all that comes to pass.
Thus in Calvinism Adam was
1) Free to eat the fruit
Because eating the fruit was knowingly and willingly decreed to infallibly come to pass – and thus COMPATIBLE with what was determined.
2) NOT Free to NOT eat the fruit
Because NOT eating the fruit was the opposite of what was knowingly and willingly decreed to infallibly come to pass – and thus NOT COMPATIBLE with what was determined.
1saved
In a sense “God caused all things” because He created all things
br.d
This would be a contradiction *IF* your definition of the term “Allow” is the standard definition.
For example – we can acknowledge god created the human brain which has impulses and perceptions.
But for the Non-Calvinist – it does not then follow that god CAUSES every sinful evil impulse and perception which comes to pass within the human brain.
But within Calvinims – Calvin’s god FIRST CONCIEVES – and then CAUSES every sinful evil impulse to infallibly and irresisribly come to pass within the human brain.
And those impulses Calvin’s god decrees come to pass within the human brain at any TIME-T are the only impulses which are granted existence to that human at that time.
1saved:
God created man in His own image
br.d
Yes – but again – in the Calvinist system – there is difference in the image granted.
One part of Calvin’s god’s image – entails the ability to choose between [A] and [NOT A]
In Calvinism – that part of the divine image is not granted to man.
In Calvinism – per the doctrine of decrees:
For every human event and every human impulse – there is never granted more than ONE SINGLE PREDESTINED RENDERED-CERTAIN option.
So man is never granted the function of choosing between [A] and [NOT A]
Br.d,
You have a great understanding of Calvin’s false doctrine. It must have taken you a great amount of time to research everything Calvin wrote. My question is this. “Wouldn’t have been a better use of your time to learn what is true rather than to study what you knew to be false?”
Do you know how we learn what is true? Answer: By persevering trough trials of faith to be perfected and asking God for wisdom in faith (James 1:3-5).
You wrote. “So man is never granted the function of choosing between [A] and [NOT A].”
Suppose In order to resolve a breakfast choice conflict between her children, a mom flips a coin and lets the decision be determined by the result. Heads she’ll make pancakes, tails she’ll make waffles. One child may not like the outcome, but at least can’t claim bias by their mother. Would Calvinists say the mother was not granted choice and the children were not granted choice because God caused everything, i.e. the conflict, the decision to flip the coin and the outcome?
1saved
Wouldn’t have been a better use of your time to learn what is true rather than to study what you knew to be false?”
br.d
Thank you for the compliment!
And at a point in time – I asked myself the same question.
But the Lord has used it to help people who are in various situations.
There are some Non-Calvinists who are unaware that Calvinist’s work very hard a influencing them. They have been indoctrinated with Calvinist concepts and teaches without realizing it. Some of this is done through Calvinist daily bible reading materials – which when marketed do not divulge the fact they are Calvinist indoctrination materials.
Then there are Non-Calvinists who have a pastor who lied his way into the position and the pastoral search committee was not aware Calvinists would do such a thing and not savvy enough to detect it. Those pastors will teach Calvinism deceptively – not letting the congregation know they are being taught Calvinism.
So over the years – I’ve found the emphasis the Lord has put into my heart and mind on Calvinism – has helped people.
And thanks for the kind words! :-]
I had a Calvinist ask me pretty much the same question recently. ‘Why do non-Calvinists waste so much time on sites like Sot 101, instead of just focusing on winning the lost?’ The first irony is in the fact that, under his system, there is no such thing as ‘winning the lost’, because none are lost – only rejected.
The second irony is that he ignores, or is likely unaware of the enormous, coordinated and ceaseless campaign that Calvinism has orchestrated for many years to disseminate their theology and, hopefully, gain many followers. There are various theories about the origins of this campaign, but I view these Calvinist loyalists as, wittingly or unwittingly, dupes of the Evil One to sow confusion, fear and lack of trust in the true, loving, God who has demonstrated his defeat and served him notice that his time is short.
Whereas the true work of those who put their trust in God is to increase in faith, knowledge and wisdom so that they might lead others out of the slavery of sin and death, Calvinism perpetuates a false assurance and a destructive narcissism. And its victims have no idea that they are deceived.
In my opinion, the growing contingent of men and women who are seeking information and assurance from Sot101 and similar sites illustrates the need for a response to this well-orchestrated attempted takeover of Christianity. Many converts to Calvinism eventually find themselves the victims of fear, despair and/or loss of faith. Or they see their children rejecting this caricature of God as if it is the only option to embracing it, like John Piper’s son so tragically has.
Thank you Sot101 for all of the time, study, thought and prayer that goes into offering a scriptural, logical and faith-building alternative to the monstrous, soul-numbing assertions of Calvinism. Many need assistance deconstructing from the faulty system into which they were unknowingly indoctrinated, and regaining the true assurance, hope and joy that comes from knowing and walking with the God who loves them, seeks them and desires to redeem them from sin and death.
Wonderfully said!
Yes – I always get a kick out of how much Calvinism forces Calvinists into a state of DOUBLE-MINDEDNESS
And they are totally oblivious to it.
TS00,
You replied to Br.d the following:
“I had a Calvinist ask me pretty much the same question recently. ‘Why do non-Calvinists waste so much time on sites like Sot 101, instead of just focusing on winning the lost?’ The first irony is in the fact that, under his system, there is no such thing as ‘winning the lost’, because none are lost – only rejected.
The second irony is that he ignores, or is likely unaware of the enormous, coordinated and ceaseless campaign that Calvinism has orchestrated for many years to disseminate their theology and, hopefully, gain many followers. There are various theories about the origins of this campaign, but I view these Calvinist loyalists as, wittingly or unwittingly, dupes of the Evil One to sow confusion, fear and lack of trust in the true, loving, God who has demonstrated his defeat and served him notice that his time is short.”
I want to assure you I am not a Calvinist. In fact, I say John Calvin is one of the ravenous wolves in sheep’s clothing we are told by Christ to beware. Matthew 7:15
That said, I respect the teaching of some Calvinist theologians. Dr. John MacArthur, Jr. has converted many Catholics to Protestantism and written two books I recommend (Why One Way and Reckless Faith). Dr. James M. Boice led the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, preached against divorce and has also written noteworthy books (The Minor Prophets).
My point to Br.d was why did he invest so must time in studying Calvin’s false doctrine without first understanding the true doctine of Soteriology, so he could testify the truth to them and others? Expose the false with the truth.
I think of soteriology as being like a coin having two sides.
U.S. Lincoln penny, Jefferson nickel, Roosevelt dime, Washington quarter and Kennedy half dollar coins:
Heads represents the American presidents – few in number. Elected to have authority to lead the nation.
Tails represents the people of America.
The soteriology coin:
Heads represents the prophets, writers of Scripture and a few others. Elected to have authority to represent Him.
Tails represents everyone throughout history not on the heads side of the coin.
God chose the heads side before the creation of the foundation of the world. Ephesians 1:4
God calls the tails side for salvation. Ephesians 1:13
Rather simple to understand, once you realize the v4 pronoun “us” is the heads side and the v13 pronoun “you” is the tails side.
1saved
1saved
That said, I respect the teaching of some Calvinist theologians. Dr. John MacArthur, Jr. has converted many Catholics to Protestantism
br.d
More precisely – John MacArthur has converted Catholics to Calvinism.
Protestantism also contains Lutheranism, Arminianism, and general Evangelical Christianity.
MacArthur is going to steer people away from those – and into Calvinism.
If I’m going to buy bottled water – I will avoid any product which has an invisible poison mixed into it.
Anyone who drinks any product marketed by any prominent Calvinist – is going to be unwittingly drinking Calvinism deceptively mixed into the product so as to make it as undetectable as possible.
Additionally – the critical skill in achieving prominence within Calvinism – is the skill of Calvinist DOUBLE-SPEAK.
To subject oneself to any prominent Calvinist is to oneself to the subtle indoctrination strategies of Calvinist DOUBLE-SPEAK.
Any Christian in his right mind who fully understands the consequences – would avoid subjecting himself or anyone else to such influences.
Br.d
You wrote:
“More precisely – John MacArthur has converted Catholics to Calvinism.
Protestantism also contains Lutheranism, Arminianism, and general Evangelical Christianity.
MacArthur is going to steer people away from those – and into Calvinism.”
Is Lutheranism really any better than Calvinism, since Martin Luther is another ravenous wolf in sheep’s clothing we are warned about.
Followers of Luther do not read James and unwilling to do good works. Therefore, their faith is dead. Salvation is by grace through faith in Christ. No willingness to do work, no faith, no faith no salvation.
The books by Dr’s. J. MacArthur and J. Boice I recommend do not mention Calvinist doctrine on soteriology, so what is the harm in reading them? The poison you reference isn’t there and a discerning individual can separate truth from error thus filtering out the false doctrine.
God can use a talking jackass for prophesy if He chooses; who are you to question His purposes in using these men?
Additionally, Arminian Methodists believe a false doctrine on water baptism.
“Methodists believe that regardless a person’s age, in order to follow Christ, they must be baptized. When an adult has made the decision to publicly profess their faith in Christ, they are also ready to be baptized and should not further delay receiving the gift of God. This is called a believer’s baptism and is considered an ordinance rather than a sacrament.”
Every church teaches false doctrine in one form or another:
Methodists, Lutherans, Calvinists, general Baptists, Episcopalians, Roman Catholics, the Eastern Orthodox, etc. are not without false doctrine..
Here’s a list ten doctrines in which there is controversy among various churches:
1) What do they teach on divorce? Everyone divorcing their spouse and marrying another commits divorce. Yes or no?
Can a man marry a divorced woman if she was not the one seeking divorce? Yes or no?
2) What do they teach on water baptism versus baptism by fire? Only one baptism – which is it?
3) What do they teach on the importance of works to impower their faith? Necessary or suggesting a lack of faith if you do works?
4) What do they teach on eschatology? Does the prophet Elijah come before or after Christ? Is it a pre-trib, mid-trib, post-trib or pre-wrath Rapture? Does the Tribulation last only seven years? What is meant by Elijah comes first and restores all things (Matt 17:11)?
5) What do they teach on the balance of grace, faith and obedience to Christ. Are we saved by grace alone, faith alone or in combination?
6) What do they teach on sanctification? Is sanctification a process by which the Holy Spirit makes us evermore holy or a position – the noun form of the word sanctify (set apart for a holy purpose)?
7) What do they teach on whether we can lose our salvation? Yes we can or no we cannot?
8) Which do they teach – creation or evolution?
9) What do they teach on sin – original or ancestral, sin nature by inheritance or imputation, or sin as an effect of the instinct for self preservation cause?
10) What does Jesus mean when He said we are to be perfect in Matthew 5:48? Perfect once we are in heaven or perfect while here on earth?
10) How do we learn the things of God? Diligently study the writings of previous theologians, study the etymology of the Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic words used in the Bible, or by discernment as taught by the in-dwelling Holy Spirit?
Lastly, what is the importance to humble yourself and fear the Lord? 2 Chron 34:27, Matthew 23:12, Proverbs 1:7, Isaiah 66:2
1saved
1saved
Is Lutheranism really any better than Calvinism, since Martin Luther is another ravenous wolf in sheep’s clothing we are warned about.
br.d
So then MacArthur would leading people away from one ravenous wolf – in order to lead then to another one. :-]
1saved
Followers of Luther do not read James and unwilling to do good works.
Therefore, their faith is dead.
br.d
Logic would tell you that is a non-sequitur.
A person may read a scripture verse a certain way – but live the opposite way.
That is a practice which is consistent with Calvinism.
1saved
The books by Dr’s. J. MacArthur and J. Boice I recommend do not mention Calvinist doctrine on soteriology,…
br.d
My point exactly – thank you!
Jesus calls that – coming into the sheep-gate through the back-door.
1saved
The poison you reference isn’t there….
br.d
This tells us how much “discernment’ someone doesn’t have! 😀
1saved
a discerning individual can separate truth from error thus filtering out the false doctrine.
br.d
If you only knew!!!
1saved
God can use a talking jackass for prophesy if He chooses; who are you to question His purposes in using these men?
br.d
Like I said – if I’m going to be bottled water – I avoid the product which has invisible poison in it. That shouldn’t be so difficult to understand.
1saved
Additionally, Arminian Methodists believe a false doctrine on water baptism.
br.d
Arminians take various positions on that subject.
And they don’t have a practice in the use of deceptive language.
1saved
Every church teaches false doctrine in one form or another:
br.d
Hence – my point about buying bottled water.
1saved:
Lastly, what is the importance to humble yourself and fear the Lord? 2 Chron 34:27, Matthew 23:12, Proverbs 1:7, Isaiah 66:2
br.d
Seminary professors are not shy about making their students aware of the weaknesses of those whose use their position of scholarship to indoctrinate the unsuspecting with their own biases which they propagate using subtle means.
Warning their students is an act of concern – not an act of hubris.
Its all a matter of being able to “discern” the difference.
Br.d,
Apparently, we agree on a few things.
1) Both John Calvin and Martin Luther are ravenous wolves dressed in sheep’s clothing.
2) All established Christian churches teach false doctrine and thus only non-denominational churches should be considered for membership.
3) One baptism by fire when sealed by the Holy Spirit.
4) Jacobus Arminius’ theology on soteriology is far better than Augustine, Calvin and Luther, but other Methodist doctrine has issues.
That’s common ground and a good start.
1saved
1saved
Apparently, we agree on a few things.
1) Both John Calvin and Martin Luther are ravenous wolves dressed in sheep’s clothing.
br.d
I don’t call them that.
They are both disciples of Augustine – who is noted in academia as a premier conduit of syncretism.
Calvin retained his ardent love affair with all things Augustine – raising Augustine and thus himself up onto a pedestal – essentially canonizing his own doctrines and making them equal to scripture.
In Calvin’s written address to the King introducing his institutes – he in fact argues the reader of his institutes is to consider them from the Holy Spirit and prior to opening scripture – memorize the institutes so as to use them as a basis for understanding scripture.
1saved:
2) All established Christian churches teach false doctrine and thus only non-denominational churches should be considered for membership.
br.d
I consistently observe – your perception that your conclusions are based on sound reasoning. And I’ve consistently found that perception quite interesting!
1saved
4) Jacobus Arminius’ theology on soteriology is far better than Augustine, Calvin and Luther, but other Methodist doctrine has issues.
br.d
Firstly
There was a sister here a while ago in a dialog with us – who had enough discernment to recognize that Calvinism is not a doctrine of soteriology – but rather a doctrine of divine control.
She had enough discernment to know that if she dabbled in Calvinist materials – such as MacArthur’s materials – there was no way she could avoid becoming infected with Calvinist conceptions – because Calvinist conceptions of god and his relationship to creation permeate all Calvinist materials.
She had enough discernment to realize the risk of becoming infected – was simply more than any benefit she might gain from those materials.
Secondly:
If you studied the history of Jacobus Arminius – you would realize that he spent a great deal of energy and ink trying to convince people in his day – that he had not strayed from Calvin.
The primary difference between current day Arminianism and Calvinism – is simply the fact that the foundational core of Calvinism is EXHAUSTIVE DIVINE DETERMINISM.
And Arminianism as it evolved – became settled in a doctrinal rejection of EXHAUSTIVE DIVINE DETERMINISM.
Calvinists like MacArthur and R.C. Sproul for example – will make jabs at Arminianism.
When asked if Arminians are saved – Sproul will smile and say “Just barely” and the Calvinist audience will laugh.
But then when the specter of Calvin’s god as the author of evil appears – suddenly both MacArthur and Sproul will cover the face of Calvinism – with an Arminian mask.
So the truth is – because Calvinists like MacArthur and R.C. Sproul spend so much time and expertise speaking out of two sides of the mouth – their representations are Calvinism one minute and Arminianism the next.
Calvinists are “Shape-Shifters”
And that is one of the reasons why materials from prominent Calvinists are deceptive.
Br.d,
Augustine, Calvin and Luther are called ravenous wolves by Jesus Christ.
You don’t want to call Luther a ravenous wolf, because you don’t want to receive criticism from Lutherans.
You don’t want to take a stand on water baptism vs. baptism by fire because you don’t want criticism from many Christian denominations.
It’s rather hypocritical when you reject any writing of a Calvinist Baptist like Dr. John MacArthur, but monitor a blog by a Texas Baptist like Leighton Flowers.
https://www.texasbaptists.org/article/baptism-in-todays-church
I believe you described false teaching like poison in your water – rather ironic that the poisoned water is the false teaching on water baptism. One baptism. Only one baptism and that by fire – not water.
1saved
1saved
You don’t want to call Luther a ravenous wolf, because you don’t want to receive criticism from Lutherans.
br.d
Where do you come up with these conclusions!!!
1saved:
You don’t want to take a stand on water baptism vs. baptism by fire because you don’t want criticism from many Christian denominations.
br.d
And I supposed I’m also an alien from the planet glip-tall! 😀
1saved:
It’s rather hypocritical when you reject any writing of a Calvinist Baptist like Dr. John MacArthur, but monitor a blog by a Texas Baptist like Leighton Flowers.
https://www.texasbaptists.org/article/baptism-in-todays-church
br.d
I have quite a fondness for Dr. Flower’s ministry concerning Calvinism.
I think you’re emotions are getting the better of you.
1saved:
I believe you described false teaching like poison in your water – rather ironic that the poisoned water is the false teaching on water baptism. One baptism. Only one baptism and that by fire – not water.
br.d
My familiarity with an emphasis on baptism of fire being the only baptism – was many years ago – when I was young in the Lord. There was a fellow who had an obsession with that doctrine. The poor fellow was mentally unstable.
Br.d,
“My familiarity with an emphasis on baptism of fire being the only baptism – was many years ago – when I was young in the Lord. There was a fellow who had an obsession with that doctrine. The poor fellow was mentally unstable.”
Anecdotal testimony about some unnamed individual you new years ago. Really? Is that the best you could come up with?
False doctrine is unacceptable. We are to be of one mind – the mind of Christ (Romans 15:6, 1 Corinthians 1:10, 2:16).
You knowingly associated for years with those teaching false doctrine on water baptism on this website.
When did you ever try to teach them the truth regarding one baptism by fire?
Did you lose your salty flavor? Did you put your light under a basket?
13 “You are the salt of the earth; but if the salt loses its flavor, how shall it be seasoned? It is then good for nothing but to be thrown out and trampled underfoot by men.
14 “You are the light of the world. A city that is set on a hill cannot be hidden. 15 Nor do they light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on a lampstand, and it gives light to all who are in the house. 16 Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and glorify your Father in heaven. Matthew 5:13-16 NKJV
You judge Calvinists and not Baptists?
7 “Judge[a] not, that you be not judged. 2 For with what [b]judgment you judge, you will be judged; and with the measure you use, it will be measured back to you. 3 And why do you look at the speck in your brother’s eye, but do not consider the plank in your own eye? 4 Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me remove the speck from your eye’; and look, a plank is in your own eye? 5 Hypocrite! First remove the plank from your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye. Matthew 7:1-5 NKJV
Our Lord’s words on hypocrites – judge for yourself whether they apply to you.
1saved
1saved
Anecdotal testimony about some unnamed individual you new years ago. Really? Is that the best you could come up with?
br.d
That’s my familiarity with that doctrine.
1saved
False doctrine is unacceptable. We are to be of one mind – the mind of Christ (Romans 15:6, 1 Corinthians 1:10, 2:16).
br.d
And you’ve made it clear – for you that means everyone should be of “Your” mind.
1saved:
You knowingly associated for years with those teaching false doctrine on water baptism on this website.
br.d
This is all about you going about recommending certain Calvinist teachings to people.
In your mind – someone functioning as a blog monitor for a web-site dedicated to the issue of Calvinism – is the equivalent of going around recommending Texas Baptist teachings to people.
I think you would benefit greatly by taking an elementary course in rational thinking.
1saved
When did you ever try to teach them the truth regarding one baptism by fire?
br.d
I’m supposed to go around teaching people a doctrine – my only familiarly with – is from a mentally unstable person! That is a good one! :-]
1saved:
You judge Calvinists and not Baptists?
br.d
Show me examples of NON-Calvinists – who as part of the propagation of their theology – practice the use of deceptive language. That would fall within the category!
And as I mentioned to you earlier – I think your emotions are getting the better of you.
At this point – I think you’ve lowered yourself to simply having a temper tantrum.
Br.d,
br.d
“Show me examples of NON-Calvinists – who as part of the propagation of their theology – practice the use of deceptive language. That would fall within the category!”
Roman Catholic apologists come to mind. They are big on water baptism too.
“br.d
I’m supposed to go around teaching people a doctrine – my only familiarly with – is from a mentally unstable person! That is a good one! :-]
You’re not supposed to teach doctrine at all, because you are not qualified to teach and you haven’t heeded the warning in James 3:1.
One baptism. Choices are water baptism and baptism by fire. A 50% chance for anyone to be right. Not too tough to discern the truth, but lo – nearly every Christian denomination has it wrong, because of the influence of Augustine.
Better to have been influenced by eastern orthodox doctrine. https://orthochristian.com/139979.html
This is all about you going about recommending certain Calvinist teachings to people.
In your mind – someone functioning as a blog monitor for a web-site dedicated to the issue of Calvinism – is the equivalent of going around recommending Texas Baptist teachings to people. I think you would benefit greatly by taking an elementary course in rational thinking.
This all about YOU saying everything any Calvinist says is poisonous. You are the one being irrational.
br.d
And you’ve made it clear – for you that means everyone should be of “Your” mind.
Paul wrote, “Imitate me, just as I also imitate Christ.” 1 Corinthians 11:1 NKJV
Paul is the one saying we are to all have one mind – the mind of Christ. I’m only repeating his words and helping others understand their meaning. Ask God in faith without doubting to confirm this – or admit you lack enough faith to even ask.
1saved
1saved
Roman Catholic apologists come to mind. They are big on water baptism too.
br.d
The category was the use of deceptive language – not a particular doctrine.
Cmon 1saved – let you brain work a little bit here!
“br.d
I’m supposed to go around teaching people a doctrine – my only familiarly with – is from a mentally unstable person! That is a good one! :-]
1saved
You’re not supposed to teach doctrine at all, because you are not qualified to teach and you haven’t heeded the warning in James 3:1.
br.d
This after you just got done telling me I was supposed to be teaching baptism according your doctrinal specifications!
You really do have a desperate need for some kind of course in rational thinking!
I’m actually finding this pretty entertaining! :-]
1saved:
This all about YOU saying everything any Calvinist says is poisonous. You are the one being irrational.
br.d
I’m taking note of the fact that you haven’t yet claimed I’m an alien from the planet glip-tal yet!
Its certainly taking you a long time to get around to that! ;-]
Sorry about that, Brd, he is taking his frustrations about water baptism out on you.
Aidan,
I hear water will put out the fire! At least, that’s what we learned in Fire Fighting School at Treasure Island, California when I was in the US Navy.
This Water/Fire Baptism argument has been going on for centuries. But here is the thing…all that matters is the fire baptism.
As has been noted, Jesus didn’t baptize anyone in water. But you make note that Jesus did baptize the apostles.
And how did he do that?
He simple BREATHED on them and said, receive ye the Holy Spirit (Ghost). The Greek work for “spirit” is pnuema, as in pnuematic tools!
Now, I’m just guessing, but I think when Jesus gushed WATER from him, that had a significant meaning. I don’t know what it means…and that’s saying something, because I know everything! LOL.
However, we have this:
You baptize in water just out of OBEDIENCE, not really knowing WHY.
Some of us want to know WHY.
It’s like Abraham, when he went to sacrifice his son. Many just settle it as Abraham being OBEDIENT to God, but dig no further as to WHY. But when we discover that Abraham had faith that God HAS NO CHOICE but to raise Isaac from the dead to fulfill his PREVIOUS PROMISE, then it is an act of faith, NOT OBEDIENCE.
So, other than OBEDIENCE, can you tell us WHY we must be baptized in water? I think that would clear things up a lot, since you are the only one in the whole bunch here that MANDATES it…out of OBEDIENCE, without questioning WHY.
Has anyone in YOUR hierarchy of Church Fathers ever figured out the why? Or do they even care, saying, “Just do as I say!”
We have seen from scripture that Baptizing in water sure doesn’t get you the holy spirit. IF that were the case, why did Cornelius get the holy spirit, and THEN got baptized in water?
So, then, what is the significance of the water? What magic did it do?
I’m not defending 1saved, but it’s a discussion that you haven’t been CLEAR about, regarding the WHY. Just because God said so, doesn’t exactly explain the why part. Or would it be, “Who are you to question God?”
I’m just curious. No bad blood between us.
Ed Chapman
Thanks Aidan,
I’m beginning to wonder if he isn’t related to the poor fellow I met years ago who was mentally unstable! I’t never occurred to me – they could be the same person????
Brd, I think he got frustrated because you weren’t giving him the answers he was looking for. I think he would be happier if you were to just keep telling him he’s right😉.
br.d
I often see the Lord in these dialogs.
Men will sometimes posture and make bold claims about themselves.
But under examination – the posturing and bold claims reveal themselves as a facade.
I once read a book – where the author called this “gorilla dust”.
When one gorilla comes in contact with another – he will throw dust up into the air.
Gorilla dust is simply – manufacturing a facade of strength.
19 Do not quench the Spirit. 20 Do not despise prophecies. 21 Test all things; hold fast what is good. 22 Abstain from every form of evil.
1 Thessalonians 5:19-22 NKJV
1saved,
We’ve tested all things and have determined that…
You think you have what you don’t really have…discernment.
You recommend that we read books from a wolf.
When Jesus was being tempted of the devil…the devil quoted scripture, and was very good at his premises. But Jesus knew how to counter his false usage of the scripture.
You made a claim that John was alive when Jesus came back, concluding that Jesus came back already, 2000 years ago, and that is a preterist belief. Then you say that you are not a preterist. You can’t have it both ways.
Regarding baptism, I agree with you…but not so far as John being alive when Jesus came back. Your discernment is a bit off there.
Ed Chapman
Ed
You think you have what you don’t really have…discernment
br.d
In the language of scripture its called a “vain imagination”
In the language of the world its called “compensation”
A fellow will “compensate” his socially perceived shortcomings – by getting himself a fancy sports car as a strategy to attract a woman.
In the religious world – a fellow will “compensate” his socially perceived shortcomings – by posturing as having some kind of spiritual endowment.
Eventually – everyone sees it for what it is! :-]
br.d,
LOL!!!! In either case, the big head is the problem!
Ed,
I won’t reply to your foolishness.
However, do you have a relative named Arnold Chapman?
1 saved
It’s funny that you don’t see yourself as the fool, who thinks Jesus came back already, but denies being a preterist, when that is exactly what a preterist is. You need to work on your comedy act a little more.
But no, I don’t know of any Arnold Chapman
Ed,
…the fool, who thinks Jesus came back already…
Biblical account for Christ’s 2nd coming.
John’s Vision of Christ
9 I, John, your brother and companion in the suffering and kingdom and patient endurance that are ours in Jesus, was on the island of Patmos because of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus. 10 On the Lord’s Day I was in the Spirit, and I heard behind me a loud voice like a trumpet, 11 which said: “Write on a scroll what you see and send it to the seven churches: to Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia and Laodicea.”
12 I turned around to see the voice that was speaking to me. And when I turned I saw seven golden lampstands, 13 and among the lampstands was someone like a son of man,[d] dressed in a robe reaching down to his feet and with a golden sash around his chest. 14 The hair on his head was white like wool, as white as snow, and his eyes were like blazing fire. 15 His feet were like bronze glowing in a furnace, and his voice was like the sound of rushing waters. 16 In his right hand he held seven stars, and coming out of his mouth was a sharp, double-edged sword. His face was like the sun shining in all its brilliance.
17 When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. Then he placed his right hand on me and said: “Do not be afraid. I am the First and the Last. 18 I am the Living One; I was dead, and now look, I am alive for ever and ever! And I hold the keys of death and Hades.
19 “Write, therefore, what you have seen, what is now and what will take place later. 20 The mystery of the seven stars that you saw in my right hand and of the seven golden lampstands is this: The seven stars are the angels[e] of the seven churches, and the seven lampstands are the seven churches. Revelation 1:9-20 NIV
Biblical account for Christ’s 3rd coming
30 “Then will appear the sign of the Son of Man in heaven. And then all the peoples of the earth will mourn when they see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory.
31 And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other. Matthew 24:30-31 NIV
Biblical account for Christ’s 4th coming
The Heavenly Warrior Defeats the Beast
11 I saw heaven standing open and there before me was a white horse, whose rider is called Faithful and True. With justice he judges and wages war. 12 His eyes are like blazing fire, and on his head are many crowns. He has a name written on him that no one knows but he himself. 13 He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the Word of God. 14 The armies of heaven were following him, riding on white horses and dressed in fine linen, white and clean. 15 Coming out of his mouth is a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations. “He will rule them with an iron scepter.”[a] He treads the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God Almighty. 16 On his robe and on his thigh he has this name written:
king of kings and lord of lords.
17 And I saw an angel standing in the sun, who cried in a loud voice to all the birds flying in midair, “Come, gather together for the great supper of God, 18 so that you may eat the flesh of kings, generals, and the mighty, of horses and their riders, and the flesh of all people, free and slave, great and small.”
19 Then I saw the beast and the kings of the earth and their armies gathered together to wage war against the rider on the horse and his army. 20 But the beast was captured, and with it the false prophet who had performed the signs on its behalf. With these signs he had deluded those who had received the mark of the beast and worshiped its image. The two of them were thrown alive into the fiery lake of burning sulfur. 21 The rest were killed with the sword coming out of the mouth of the rider on the horse, and all the birds gorged themselves on their flesh. Revelation 19:17-21 NIV
1saved
1saved,
Second coming: Acts 1:11=Zechariah 14:1-4
Acts 1:11
11 Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.
Zechariah 14:1-5
1 Behold, the day of the Lord cometh, and thy spoil shall be divided in the midst of thee.
2 For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle; and the city shall be taken, and the houses rifled, and the women ravished; and half of the city shall go forth into captivity, and the residue of the people shall not be cut off from the city.
3 Then shall the Lord go forth, and fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle.
4 And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west, and there shall be a very great valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south.
5 And ye shall flee to the valley of the mountains; for the valley of the mountains shall reach unto Azal: yea, ye shall flee, like as ye fled from before the earthquake in the days of Uzziah king of Judah: and the Lord my God shall come, and all the saints with thee.
Looks to me that WE COME BACK WITH HIM, and that, is his 2nd coming, just like Acts 1 states. Until then, I do not consider “in the clouds” as a 2nd coming, because it does not match Acts 11:1
I know Revelation pretty well. In the clouds is in reference to:
Revelation 7:9-14
9 After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands;
10 And cried with a loud voice, saying, Salvation to our God which sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb.
11 And all the angels stood round about the throne, and about the elders and the four beasts, and fell before the throne on their faces, and worshipped God,
12 Saying, Amen: Blessing, and glory, and wisdom, and thanksgiving, and honour, and power, and might, be unto our God for ever and ever. Amen.
13 And one of the elders answered, saying unto me, What are these which are arrayed in white robes? and whence came they?
14 And I said unto him, Sir, thou knowest. And he said to me, These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.
15 Therefore are they before the throne of God, and serve him day and night in his temple: and he that sitteth on the throne shall dwell among them.
16 They shall hunger no more, neither thirst any more; neither shall the sun light on them, nor any heat.
17 For the Lamb which is in the midst of the throne shall feed them, and shall lead them unto living fountains of waters: and God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes.
I already gave you Matthew, Mark, Luke references to both the 6th seal and the rapture. Side by side events. I also gave you Peter, who when he spoke of the 6th seal, mentions the first part of Revelation 7, speaking in tongues, etc., all because they got the holy spirit…the 144000 Jews.
And Jesus never mentions the 7th seal at all. And that is proof he hasn’t been back, nor will he come back until Zechariah 14, which is in the latter part of Revelation.
Lastly, Revelation 1:10
I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s day…
John was NOT HERE…he was in the spirit. His body was here, but he was in the SPIRIT.
So that was not a Jesus return at all.
Example:
Ezekiel 37:1
The hand of the Lord was upon me, and carried me out in the spirit of the Lord, and set me down in the midst of the valley which was full of bones,
Bottom line, you have a lot of studying to do before you speak.
Ed Chapman
1saved,
I think that you are the first in Christian history to proclaim that Jesus comes back 4 times. That’s a new one.
Discernment, huh? You just came up with NEW doctrine. You could have a #1 Best Seller on Amazon, and give a free copy to John Mac.
Ed
Ed,
“I think that you are the first in Christian history to proclaim that Jesus comes back 4 times.”
Technically, Ed, Christ comes back only three times.
I can count. What’s your excuse for saying Christ only comes twice? Could it be you are following “traditional” church doctrine rather than what Scripture says – much like water baptism and the imminent return of Christ?
Or, perhaps you are hung up on the definition of “coming” – an act or instance of arriving according to Merriam – Webster
Anyone not agreeing with “traditional” church doctrine is declared to be a heretic (a person who differs in opinion from established religious dogma). Many “heretics” have been tortured, persecuted or intimidated until they recant their testimony.
Instead, you choose to ridicule me. That tactic won’t work either.
I don’t respond well to bullies – as I told Br.d earlier.
1saved
1saved,
Listen to Peter about what God said to Christ when He ascended into heaven:
Acts 2:34-35
“For it was not David who ascended into heaven, but he himself says:
‘THE LORD SAID TO MY LORD,
“SIT AT MY RIGHT HAND,
UNTIL I MAKE YOUR ENEMIES A FOOTSTOOL FOR YOUR FEET.”’
Simple question: How long will Jesus remain seated at the Father’s right hand?_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.
Paul gets a little more precise and tells us that “death” will be the last enemy to be destroyed (made a footstool for His feet) when the general resurrection occurs. Notice the order of events in these next few verses:
1 Cor 15:22 “For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive” (i.e. at the resurrection).
1 Cor 15:23 “But each in his own order: Christ the first fruits, after that those who are Christ’s at His coming, (notice the order of events, Christ is the firstfruits, he has already been raised, but then those who are His shall be raised at His coming). The Greek word here for “coming” is [parousia] – which we know is speaking of His literal return.
1 Cor 15:24 “Then comes the end, when He hands over the kingdom to the God and Father, when He has abolished all rule and all authority and power.”( Again, notice the order of events:– Christ comes, all the dead are raised, — “then comes the end” Greek (eita to telos). Eita marks the next event after the second coming. The order is not: (1) Second coming, (2) Resurrection of the righteous, (3) Establishment of the kingdom, (4) Thousand year reign, (5) Resurrection of the wicked, (6) End. But rather, the parousia is followed by the end.
The absence of any reference to the many different events which form the essential parts of dispensationalist doctrine is important. They are not mentioned because they are not a part of the events to transpire at the end of this age. When Jesus comes again, all things will come to an end. The greek word “telos” means “last part, close, conclusion.” The entire sequence of events planned by God at the creation of this world will come to a conclusion at the second coming. For that reason Peter said that the earth and the works therein will be destroyed at the second coming (2 Pet. 3:9).
The precise definition of how things will end and when the “end” occurs is given clearly by the two “when” clauses which immediately follow: “…WHEN He hands over the kingdom to the God and Father, WHEN He has abolished all rule and all authority and power.”
1 Cor 15:25-26 “For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet. The last enemy that will be abolished is death.”
If the apostles kept it simple, we need to keep it simple too!
Aidan,
Very good!
Ed
Thanks Ed.
Aidan,
Acts 2:34-35
“For it was not David who ascended into heaven, but he himself says:
‘THE LORD SAID TO MY LORD,
“SIT AT MY RIGHT HAND,
UNTIL I MAKE YOUR ENEMIES A FOOTSTOOL FOR YOUR FEET.”’
Meaning: David has not ascended to heaven. He must wait until the Rapture. Jesus sits at the right hand of the Father, a position of authority, until He vanquishes the armies of the antichrist and remains on earth to rule with a rod of iron for 1000 years.
“Simple question: How long will Jesus remain seated at the Father’s right hand?_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.
I don’t get your point. Are you suggesting Jesus must physically remain seated at the Father’s right hand until then?
If you believe that, how could He come to Rapture His Church and attend His wedding to His bride the Church?
But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. 1 Corinthians 15:20 ESV
“…the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep” refers to those elected first (before the creation of the world) from all those who have died and will be raised in glory.
51 Behold, I tell you a [m]mystery: We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed— 52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. 53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. 54 So when this corruptible has put on incorruption, and this mortal has put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written: “Death is swallowed up in victory.” 1 Corinthians 15:51-54 NKJV
Trumpets will sound at the resurrection of the dead.
The first trumpet will signal raising the firstfuits. The next will signal raising those elected later and the last will signal changing those who are alive at the Rapture. All will be given an incorruptible, immortal body.
1saved
1saved,
Acts 2:34-35
“For it was not David who ascended into heaven, but he himself says:
‘THE LORD SAID TO MY LORD,
“SIT AT MY RIGHT HAND,
UNTIL I MAKE YOUR ENEMIES A FOOTSTOOL FOR YOUR FEET.”’
You wrote: “Meaning: David has not ascended to heaven. He must wait until the Rapture. Jesus sits at the right hand of the Father, a position of authority, until He vanquishes the armies of the antichrist and remains on earth to rule with a rod of iron for 1000 years.”
Response: That’s right, Jesus is the one who has ascended into heaven and remains there seated, ruling from heaven at God’s right hand until all His enemies be made a footstool for His feet.
I asked a simple question: How long will Jesus remain seated at the Father’s right hand?
You wrote: “I don’t get your point. Are you suggesting Jesus must physically remain seated at the Father’s right hand until then?”
Response: I’m not suggesting anything except that you adhere to what the verse says without adding to it. How long will Jesus remain in heaven seated/ruling at the right hand of the Father? What does the verse say?
You wrote: “But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. 1 Corinthians 15:20 ESV …the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep” refers to those elected first (before the creation of the world) from all those who have died and will be raised in glory.”
Response: That’s not what the verse says. If you read it correctly it says that Christ is “the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep.” which means He is the firstfruits of the ones risen risen from the dead. There were others who rose from the dead before Christ (Lazarus, the widow of Nains son, Jairus’ daughter, etc.) but all of these arose to die again. Jesus was the FIRST to rise from the dead never to die again. The description of Jesus as the aparche (firstfruits) of those who have fallen asleep is significant. The word “aparche” was used to describe the offerings of the first ripened fruits of the crop to the Lord. Whenever the firstfruits were offered, they guaranteed that the rest of the crop would follow.
The significance of the designation of Christ as the aparche is that: just as the firstfruits are the guarantee of a later harvesting, the resurrection of Jesus is the guarantee that His people shall be bodily raised from the dead. He is the Christian’s surety for a general resurrection at the end of this age.
In 1 Corinthians 15:51-54 I see no mention of three trumpets being sounded. Nor is there any mention of different groups within the church being raised there! As I said before, keep it simple.
Aidan,
Christ is singular and firstfruits is plural. The ESV translation I provided is better than the one you provided for understanding this verse.
Here, Jesus is not “firstfruits” the firstfruits referenced are those first chosen before He created the foundations of the world.
1saved
1saved,
You are wrong about the English word “firstfruits” here.
This is what Vine says:
“Though the English word is plural in each of its occurrences save Rom 11:16, the Greek word is always singular.”
Aidan
Aidan,
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/firstfruit
firstfruit is singular, firstfruits plural according to this source.
Perhaps Hebrews 12:22-24 clarifies.
22 But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, to an innumerable company of angels, 23 to the [j]general assembly and church of the firstborn who are registered in heaven, to God the Judge of all, to the spirits of just men made perfect, 24 to Jesus the Mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling that speaks better things than that of Abel.
Firstborn are firstfruits according to https://www.bibleref.com/Hebrews/12/Hebrews-12-23.html
“The reference to “the assembly of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven” is somewhat obscure. The term translated “assembly” here is ekklēsia, which is also frequently translated as “church.” Given that these are persons residing in heaven, the indication that they are “firstborn” seems to follow the pattern of verses such as 2 Thessalonians 2:13 and James 1:18, where saved Christians are referred to as the “firstfruits” of God.”
1saved
1saved,
You wrote:
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/firstfruit
firstfruit is singular, firstfruits plural according to this source.
Response: Wiktionary or wikipedia are not the kind of sources you should rely on to find out information about the meaning of N.T. Greek words! Firstfruits is singular in the Greek.
Aidan,
As I’ve said previously, Jesus is a type of firstfruits with regard to resurrection from the dead to glory
Israel is a type of firstfruits with regard to nations working for God (Ref: Parable Of The Workers Matthew 20:1-16).
The prophets and writers of scripture are a type of firstfruits with regard to being chosen for salvation.
Firstfruits are: Those saved by grace through faith are:
Prophets, writers of scripture and a few others Those having heard the Word and believed
Chosen/elected Called
Called Chosen/elected
Justified Justified
To be glorified at the resurrection To be glorified at the resurrection
Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified. Romans 8:30
1saved
1saved.
You wrote: “The prophets and writers of scripture are a type of firstfruits with regard to being chosen for salvation.”
“Firstfruits are: Those saved by grace through faith are:
Prophets, writers of scripture and a few others Those having heard the Word and believed
Chosen/elected Called
Called Chosen/elected
Justified Justified
To be glorified at the resurrection To be glorified at the resurrection”
Response: Who can argue with someone who creates their own definitions and categories with no book, chapter, and verse to base it on???
Aidan
Aidan,
Response: Who can argue with someone who creates their own definitions and categories with no book, chapter, and verse to base it on???
I gave you Romans 8:30 to base it on. This verse applies to firstfruits and the basis for Calvinism
30 Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified. NKJV
Those that are elected/saved by grace through faith in Christ have a different order.
They are called, then elected, then justified and will be glorified, which is Arminianism.
Perhaps you should go to gotquestions.org and do research on Calvinism vs. Arminianism and the differences between them. I’m just saying both are true but apply to two different groups of believers.
Here’s a link to get you started: https://www.gotquestions.org/Reformed-Arminianism.html
1saved
br.d
Predestination – as defined in Calvinism – is not the “basis” for Calvinism.
All Reformed Scholarship acknowledges that Calvinism relies upon a presupposition – and from that presupposition derives its definition of what “Predestination” means.
The underlying foundational core (i.e. the presupposition) of Calvinism is EXHAUSTIVE DIVINE DETERMINISM (EDD)
EXHAUSTIVE DIVINE DETERMINISM is “basis” for Calvinism’s interpretation of “Predestination”
Reformed scholar Dr. James N. Anderson of the Reformed Theological Seminary, Charlotte NC:
-quote
“It should be conceded at the outset, and without embarrassment, that Calvinism is indeed committed to divine determinism.”
Reformed scholar Guillaume Bignon
-quote
Theological Determinism will be referred to as “the Calvinist view”, or simply “Calvinism”.
John Calvin
-quote
The creatures…are so governed by the secret counsel of god, that NOTHING HAPPENS but what he has knowingly and willingly decreed. (Institutes, 1, 16, 3)
Calvinism starts with EDD and uses EDD as the “basis” of its reading of scripture.
So the difference between the Calvinist reading of scripture and the NON-Calvinist reading of scripture – is the fact that the NON-Calvinist does not assume EDD.
Aidan,
You wrote, “If you read it correctly it says that Christ is “the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep.” which means He is the firstfruits of the ones risen risen from the dead. There were others who rose from the dead before Christ (Lazarus, the widow of Nains son, Jairus’ daughter, etc.) but all of these arose to die again. Jesus was the FIRST to rise from the dead never to die again.”
An illogical stretch of what it says, which doesn’t explain singular Christ and plural firstfruits. Also, both saved and unsaved are ultimately risen from the dead. I assume you mean firstfruit are those who are risen from the dead and going to heaven.
Before Jesus raised Lazarus, the widow of Zarephath’s son was brought back to life by Elijah. 1 Kings 17:17-24
He lived, died, was brought back to like and died again. Was the widow’s son firstfruit by your understanding? Keep in mind there is nothing in scripture saying the widow’s son was saved from his sins.
Enoch went to heaven without dying and so did Elijah. The beggar Lazarus is shown with Abraham in heaven (Luke 16:19-31). Are they all not firstfruits by your understanding of this passage? In other words, did God know them and choose them with foreknowledge before He created the foundation of the world or not?
Furthermore, did God only hope Job would remain faithful to Him or did He know Job would remain faithful to Him?
1saved
1saved
Paul wrote: “But now Christ is risen from the dead, and has become the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep” (1 Cor 15:20).
I wrote: “If you read it correctly it says that Christ is “the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep, which means He is the firstfruits of the ones risen risen from the dead…Jesus was the FIRST to rise from the dead never to die again.”
You wrote: “An illogical stretch of what it says, which doesn’t explain singular Christ and plural firstfruits.”
Response: I’d be happy for you to explain how it is an illogical step! Also, I’ve already explained that “firstfruits” (aparchē) is singular in the Greek for a singular Christ.
You wrote: “Also, both saved and unsaved are ultimately risen from the dead.”
Response: Yes! As I said, Christ’s resurrection is the “surety for a general resurrection at the end of this age.” But of course Paul is only concerned here with primarily encouraging the Christians regarding the resurrection.
You wrote: “Was the widow’s son firstfruit by your understanding?… Enoch went to heaven without dying and so did Elijah. The beggar Lazarus is shown with Abraham in heaven (Luke 16:19-31). Are they all not firstfruits by your understanding of this passage?”
Response: My understanding of this verse is that CHRIST is the firstfruits (singular in greek) of those who have fallen asleep. That’s it!
Aidan,
You wrote: “If you read it correctly it says that Christ is “the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep, which means He is the firstfruits of the ones risen risen from the dead…Jesus was the FIRST to rise from the dead never to die again.”
He is the firsfruits of those who have died (fallen asleep), which may or may not mean those who have died and will be raised and additionally may or not include all those raised for judgement. To say “which means…” is a stretch.
v23 But each in turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him. NIV
Each in turn raised, Christ was first, then firstfruits (those elected before the creation of the foundation of the world), then “those who belong to Him [those non-firstfruit elect who have died and at the last trumpet those alive elected].
1saved
1saved,
You wrote:
“He is the firsfruits of those who have died (fallen asleep), which may or may not mean those who have died and will be raised and additionally may or not include all those raised for judgement. To say “which means…” is a stretch.”
Response: 1 Cor 15:17-18 “And if Christ is not risen, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins! Then also those who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished.” To describe death as a “sleep” is not uniquely Christian, but here Paul is talking about those who have died as faithful Christians. Therefore, “He is the firsfruits of those who have died (fallen asleep),” is – in context – referring to those who have died as faithful Christians. So, Yes, it DOES mean He is the firstfruits of those who died and will be raised, for Paul says: “For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive. But each one in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who are Christ’s at His coming” (1 Cor. 15: 22-23).
You wrote: “v23 But each in turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him. NIV
Each in turn raised, Christ was first, then firstfruits (those elected before the creation of the foundation of the world), then “those who belong to Him [those non-firstfruit elect who have died and at the last trumpet those alive elected].”
Response: You like the NIV on this verse, but you are reading it wrong. In verse 20 the NIV makes it clear that the context is speaking about Christ as the “firstfruits.” It says, “But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep” (1 Cor. 15:20 NIV).
Aidan
Aidan,
I thought we were looking at verse 20 and Christ being a type of firstfruits for those who have died.
I do not disagree with your understanding – Christ is the firstfruit for those who have died and been raised from the dead in glory. I pointed out others were raised from the dead before Lazarus and others have gone to heaven without dying like Enoch and Elijah. I said it’s a stretch to determine all you said from v20 only, that’s all I meant by what I wrote.
You wrote: “v23 But each in turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him. NIV
Each in turn raised, Christ was first, then firstfruits (those elected before the creation of the foundation of the world), then “those who belong to Him [those non-firstfruit elect who have died and at the last trumpet those alive elected].”
Response: You like the NIV on this verse, but you are reading it wrong. In verse 20 the NIV makes it clear that the context is speaking about Christ as the “firstfruits.” It says, “But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep” (1 Cor. 15:20 NIV).
23 But each in his own order: Christ the first fruits, after that those who are Christ’s at His coming, NASB
23 But each in his own order: Christ the first-fruits; then they that are Christ’s, at his [a]coming. ASV
23 But each in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ. ESV
23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ’s at his coming. KJV
23 But each one in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who are Christ’s at His coming. NKJV
How are any really different from the NIV? Does the comma make an error in translation? No, it helps to clarify.
Note that the KJV says every “man” in his own order. Jesus is both God and man.
What you seem to miss is that there is an order to the resurrection.
1) Christ – a type of firstfruits.
2) Firstfruits – those chosen before the creation of the world – raised at the first trumpet.
3) Those saved by grace through faith in Christ who have died – raised at the next trumpet.
4) Those saved by grace through faith in Christ who are alive – changed at the last trumpet.
1saved
1saved,
You wrote: “I thought we were looking at verse 20 and Christ being a type of firstfruits for those who have died.”
Response: We are! But you had said: “… of those who have died (fallen asleep), which may or may not mean those who have died and will be raised and additionally may or not include all those raised for judgement. To say “which means…” is a stretch.” So I brought in verses 17 and 18 to show that verse 20 “He is the firsfruits of those who have died (fallen asleep),” IS – in context – referring to those who have died as faithful Christians. So, Yes, it DOES mean He is the firstfruits of those who died and will be raised.” Yes, others died and were raised before Christ, but they died again. Christ was the first to be raised never to die again. And, if Enoch and Elijah never died, then this passage doesn’t apply to them.
You don’t seem to get what I’m saying? Verse 20 of the NIV makes it clear that the context is speaking about Christ as the “firstfruits.” It says, “But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep” (1 Cor. 15:20 NIV). Therefore that is how you should be reading verse 23, namely, that Christ is the firstfruits. All the other translations you quoted back up what I’m saying. If you can’t see it, then I’m sorry you don’t know how to read properly!
Note, Christ is called the firstfruits all the way down:
23 But each in his own order: Christ the first fruits, after that those who are Christ’s at His coming, NASB
23 But each in his own order: Christ the first-fruits; then they that are Christ’s, at his coming. ASV
23 But each in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ. ESV
23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ’s at his coming. KJV
23 But each one in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who are Christ’s at His coming. NKJV
Aidan
Aidan,
Therefore that is how you should be reading verse 23, namely, that Christ is the firstfruits. All the other translations you quoted back up what I’m saying. If you can’t see it, then I’m sorry you don’t know how to read properly!
But each in his own order: Christ the first fruits, after that those who are Christ’s at His coming, NASB
Wouldn’t it say, “…after Him those who are Christ’s at His coming” if firstfruits refers to Christ here?
Is firstfruits an adjective modifying Christ or a noun here? If a noun then the NIV translation is correct.
1saved
1saved,
Jesus is the ONLY ONE who has risen from the dead, the only one in a new body that does not die anymore, therefore, he is the ONLY FIRSTFRUITSSSSSSS. SINGULAR.
All those others that you mentioned, DIED AGAIN.
1 Corinthians 15:20
But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.
Ed
Aidan,
You wrote, “In 1 Corinthians 15:51-54 I see no mention of three trumpets being sounded. Nor is there any mention of different groups within the church being raised there! As I said before, keep it simple.
There is a last trumpet mentioned. “We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed— 52 in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet.”
There cannot be a last trumpet without a first trumpet. A common misunderstanding is that the last trumpet is the seventh trumpet in Revelation 11L15-19.
1saved
1saved,
You wrote: “There is a last trumpet mentioned. “We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed— 52 in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet.”
Response: So why mention three trumpets when only the last trumpet is mentioned? It is only at the last trumpet that the dead will be raised: “in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed” (1 Cor 15:52).
You wrote: “There cannot be a last trumpet without a first trumpet.”
Response: So what! No other trumpets are mentioned except the last when the dead will be raised. As Paul indicated earlier, Christ will remain ruling at the right hand of God until that day. Therefore, there will be no other comings other than this one at the end of the age — Christ’s second coming!
Aidan,
So what! No other trumpets are mentioned except the last when the dead will be raised. As Paul indicated earlier, Christ will remain ruling at the right hand of God until that day. Therefore, there will be no other comings other than this one at the end of the age — Christ’s second coming!
I already explained the trumpets and what it means to be seated at the right hand of God, which is a position of authority – not a physical location.
Your understanding can’t be right, because Christ comes to conquer the armies of the antichrist and rules for 1000 years with a rod of iron.
1saved
1saved,
You wrote: “I already explained the trumpets and what it means to be seated at the right hand of God, which is a position of authority – not a physical location.
Your understanding can’t be right, because Christ comes to conquer the armies of the antichrist and rules for 1000 years with a rod of iron.”
Response: Don’t talk about trumpets, just stick to the text. Yes, I understand it’s a position of authority ruling as king, the location heaven, at the right hand of the Father. And it is your understanding that’s not right! At the parousia (His coming) which is immediately followed by the telos (the end) there is no room for a thousand year reign between these two events. At His coming “then comes the end,” when Jesus gives dominion of His kingdom back to God. He will not “set up” the kingdom; He will “deliver up” the kingdom!
The kingdom over which Jesus is presently reigning will become an eternal heavenly kingdom at the second coming (cf, 2 Pet. 1:11; Heb. 12:28). There is no place for a thousand-year reign of an earthly kingdom in the scheme of God.
Aidan
Aidan,
Sorry to say you are misguided, because you do not allow scripture in one area to interpret scripture in another area.
Jesus taught by saying, “Have you not read…” Therefore, what you teach on X, Y, or Z must be wrong. He then gave them the correct understanding of the doctrine.
FYI
At His coming “then comes the end,” – The end of all iniquity.
1saved
1saved’
You wrote: “Sorry to say you are misguided, because you do not allow scripture in one area to interpret scripture in another area.
Jesus taught by saying, “Have you not read…” Therefore, what you teach on X, Y, or Z must be wrong. He then gave them the correct understanding of the doctrine.”
Response: That’s precisely what I’m doing, allowing the clearer passages of scripture clarify things whenever the scriptures are being misused. And when the devil tried to misuse scripture Jesus quoted a very simple passage to correct him!
You wrote: “FYI At His coming “then comes the end,” – The end of all iniquity.”
Response: The end is the end of all things as we know it. And, I’m sure as Paul says, when finally:
“This corruptible has put on incorruption, and this mortal has put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written: “Death is swallowed up in victory”
“O Death, where is your sting?
O Hades, where is your victory?”
“The sting of death is sin, and the strength of sin is the law” (1 Cor 15:54-56 NKJV).
Aidan
1saved
You wrote: “You are to be perfect – even as perfect as God in heaven. Matthew 5:48”
Response: That’s funny, Jesus had just been talking about loving your enemies!
Aidan
Aidan,
Response: That’s funny, Jesus had just been talking about loving your enemies!
I suggest you go to biblegateway.com and search your favorite translation with the word “perfect” to determine for yourself what “perfect” means in scripture.
Look at all the context where the word “perfect” is used and let scripture interpret scripture on the meaning.
1saved
Aidan,
2 Timothy 3:5 may be helpful to you.
…having a form of godliness but denying its power. And from such people turn away! NKJV
I think you know which people you should avoid.
1saved
1saved,
You wrote: “2 Timothy 3:5 may be helpful to you.
…having a form of godliness but denying its power. And from such people turn away! NKJV
I think you know which people you should avoid.”
Response: They know where I stand on baptism, and I know where they stand, including you. So, am I to avoid you as well on that basis or engage you with the truth? You judge! But I hope you are not accusing them of being guilty of what is in the rest of those verses 2Timothy 3:1-9?? Especially since you don’t know them!
Aidan,
They know where I stand on baptism, and I know where they stand, including you.
You are to be perfect – even as perfect as God in heaven. Matthew 5:48
That means your goal is to perfectly understand the meaning of every doctrine in Scripture, which includes water baptism, marriage and divorce, soteriology, eschatology, sanctification, etc.
Ever take a math test? What does it mean to have a perfect score? Same concept here.
1saved
You and most Pastors and interpretations of divorce is very mislead with the whole of scripture.
Here are the relevant verses/passages
Deuteronomy 24:1-5. Jeremiah 3:8. Malachi 12:16 Matthew 5:32 and 19:3-9. 1 Corinthians 7:2, 8-9, 11-15, 27-28
There are correlative verses to the Matthew ones, but the account from Matthew has the most detail.
The question is HOW does all of it fit together without contradiction or damaging God’s character by making Him a hypocrite? Jeremiah 3:8 shows that God Himself divorced Israel and we know He remarried the Church and took them as His bride.
I can go REALLY deep into all of this, but the KEY that most everyone misses is this. A conflation of the words “putting away” and divorce.
Putting away in Hebrew is shalach and in Greek it is apuolo. Divorce in Hebrew is keriythuth and in Greek is apostation.
Separating and divorce are different concepts. It is the separating while remaining married that God hates, as Malachi 12:16 says The Lord Hateth “putting away” which is shalach. It doesn’t use the word for divorce.
To make this clear the distinction is made in Jerimiah 3:8. Both Shalach and keriythuth is used in this verse with the word AND between them which denotes that they are 2 different words and concepts.
What the Jews were doing is “putting away” their wives WITHOUT divorcing them, and going and marrying another while still married to the wife who was put away. This was cruel and an act of hardness because the first wife could not go back to her husband as he didn’t want her, but also could not marry another because it would be adultery. She was left with nearly no way to care for herself.
Further, Deuteronomy 24:5 says what a man is to do when he remarries. If this was adultery, under Levitical law he would have been stoned to death. Same with the women who remarried in 2-3. But they were not stoned to death.
If it WAS adultery to divorce and remarry, then God Himself is an adulterer for divorcing Israel and remarrying the Church. This, of course, is absurd as God cannot sin.
This isn’t an exhaustive explanation, I have much more in answering objections that arise to this, but cross reference the Hebrew and Greek words I provided with the verses and you will see how that aspect all lines up.
Atheist2Apologist,
I’m not in agreement with you. Here’s why.
Moses’ wife Zipporah would not stay with him in the wilderness and he sent her back to live with her father, Jethro. Exodus 18:2
Moses married an Ethiopian woman. Numbers 12
Moses was separated from his first wife and married another, which Aaron and his wife disapproved, yet God sided with Moses..
Yours in Christ,
1saved
You don’t actually disagree with me, you just missed the conditional exceptions. Except in the case of sexual immorality, or if an unbelieving spouse wishes to depart. The Midianites were idol worshippers and Zipporah was a midianite. While she may have also believed in Israel’s God, the Midianites were polytheistic. Finally, just because the Bible doesn’t specifically mention if Moses divorced Zipporah doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. Jesus never explicitly condemned homosexual, but He was definitely against it.
Even if Moses did NOT divorce Zipporah there are many cases of bigamy in the OT. This is also PRIOR TO God giving Moses the instruction outlined in Deuteronomy 24:1. God forgives and is long-suffering regarding sin. While it may not have pleased God that Moses sinned (he also murdered a man and hid his body) that doesn’t mean God automatically withdraws His favor.
Your example does not disprove the translations and reasoning I provided.
God’s truth manifests itself in the world. I can’t tell you how many testimonies there are of believing Christians who had a failed marriage and remarried, only to be blessed with children, abundance, joy, and a Christ-centered, happy, loving relationship. Even serving in ministry together.
I also noticed you completely failed to address any of the points I made. Why is a distinction between putting away and divorce present in scripture? Why did God divorce and remarry Himself? You’ll have to do better than using an example of someone sinning, God showing mercy, and concluding that He must be ok with it. Lot had incest with his daughters, was God ok with that? Why call Lot righteous? God told Abraham to impregnate Hagar while married to Sarah. Are we to use that and say “see, God is ok with me impregnating a woman other than my wife!”
Atheist2Apologist,
Still not smelling what you’re cooking, because when married we are no longer two, but one flesh.
Amen
Moses had multiple wives and so did King David. King Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines (1 Kings 11:3).
God was more than just okay with all these men.
God is immutable and does not change.
Therefore, polygamy is not a sin.
1saved
Yeah, try that one with your spouse! It’s ok, honey, the Bible says I can have as many marriages as I want! God wrote the moral law on our hearts and we all know that one is wrong!
But even if your point was correct, it does not do anything to refute any of the claims I made. Your stance is it is NEVER permissible to divorce, and not permissible to remarry (but apparently TOTALLY FINE to take as many wives as you want). Polygamy is a straw-man in this discussion.
You are STILL dodging the questions I asked. Why does the Bible distinguish putting away and divorce in the same verses, and why did God divorce and remarry if that is adultery? Here is the verse to make it CRYSTAL CLEAR:
Jeremiah 3:8 And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went and played the harlot also.
And just to add to remarriage not being a sin
1 Corinthians 7:27 Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife.
1 Corinthians 7:28 But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned. Nevertheless such shall have trouble in the flesh: but I spare you.
Atheist2Apologist,
You wrote, “Yeah, try that one with your spouse! It’s ok, honey, the Bible says I can have as many marriages as I want! God wrote the moral law on our hearts and we all know that one is wrong! ”
God’s ways are not our ways (Isaiah 55:8) – who are you to question Him (Romans 9:20)?
Latter Day Saints (Mormons) would disagree with your last statement.
1saved
I’m not questioning God, I’m questioning YOUR INTERPRETATION of what God’s ways are. Are you not a man as well? Even the God’s ways are higher than our ways. Yes, look at secular man’s world, they are saying men can get pregnant and anyone can be whatever gender they want! That isn’t God’s way, it is man’s way!
What you are doing is claiming YOUR WAY (a man) is God’s way, this equating YOURSELF, with God.
Funny enough, Calvinists use THE EXACT SAME ARGUMENT to defend THEIR Calvinistic election.
Atheist2Apologist,
You wrote, “What you are doing is claiming YOUR WAY (a man) is God’s way, this equating YOURSELF, with God.
Funny enough, Calvinists use THE EXACT SAME ARGUMENT to defend THEIR Calvinistic election.”
You called God a hypocrite and said He commanded Abraham to impregnate Hagar.
Although you later retracted it – you showed your true colors. You will say anything without thinking or checking the facts first.
And, calling me like a Calvinist, because I believe we are not to question God won’t work with me, but may get you some favor from other Calvinist haters on this site.
I have a question for you. Which is worse an atheist or a Calvinist?
1saved
If there was a face palm I would do it here. I have repeatedly stated God IS NOT a hypocrite. The definition of being a hypocrisy is condemning something you do yourself.
the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one’s own behavior does not conform; pretense
YOU are the one calling God a hypocrite (indirectly) by saying divorce and remarriage is adultery. I am saying IT IS NOT ADULTERY. One belief makes God a hypocrite (yours) and the other does not (mine). Notice I am critiquing THE BELIEF here and NOT the PERSON. (Ad-hominem)
Yes, my memory of the scripture regarding Hagar was in error. I admitted that. Go ahead and crucify me for not perfectly recalling every verse of scripture.
1saved
I have a question for you. Which is worse an atheist or a Calvinist?
br.d
Depends on what aspect or identifier we put on the term “worse”
I know of a few Atheists (Determinists) who do no use deceptive language like Calvinists (who are Theological Determinists) do.
So if we are to use deceptive language as our identifier of “worse” then my money would be on Calvinist :-]
Deuteronomy 21:15
If a man have two wives, one beloved, and another hated, and they have born him children, both the beloved and the hated; and if the firstborn son be hers that was hated:
Atheist2Apologist,
You wrote, “God told Abraham to impregnate Hagar while married to Sarah. Are we to use that and say “see, God is ok with me impregnating a woman other than my wife!””
God did not tell Abraham to impregnate Hagar, Abraham’s wife Sarah suggested Abraham impregnate her maid servant Hagar.
You just lost your credibility with me, since you are suggesting God is some sort of pervert!.
1saved
Still dodging I see, just to make it clear to everyone here, and now you have made both a straw-man and an ad-hominem.
Yes, God did not tell Abram to do so, my mistake. You are clearly trying to avoid directly addressing my claims, but as far as polygamy, tragedy was the result of all of the examples you gave. Solomon’s many wives turned away his heart from the Lord and he went on to worshipping false idols (1 Kings 11). Deuteronomy 17:17 commanded not to multiply wives.
But Polygamy was NOT the topic here, and you keep slipping away from the topic of divorce and remarriage. Let’s stay on topic here.
Atheist2 Apologist,
I’m not dodging.
Of course separation and divorce are two different things.
However, I don’t agree with your assumption that God hates separation and remarrying, but does not hate divorce and remarrying based upon God divorcing Israel and marrying His Church.
Furthermore, I’m offended by your calling God a hypocrite, because He divorced Israel and will marry the Church.
I accept God’s prerogative to do as He pleases – again, who are you to question Him?
1saved
I’m not the one making God a hypocrite. I am interpreting scripture knowing that God IS NOT a hypocrite. Telling someone it is wrong to do something you yourself did makes you a hypocrite. My argument is since I know God is NOT a hypocrite then He will not BE HYPOCRITICAL! Therefore YOUR interpretation of what God is saying makes Him a hypocrite, but MY interpretation does not. If divorcing and remarrying is NOT adultery, then God doing it does NOT make Him an adulterer. God is consistent in His character and nature.
Your claim that if God does it it isn’t a sin does not hold water. Jesus never sinned once, which includes actually following all of God’s commandments. The fact you cannot see this flaw in your logic is rather baffling.
His word says but and if you marry after being loosed (divorced) from a wife you have not sinned. Who are YOU to question God?
Atheist2Apologist,
You wrote, “His word says but and if you marry after being loosed (divorced) from a wife you have not sinned. Who are YOU to question God?”
If your wife divorces you, she has sinned because wives are bound by the law to their husband as long as he lives.
The innocent man can remarry (except not to a divorced woman) and he will have two wives in God’s eyes, since the divorce is illegal by God’s Word. She can’t remarry and no one can marry her, because they would be committing adultery.
Get your facts straight BEFORE you jump to wrong conclusions.
How many wrong conclusions should you be allowed?
1saved
1saved,
What Jesus said supersedes everything else! The rule in marriage is this; what God has joined together let not man separate. He only gave one exception for divorce, namely, fornication — which means your spouse has been sexually unfaithful. In that case, as the innocent party, you have the right to divorce her and remarry, according to what Jesus said. On the other hand, He gave no such right for the guilty party to remarry. But regarding polygamy you are way off. Polygamy is a sin! Note again what Jesus did concerning marriage, He brought it back to God’s intention for marriage in the beginning at creation — one man, one woman. As far as I can see that’s it.
“And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate”(Mt. 19:4-6).
“Furthermore it has been said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.’ But I say to you that whoever divorces his wife for any reason except sexual immorality causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a woman who is divorced commits adultery” (Mt. 5:31-32).
“And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery” (Mt. 19:9).
Aidan
Aidan, and 1saved,
Actually, you are falling in the same trap as 1saved in your explanation.
Jesus was under the law talking to lawyers (Pharisees) about the law.
And the law distinguishes “Put Away” from “Divorce”. And that is what both I and Atheist2Apologist are trying to get across.
1saved had said:
“He only gave one exception for divorce, namely, fornication — which means your spouse has been sexually unfaithful. ”
But that’s not what the Bible actually states.
Matthew 5:32
But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.
Note: The word “divorced” in the above should be “put away”. Note the Greek word used twice in this verse. You will see this in the following verse, both should be “put away”. The word “divorced” should not even be there at all.
and [The following is the same as Matthew 5:32, only stated correctly, whereas Matthew 5:32 is incorrectly stated].
Matthew 19:9
And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.
Notice “Put away” and “Put away”, rather than “put away” and “divorced”. Both of these verses, by the Greek, states the same exact thing. But in Matthew, the wrong English word is used.
In these references, a man married an already still married woman. She never got a divorce yet. She was only KICKED OUT of the house (Uh, that is, PUT AWAY, aka Send Away) by her husband…without the divorce.
Your references uses the word “divorced”, whether it be “put away” or “divorce”. Two different Greek Words.
There is a difference.
So, yes, Jesus wants people to stay together, HOWEVER, in the law, he allowed divorce. God is the one who made it law to begin with. So when you see the words WHY DID MOSES ALLOW IT…it’s not Moses, the person, but the law of Moses. The law of Moses is known as the law of God. So God is the one who made the law, regarding divorce…not Moses, the person.
But what was the reason that Jesus gave regarding why it was allowed?
Hardness of hearts.
When did that change?
Divorce, it’s allowed. Humans are designed to have “hardness of hearts”.
1 Cor 7 states, DON’T LET HER LEAVE, but if she leaves…
Whah what? IF she leaves? Yes, if she leaves. But what about “DON’T LET HER LEAVE? And that’s where the ABUSE begins in a loveless marriage, because the husband refuses to let her go. All because they think that Jesus sanctions loveless abusive marriages.
In other words, it’s on you to try to reconcile the differences, but sometimes it’s not that easy. She’s gonna leave anyway. You can’t force someone to love you…can you?
And do you think that God wants a loveless marriage?
Ed Chapman
Ed,
If your wife leaves you, you can remarry, since you are allowed to have multiple wives. You should first attempt to reconcile, however you are not to attempt to force her return.
Your wife cannot divorce you, because she is bound by the law to you for as long as you live. If abused, she is to have the law deal with you by incarceration if necessary.
If she files for divorce and a court divides the assets, the divorce is illegal in God’s sight, because marriage and divorce are things of God – give unto God the things of God. The judge does not have jurisdiction in divorce matters.
If you divorce your wife without grounds of sexual immorality and give her a certificate of divorce you are guilty of making her an adulterer when she has relations with another. You cannot remarry her after she is with another because she has been defiled.
If you divorce your wife, because she was sexually immoral and give her a certificate of divorce, you still cannot remarry.
No man can marry any divorced woman, if he did he would be committing adultery.
Marriage is “until death do us part” – Amen.
1saved
You suggested Ed was Muslim earlier due to him citing Biblical Levitical law, and comparing it to Islamic laws. Muslims and Mormons both believe in polygamy, while Christians do not. Should we then suggest that you sound like a Muslim or Mormon and not a follower of Christ?
br.d
You asked a good question – based on sound reasoning.
It made me start to think of a young couple considering marriage.
One of them – put a very high emphasis on sound reasoning.
The other had an intense need to be in control.
Being in control superseded everything – including being rational.
After a time – one of them came to the sad conclusion that the two of them were unevenly yoked – and they eventually went their separate ways.
Sometimes that happens!
Atheist2Apologist,
“You suggested Ed was Muslim earlier due to him citing Biblical Levitical law, and comparing it to Islamic laws. Muslims and Mormons both believe in polygamy, while Christians do not. Should we then suggest that you sound like a Muslim or Mormon and not a follower of Christ?”
I never suggested Ed was Muslim, so your last sentence is ridiculous.
I provided links to Jewish teaching on polygamy, which you failed to mention here. Are you trying to deceive by omission?
1saved
You said he sounded like a Muslim and not a follower of Christ. He recently responded saying, No, I am not a Muslim. Why would he do that if you did not in some way suggest it.
As far as Jewish teachings, big grain of salt. First of all, Jews reject Jesus as the Messiah. The 4 gospels show Jesus CONSISTENTLY telling the Jews that they were misunderstanding the scriptures. I’m going to side with Jesus on this one and not give much credit to Jewish interpretations of scripture.
1saved,
You said TODAY:
1saved
August 26, 2022 at 12:19 pm
Atheist2Apologist,
“You suggested Ed was Muslim earlier due to him citing Biblical Levitical law, and comparing it to Islamic laws. Muslims and Mormons both believe in polygamy, while Christians do not. Should we then suggest that you sound like a Muslim or Mormon and not a follower of Christ?”
I never suggested Ed was Muslim, so your last sentence is ridiculous.
But yesterday you said:
1saved
August 25, 2022 at 9:27 pm
Ed,
If she broke the contract by committing adultery, the law states to STONE HER TO DEATH, and I’m not exactly sure you know this or not, but I can’t divorce a dead woman.
You sound like a Muslim following sharia law not a Christian following Christ..
—————————————————————————————————–
That’s OK, dementia patients meet new people everyday.
Ed Chapman
Ed,
You sound like something does not suggest you are something.
For example, if I say you sound like my cousin Vinny, does that suggest I think you are my cousin Vinny?
1saved
1saved,
Vinny is my stage name. I’m Jerry Gallo!
At least I’m not Bernie. He’s kinda dead right now.
Good movie.
Ed
Well, according to Calvinists, we are all just as dead as Bernie until we get regenerated!
LOL. I got a chuckle out of that! Since they took a lot of Catholic baggage with them, I’m surprised that they didn’t keep PAY THE PRIEST for some grace. Who needs faith when money will get ya anything you heart desires!
Ed
A2A
Well, according to Calvinists, we are all just as dead as Bernie until we get regenerated!
br.d
They use that as an excuse to try to make the square-peg of Determinism fit into the round-hole of scripture.
The underlying truth in Calvinism is – Calvin’s god is the AUTHOR of every impulse that will come to pass within the human brain.
Calvin’s god decrees “Anti-God” impulses to come to pass within the brains of “THE MANY”
For “THE FEW” he changes the impulses he decrees come to pass within their brains – in order to make them “Pro-God” instead of “Anti-God”.
The infallible decree determines the state of man’s brain – at every nano-second in time.
The Calvinist has to find a way to make that APPEAR Biblical.
So he invented “Total Depravity” as a means of accomplishing that.
I actually understand the reasoning. When I was an atheist it was what I thought about God (which was why I rejected THAT God) and I thought that about God from a logical understanding. It went like this:
God is all knowing. He knows everything that ever has happened, is happening, and ever will happen. He also created everything. So when He created each human, He knew before creating them that they would go to hell. Therefore, He caused them to go to Hell.
I thought this was FOOL PROOF logic. But, being unskilled in deeper knowledge of logic, I did not realize I was conflating knowledge and causation. One can know something without being the cause. If you drop an egg on the cement, I KNOW it will break. That doesn’t mean I was the CAUSE of it breaking.
God created the best possible creation. The best possible creation included free creatures. Only free creatures could truly Love. A world without real love, is not the best world. In order for real love to exist, creatures have to be free to do good or bad. A consequence of that is some creatures will do bad. Justice/Judgement is the counter balance to that, but so is mercy, which is an act of Love.
That’s not what Deuteronomy 24:1-4 states. That’s the law. IF she leaves, I have to give her a divorce decree so that she is free to marry another. And I would do that, because it’s NOT ABOUT ME, but her. Her freedom.
But me, personally, I am divorced. But if I were married, I would only have one wife…who could handle more than one?
OK, well, maybe two. One to fan the huge feather at my face for cool air, and the other to feed me grapes.
And as Robin Williams once said in a movie, I’m against same sex marriage, because when you are married, it’s always the same sex.
That’s humor in case ya missed it!
Ed Chapman
Ed,
You wrote: “Jesus was under the law talking to lawyers (Pharisees) about the law.”
Response: Jesus was not so much talking to them about the law, but rather, in contrast to the Pharisees and the law of Moses. Much of what Jesus taught during His personal ministry was in anticipation of the gospel dispensation under a new order of things! And so, the exception of Matt. 5:32 and 19:9 can apply only under the reign of Christ and, hence, in the gospel dispensation. Therefore I’m not concerned about what the law taught, only what Jesus teaches for us.
If you notice Matthew 19, when Jesus is speaking about “putting away” He is speaking about the whole thing, namely, “giving her a certificate of Divorcement and sending her away.” That’s the context of their question and His answer.
Matthew 19:7-9 ASV
7 They say unto him, Why then did Moses command to give a bill of divorcement, and to put her away?
8 He saith unto them, Moses for your hardness of heart suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it hath not been so. 9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and he that marrieth her when she is put away committeth adultery.
Again, notice verse 7 that the context has to do with divorce. The term “put away” just represents the whole. But maybe also He said it that way to cover all eventualities.
Aidan
Aidan,
You wrote, “The term “put away” just represents the whole. But maybe also He said it that way to cover all eventualities.”
Well said, Aidan.
1saved
Aidan,
But you have to take it back to the original question that the Pharisees had to Jesus…and it was a TRICK question. It was to try to trip Jesus up about the law, and that is why I stand by what I said regarding that Jesus was discussing the law to lawyers.
And the original question had nothing to do with divorce at all. It only had to do with “put away”. Then later, they asked about why THE LAW OF MOSES, as opposed to Moses, the PERSON, allowed put away and divorcement.
Jesus mentions hardened hearts.
So I ask…when did that change? Do we not have hardened hearts today, even as a married Christian? Sure we do.
Jesus is just clarifying “Hey, guys, stay together and work out your marriage”.
He wasn’t mandating anything, except to not disobey the law of Moses. IF he was, then the Pharisees would have an excuse to legitimately stone Jesus, because that was their goal, and the reason they asked the question that they did.
They know the law, and was trying to TRICK Jesus into saying something that they could trap him with. Their question was not a legit inquiry for clarification.
Ed Chapman
Aidan,
Jesus’ disciples knew what He said about divorce, sending away, putting away your wives and asked Him why would any man get married if what You say is the law of God.
If what Atheist2Apologst has the correct understanding on this doctrine, why would they ask Christ this unless His teaching was indeed very strict.
If all a man has to do is give a piece of paper to divorce and he’s free – why not get married?
1saved
Ed just explained this. They were trying to trick Him with the question to get Him to slip up so they could legally punish Him. They weren’t asking Him from a place of genuinely seeking an answer from someone they viewed as a wise and respected teacher.
Atheist2Apologist,
Ed just explained this. They were trying to trick Him with the question to get Him to slip up so they could legally punish Him. They weren’t asking Him from a place of genuinely seeking an answer from someone they viewed as a wise and respected teacher.
Not the point presented to Aidan – and I’m paraphrasing:
Why would the disciples ask Jesus, “If it is so difficult to get out of marriage, why would any man get married?”
There must be consequences to get out by sending away and/or divorce. If getting out through divorce by giving a certificate is without consequences, then every man would not hesitate to marry.
Therefore, you cannot be right in your exegesis of the matter.
1saved,
Again, get back to the ORIGINAL question by the Pharisees. Their question had nothing to do with divorce at all.
It only had to do with PUT AWAY.
Matthew 19:3
The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?
Jesus said, “NO, you may only PUT AWAY in the cause of adultery. For any other “PUT AWAY”, YOU HAD BETTER COUPLE THAT WITH A DIVORCE DECREE AS PER THE LAW IN DEU 24:1-4.
Now, note verse 3 of Deu 29:4
3 And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, which took her to be his wife;
So, if the hubby HATES his wife is cause for divorce, in which you would PUT HER AWAY coupled with a divorce decree.
Hates his wife. Sufficient enough. That covers a myriad of causes.
It’s not always TIL DEATH DO US PART…that’s the 2nd half of the verse.
Ed Chapman
Ed,
You wrote:
Again, get back to the ORIGINAL question by the Pharisees. Their question had nothing to do with divorce at all.
It only had to do with PUT AWAY.
Matthew 19:3
The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?
Jesus said, “NO, you may only PUT AWAY in the cause of adultery. For any other “PUT AWAY”, YOU HAD BETTER COUPLE THAT WITH A DIVORCE DECREE AS PER THE LAW IN DEU 24:1-4.
Now, note verse 3 of Deu 29:4
3 And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, which took her to be his wife;
So, if the hubby HATES his wife is cause for divorce, in which you would PUT HER AWAY coupled with a divorce decree.
Hates his wife. Sufficient enough. That covers a myriad of causes.
It’s not always TIL DEATH DO US PART…that’s the 2nd half of the verse.
Ed Chapman
Reply:
It’s always TIL DEATH DO US PART, which is why His disciples asked Him why would any man get married?
1saved
1saved,
Wrong. They never asked Jesus what you proclaim that they asked. They asked about PUT AWAY, not divorce. But you are too stubborn to acknowledge that.
Ed Chapman
Ed
But you are too stubborn to acknowledge that.
br.d
Please be careful Ed
We don’t want to push things into the wrong direction.
Which verse says til death do us part? Was that in the 67th book of the Bible?
You have to look at the context of the Disciples. Until Jesus became their Rabbi, they were also under the teachings of the Pharisees and Jewish Rabbi’s who were teaching a misunderstood version of the scriptures, and practicing things based on their incorrect interpretations. They were “putting away” their wives for any reason, and this was also what they taught, which is what the disciples also would have thought.
Jesus was CORRECTING the Pharisees on their practice of just sending their wives away. Since the disciples had also held to this belief their whole lives, hearing Jesus explain it differently confused them, hence they asked the question. This was coming from their belief that they could just put away their wives for any reason whenever they wanted to.
You miss this context and reasoning because you have presupposed God hates DIVORCE, and that DIVORCE IS ALWAYS WRONG, which you are using as the lens to interpret the text.
Atheist2Apologist,
You wrote, “Ed just explained this. They were trying to trick Him with the question to get Him to slip up so they could legally punish Him. They weren’t asking Him from a place of genuinely seeking an answer from someone they viewed as a wise and respected teacher.”
How ironic.
Aren’t you, Ed Chapman and Br.d trying to trick me with your questions to get me to slip up?
In contrast, Aidan is usually asking sincere questions.
1saved
1saved
Ed Chapman and Br.d trying to trick me with your questions to get me to slip up?
br.d
Sorry!
That ain’t happening here! ;-D
Aidan,
“And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery” (Mt. 19:9).
This Matthew 19:9 text was corrupted. The scholars who translated the KJV used manuscripts missing key words.
Reading the footnotes in the NASB and RSV verifies there are other ancient authorities/manuscripts which restore what Christ actually said.
Jesus said the same thing to the Pharisees in Matthew 19:9 that He said for His Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5:32).
1saved
KJV is translated from textus receptus, arguably the purest original documents. NASB has egregious errors in it.
2 Samuel 21:19 And there was again a battle in Gob with the Philistines, where Elhanan the son of Jaareoregim, a Bethlehemite, slew the brother of Goliath the Gittite, the staff of whose spear was like a weaver’s beam.
That is KJV, but in NASB it says Elhanan slew GOLIATH, not the brother of Goliath. We know David slew Goliath.
NASB also uses the word Hades, which is the pagan hell.
Footnotes are NOT CANONICAL! They are human interpretations of the texts ADDED IN to the texts.
1saved,
You wrote:
“This Matthew 19:9 text was corrupted. The scholars who translated the KJV used manuscripts missing key words.”
“Reading the footnotes in the NASB and RSV verifies there are other ancient authorities/manuscripts which restore what Christ actually said.”
Response: The so-called corrupted text seems to be covered when you put together what He said in (Mark 10:11-12; Luke 16:18; with Matt. 19:9, and Matt 5:32.) And when you do put them together you will see that the exception clause gives only the innocent party a right to remarry!
Aidan
Aidan,
I’m not interested in repeatedly going over this topic.
Read the Bible in the Autographs/Original text, which you find in the NASB and RSV for Matthew 19:9.
Husbands who divorce their wives except for sexual immorality make their wife an adulterer.
There is no exception allowing them to remarry if she was sexually immoral.
1saved
1saved,
You wrote:
Read the Bible in the Autographs/Original text, which you find in the NASB and RSV for Matthew 19:9.
Response:
I did for the NASB. It reads: “And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman [fn]commits adultery[fn]” (Mt. 19:9 NASB). The footnotes read (One early ms makes her commit adultery) and then (One early ms adds and he who marries a divorced woman commits adultery). Therefore, that’s what the most all of the manuscripts say!
You wrote:
“There is no exception allowing them to remarry if she was sexually immoral.”
Response:
Luke 16:18 NASB “Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery,…”
The exception allows the innocent party to remarry without committing adultery
Mat. 19:9 NASB “And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”
The NASB incorrectly translated apuolo to mean divorce. Apuolo is “sending away, departing, separating”. It is a general term.
Matthew 14:15 And when it was evening, his disciples came to him, saying, This is a desert place, and the time is now past; send the multitude away, that they may go into the villages, and buy themselves victuals.
Here send away also translates from apuolo. It does NOT mean Divorce. Hence most English translations did not translate the word correctly. The KJV is closest, but makes the same mistake in Matthew 5:32.
Atheist2apologist,
I believe the context of Jesus’ conflict with the pharisees has to do with divorce.
In Mt. 19:3 they ask the question ” is it lawful to put away his wife for every cause?” Jesus gives them an answer they didn’t like. So in verse 7 they ask, ‘why then did Moses command to give her a bill of divorce, and put her away?’ Therefore, we know that they were talking about divorce in verse 3 when they asked the question about “putting away.”
That’s the context of their discussion with Jesus. Therefore, I believe you are greatly mistaken.
Aidan
Nuance. Original question was put away for any reason. This was a “trap”. They were using the command of giving a writ of divorcement as justification to send their wife away. They were also quoting Deuteronomy 24. Again, look at the WHOLE of scripture, not just Matthew. Deut. 24:1-5, Malachi 12:16, Jeremiah 3:8, and 1 Corinthians 7. They all fit together.
Yes, indeed, they were certainly trying to trap Him. But again, v.7 reveals that divorce for any cause was the context of their original question in v.3. In other words, give her a bill of divorce and send her away. That’s the question Jesus answers in v.9.
Jesus teaching here is not on the law of Moses, but rather, is in contrast to the law of Moses. He was teaching what would be in the gospel dispensation. Therefore, when it comes to God’s will on this issue for today, we need to focus on what Jesus commanded, not Moses.
It conflicts too with 1 Corinthians 7:27-28
1 Corinthians 7:27 Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife.
1 Corinthians 7:28 But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned. Nevertheless such shall have trouble in the flesh: but I spare you.
Very clear. Loosed does translate to divorce. So Paul continues the thought in verse 28 with But and if, following up the thought of seek not a wife. So if a divorced man marries, he has not sinned. It is very clear, but this would make a contradiction in scripture, if the Matt 5:32 and 19:9 meant how most interpret it.
Atheist2Apologist,
17 Only, as the Lord has assigned to each one, as God has called each, in this way let him walk. And so I direct in all the churches. 18 Was any man called when he was already circumcised? He is not to become uncircumcised. Has anyone been called in uncircumcision? He is not to be circumcised. 19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but what matters is the keeping of the commandments of God. 20 Each person is to remain in that [m]state in which he was called. 1 Corinthians 7:17-20 NASB
Footnote [m] Lit calling
Two points.
(1) You claim divorce in Deuteronomy 24:1-4 is still applicable today. You argue that no-fault divorce with a divorce decree is completely acceptable. You state, what is unacceptable is to put away your wife without a divorce decree.
Aidan countered that claim with, “Then, why did the Pharisees test (trying to trap) Christ on this issue, if Jesus was teaching Mosaic law?” [I’m paraphrasing his meaning as I understand it]
I don’t think you ever replied to Aidan’s excellent point.
(2) Circumcision of males is paramount to Jews. They may not keep kosher food law or may work on the Sabbath, but circumcision is required for every male Jew dating back to Abraham, who circumcised himself at the age of 99 – NOTHING is more sacred to Jews than male circumcision.
My point is this; if circumcision is nothing with the New Covenant (v19), why couldn’t Mosaic law on divorce be made moot by Jesus (Matthew 19:8-9)?
Additionally, I’m curious if you will share your thoughts on how the circumcised could become uncircumcised?
1saved
1saved,
You had said:
“Aidan countered that claim with, “Then, why did the Pharisees test (trying to trap) Christ on this issue, if Jesus was teaching Mosaic law?” [I’m paraphrasing his meaning as I understand it]”
My response:
Mark 10:2
And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting him.
***********Please note the question, “IS IT LAWFUL…”.************
That would indicate THE LAW OF MOSES…not a transition to NT stuff at all.***
Please note the last 2 words, “TEMPTING HIM”.
Also, please note the words “PUT AWAY”.
Also please note that the word DIVORCE is nowhere to be found in the question.
Aidan was indicating that it was NOT a trick question.
————————————————————————————————————-
Regarding circumcision:
You had said:
“(2) Circumcision of males is paramount to Jews. They may not keep kosher food law or may work on the Sabbath, but circumcision is required for every male Jew dating back to Abraham, who circumcised himself at the age of 99 – NOTHING is more sacred to Jews than male circumcision.”
You also say that circumcision is NOTHING in the NT.
My response:
Of course it is NOTHING in the NEW COVENANT, because that covenant was NOT FOR CHRISTIANS, but for the Jews only. But why?
Do you even know what circumcision is all about since it dates back to Abraham?
In other words, do you even know why Jews get circumcised to begin with?
In other words, what’s the reason that Jews get circumcised?
The answer is that it’s all about the PROMISED LAND of Israel, with specific borders, THRU ISAAC, as opposed to Ismael.
In other words, that small piece of real estate in the middle east. So it doesn’t matter if the Jews are disobedient or not. Circumcision is a EVERLASTING covenant Between Abraham and God, for the Jews, THRU ISAAC, to inherit THE PROMISED LAND, the small piece of real estate in the middle east.
And that is why circumcision of males is paramount to Jews. That land belongs to the Jews, and is not Palestine, as Aidan mentioned the other day.
Genesis 17:7-14
7 And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee.
8 And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God.
9 And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee in their generations.
10 This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised.
11 And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you.
12 And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed.
13 He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.
14 And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.
——————————-
Ed Chapman
Ed,
Wasn’t it Shakespeare who said, “…full of sound and fury – signifying nothing” – WOW I must had hit a nerve with you about circumcision. All those “in other words” coming from you. Have you ever tried saying plainly and CONCISELY what you mean?
My point was, “If circumcision, which is held in highest sacredness by Jews, can be made nothing then surely the Mosaic teaching on putting away/divorce can be made stricter.” Jesus said it was stricter from the beginning and only because Jews had hard hearts was it permitted for them to put away or divorce. He was only returning marriage & divorce to their original state in creation.
Personally, I think it’s better that Aidan explain his position. I believe he said perhaps “put/send away” covers both with and without an official divorce decree, while divorce is only with a certificate of divorce.
One might ask about property and child custody that are not explained in Deuteronomy 24. Does the wife get nothing if sent away (no property or children), but gets her children and a property settlement if she receives a certificate of divorce from her husband?
In that case, I’d assume God hates sending away more than divorce, but does not change the fact that Jesus’ teaching doesn’t allow either sending away or divorce.. No longer two, but one flesh; not to be divided by anyone.
1saved
1saved,
Dude, Jews get circumcised FOR A REASON, in which has NOTHING to do with us. We don’t inherit the physical land of Israel. They do.
And, I might add, that circumcision was BROUGHT INTO THE LAW, therefore, if you take away the law, circumcision STILL STANDS for the Jews, because it did not originate from THE LAW, but by an everlasting covenant before the law.
Next:
You had said:
“Personally, I think it’s better that Aidan explain his position. I believe he said perhaps “put/send away” covers both with and without an official divorce decree, while divorce is only with a certificate of divorce.
My response:
Then WHY does the scripture have a CONJUNCTION in it, the word “AND”?
Matthew 19:7
They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, AND to put her away?
Mark 10:4
And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, AND to put her away.
Deuteronomy 24:1
When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, AND send her out of his house.
Deuteronomy 24:3
And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, AND sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, which took her to be his wife;
Isaiah 50:1
Thus saith the Lord, Where is the bill of your mother’s divorcement, whom I have put away? or which of my creditors is it to whom I have sold you? Behold, for your iniquities have ye sold yourselves, and for your transgressions is your mother put away.
Malachi 2:16
For the Lord, the God of Israel, saith that he hateth putting away…
Regarding the property settlement…they had judges, priests aka Sanhedrin to consult for that. When Jesus was accused of a RELIGIOUS crime, where did he go first? To the Romans? No.
Ed Chapman
Ed,
Jesus reinstated the original law – no putting away with or without a certificate of divorce.
Mosaic law was changed back to the original doctrine at creation.
Matthew 19:7
They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, AND to put her away?
Mark 10:4
And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, AND to put her away.
Deuteronomy 24:1
When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, AND send her out of his house.
You wrote:
Then WHY does the scripture have a CONJUNCTION in it, the word “AND”?
My reply:
FIRST you write a bill of divorcement AND THEN you put away your wife.
Would you prefer, “They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to put her away WITH a writing of divorcement?”
Six of one, half dozen the other, dude.
1saved
You still don’t distinguish the two concepts. You think both divorce and putting away are forbidden, yet conflate the concepts everywhere where distinctions are made in the word. You are also mistaking the context and intent of the Pharisees asking the question to begin with. They were both seeking to justify themselves while tempting Jesus to slip up with the knowledge of the Law.
Note they were PUTTING AWAY their wife for any reason, but not divorcing them. They were using that scripture to justify that action, but not always including the divorce part. That was cruel, because the woman could not get married to have someone care for her. She was actually a widow. Widow was any woman who was previously married, as they would explain HOW they became widowed. If there was only one way to be a widow (husband died) then there would be no need to say how they became a widow. It is redundant.
Atheist2Apologist,
You wrote, “You still don’t distinguish the two concepts.”
Not true. I have provided this earlier, but I’ll be more concise here.
Putting away – forced parting without a certificate of divorce.
Divorce – forced parting with a certificate of divorce
No certificate of divorce means no agreement on division of assets, property and children.
A certificate of divorce means a judge makes a ruling, which is hopefully fair regarding division of assets, property, children, visitation, child support, etc.
God hates putting away (Malachi 2:16).
You say God only hates putting away and doesn’t disapprove of divorce. Do not assume God is indifferent to divorce.
Why? Because He desires godly seed (children). Malachi 2:15
Whether by putting away or divorce the children of the separated parents suffer by lacking godliness and godliness accords with acknowledgement of the truth. Titus 1:1
1saved
1saved,
You had said:
“Would you prefer, “They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to put her away WITH a writing of divorcement?””
My response:
No, I prefer it just the way it is written. The word “and” is a conjunction.
Strong’s G2532
καί kaí, kahee; apparently, a primary particle, having a copulative and sometimes also a cumulative force; and, also, even, so then, too, etc.; often used in connection (or composition) with other particles or small words:—and, also, both, but, even, for, if, or, so, that, then, therefore, when, yet.
The KJV translates Strong’s G2532 in the following manner: and (8,173x), also (514x), even (108x), both (43x), then (20x), so (18x), likewise (13x), not tr. (350x), miscellaneous (31x), variations of ‘and’ (1x).
The word “WITH” is a preposition, not a conjunction.
Ed Chapman
1saved,
You had said:
“Jesus reinstated the original law – no putting away with or without a certificate of divorce.
Mosaic law was changed back to the original doctrine at creation.”
My response:
There was not “ORIGINAL LAW”. If there was, then Abraham would not have married his SISTER (step sister), because that was against the law of Moses. So there was no ORIGINAL LAW.
What there was, was that husband and wife WORKED on their marriage, and did not divorce in haste. And that is what Jesus and Paul is telling us.
See 1 Cor 7 in more detail in how Paul states, LET HER NO DEPART.
Is that a commandment that she can’t leave your sorry butt? NO, because then Paul states, “BUT IF SHE DEPARTS”.
That shows that LET HER NOT DEPART isn’t a commandment.
The moral of the story is to TRY TO RECONCILE, but if you can’t, then DIVORCE.
And guess what, you can remarry after a divorce. Yes, you can.
Ed Chapman
Ed,
There was not “ORIGINAL LAW”. If there was, then Abraham would not have married his SISTER (step sister), because that was against the law of Moses. So there was no ORIGINAL LAW.
When Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit they received the knowledge of all good and evil (Original Law).
Adam and Eve were responsible to teach this knowledge to their children, which was verbally passed from one generation to another.
You wrote:
The moral of the story is to TRY TO RECONCILE, but if you can’t, then DIVORCE.
My reply:
You can divorce, but you can’t remarry if you instituted the divorce.
You wrote, “And guess what, you can remarry after a divorce. Yes, you can.”
My reply:
You can remarry IF your wife divorced you. You will have two wives.
Otherwise, you cannot.
1saved
Atheist2Apologist,
Are there different Greek and Hebrew words for, “leave”, “separate”, “put or send away” and “divorce”?
Does “leave” signify 1-sided parting, but with potential reconciliation, “separate” signify mutual agreement to part but remain married, “put or send away” signify forced parting without a divorce decree and “divorce” signify forced parting with a decree?
10 But to the married I give instructions, not I, but the Lord, that the wife is not to leave her husband 11 (but if she does leave, she must remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband), and that the husband is not to [f]divorce his wife.
12 But to the rest I say, not the Lord, that if any brother has an unbelieving wife, and she consents to live with him, he must not [g]divorce her. 13 And [h]if any woman has an unbelieving husband, and he consents to live with her, she must not [i]divorce her husband. 14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified through [j]her believing husband; for otherwise your children are unclean, but now they are holy. 15 Yet if the unbelieving one is leaving, [k]let him leave; the brother or the sister is not under bondage in such cases, but God has called [l]us in peace. 16 For how do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife? 1 Corinthians 7:10-16 NASB
[f] Or leave his wife
[g] Or leave her
[h] One early ms any woman who has
[i] Or leave her husband
[k] Or then he must leave
[l] One early ms you
Notice the following if the different Greek words for leave, separate, put/send away and divorce apply:
The Lord said as reported by Matthew, Mark and Luke::
v10 &11a says a wife is not to part from her husband to contemplate whether the marriage is worth saving, but if she does she must remain permanently unmarried or be reconciled to her husband
v11b says …a husband is not to leave his wife…saying a man cannot part from his wife to contemplate whether the marriage is worth saving.
1) Did the Lord say a man cannot LEAVE his wife or cannot DIVORCE her?
2) Or, does “leave” here mean “put/send away” in this verse. If leave means put away without a decree, then a wife could put away her husband under Mosaic law, which we know isn’t true.
Paul (not coming directly from the Lord) says:
v12 says …if the believing husband has an unbelieving wife and she wants to live with him, he cannot part from her to contemplate whether the marriage is worth saving
v13 says …if he (unbelieving husband) consents to live with her (believing wife) she cannot part from him to contemplate whether the marriage is worth saving
The idea that any individual cannot part to contemplate whether the marriage is worth saving is absurd.
v15 says …if the unbelieving one is parting with potential reconciliation, let them go, since you are not under bondage (yoked together) in such cases.
v15 supports my earlier statement that anyone can part to contemplate reconciliation and to say otherwise is absurd.
1saved
The word used there for unmarried is apagmos, which means without nuptials (sex) during this separation. Also of mote is if they were divorced she would not have a husband to reconcile with, as divorced people are not married. The verse makes sense only if they are put away and not divorced.
You keep ignoring how the original language is used and you keep using versions of the Bible that translate to divorce, which isn’t what the original words were. For some reason, you won’t admit this and go to the Greek/Hebrew.
God doesn’t hate divorce (keriythuth) but hates putting away (shalach). The word shalach is used in Malachi 12:16 and not keriythuth.
You mentioned let no man separate what God has brought together. First off, why do you assume EVERY marriage was one God brought together? Did God bring 2 satanists together? Did he want Jews to marry pagans? Did he bring together an abusive alcoholic and a decent Christian woman? If you think so, why do you think so? Is it possible 2 people got married against God’s will?
Atheist2Apologit,
“God doesn’t hate divorce (keriythuth) but hates putting away (shalach). The word shalach is used in Malachi 12:16 and not keriythuth.”
Truth is, “God does not SAY He hates divorce (keriythuth), He only says He hates putting away (shalach).”
Because of the hardness of their hearts, God permitted divorce (with a certificate of divorce) under Mosaic law, but from creation that was not His original position. Matthew 19:8
“You mentioned let no man separate what God has brought together. First off, why do you assume EVERY marriage was one God brought together? Did God bring 2 satanists together? Did he want Jews to marry pagans? Did he bring together an abusive alcoholic and a decent Christian woman? If you think so, why do you think so? Is it possible 2 people got married against God’s will?”
First, I don’t assume EVERY marriage was one God brought together. Why do you assume I did?
Second, Let no man separate what God has JOINED together.
Joined together – not brought together. Brought together by civil ceremony isn’t marriage by God. Ministers that “marry” homosexuals are not administering “being joined together” either.
Two types joined together; believers and/or unbelievers. I covered this previously in my 1 Corinthians 7:12-16 exegesis.
Those “married” in violation of God’s will must depart from one another (Ezra 10:18-44) immediately upon acknowledging their sin.
1saved
1saved,
You contradicted yourself when you said:
“Those “married” in violation of God’s will must depart from one another (Ezra 10:18-44) immediately upon acknowledging their sin.”
IF that is true, then Paul is a liar when he said:
1 Corinthians 7:14
For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.
Regarding Ezra, God did not want Jews marrying GENTILES, due to they might be tempted to follow other gods.
And they did just that, and God was angry, and made them separate from them, or he was going to kill them. It was a violation of the LAW OF MOSES.
Ezra 10:3
3 Now therefore let us make a covenant with our God to put away all the wives, and such as are born of them, according to the counsel of my lord, and of those that tremble at the commandment of our God; and let it be done according to the law.
In this case, NO DIVORCE…JUST PUT AWAY.
Ed Chapman
Ed,
You contradicted yourself when you said:
“Those “married” in violation of God’s will must depart from one another (Ezra 10:18-44) immediately upon acknowledging their sin.”
IF that is true, then Paul is a liar when he said:
1 Corinthians 7:14
For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy
The quotation marks around “married” applies to those who think they are married but were never joined together by God.
Homosexuals are not married, though they think they were – even by a clergyman.
Since Christ’s teaching in the Sermon on the Mount, divorce is no longer legal.
So, men marrying a divorced women are not legally married and men divorcing their wife to “marry” a woman is illegal.
A man who was “divorced” by his wife can marry; he will have two wives.
Judges, State Legislatures, Congress and the Supreme Court do not have jurisdiction in deciding marriage and divorce law. Marriage is a thing of God – He joins a man and a woman together in marriage and whatsoever He joins together let no one put asunder. Give unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s, but give unto God the things of God.
So, NO! I did not contradict myself!
1saved
Atheist2Apologist,
You wrote:
“It conflicts too with 1 Corinthians 7:27-28”
“1 Corinthians 7:27 Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife.
1 Corinthians 7:28 But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned. Nevertheless such shall have trouble in the flesh: but I spare you.”
“Very clear. Loosed does translate to divorce. So Paul continues the thought in verse 28 with But and if, following up the thought of seek not a wife. So if a divorced man marries, he has not sinned. It is very clear, but this would make a contradiction in scripture, if the Matt 5:32 and 19:9 meant how most interpret it.”
Response:
So you are saying, if a divorced man marries he has not sinned and therefore this would contradict how I interpret Matt. 5:32 and 19:9?? Not necessarily so! My interpretation of those passages is that he can remarry only if he divorced her for fornication. Otherwise he commits adultery! I don’t believe Paul would have taught anything that would contradict Jesus. And I’m not sure that’s what Paul had in mind here.
Aidan
That was how I used to interpret it too. But this was before I had learned the Greek and Hebrew words and the distinctions made between them. Paul is specifically talking about divorce and remarriage here, Jesus was addressing putting away, but not divorce. Therefore there is no contradiction, or even a hint of one.
Jesus said to the Pharisees:
(Mat. 19:6) “So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, LET NO MAN SEPARATE.”
They understand Him to be talking about divorce:
(Mat. 19:7) They *said to Him, “Why then did Moses command to GIVE HER A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE AND SEND her AWAY?”
That’s what the conversation was about! It’s as simple as that! But I will add this; if one was to SEND her AWAY just for any cause, the CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE would not be recognized in God’s eyes. It has to be for fornication.
Aidan
So again, this isn’t the whole of scripture. Looking at EVERY relevant scripture and how these words are used and differentiated. Even God hates Divorce is not translated as God hates divorce.
What God joined together…is EVERY MARRIAGE between a man and woman one God joined together. A marriage where he rapes and beats her every day and abuses the children, doesn’t let her leave the house? But hey, he didn’t cheat on her, she can’t ever divorce and marry a man who will treat her right. She is doomed to be alone or stuck in that marriage.
The God of the Bible is not so cold and ruthless as this, nor would He join 2 people like this.
Atheist2Apologist,
You wrote:
“A marriage where he rapes and beats her every day and abuses the children, doesn’t let her leave the house?” But hey, he didn’t cheat on her, she can’t ever divorce and marry a man who will treat her right. She is doomed to be alone or stuck in that marriage.
My reply:
Put the husband in jail and he’ll stop beating his wife, abusing the children and frees the wife to leave the house..
Divorce doesn’t stop him and also doesn’t deter other abusive men.
Plenty of women, like Amber Heard, claim spousal abuse falsely. Other women, like Anita Hill and Christine Blasey Ford, even have charged potential Supreme Court justices of sexual abuse. Lots of innocent men have had their lives ruined by lying women.
Fatherless children is a national problem: https://www.fatherhood.org/father-absence-statistic
Reconciliation happens when both husband and wife understand there are serious consequences to divorce. Wars stop when both sides realize mutual assured destruction is insane. The only winners in divorce are the lawyers.
1saved
There are COUNTLESS testimonies that show the exact opposite. Divorced Christians from terrible marriages who found new love and were treated great, are showered with blessings and children in their new marriage and serve the Lord together. Happens every day. If this was truly sinful behavior it wouldn’t be complimented with abundant blessings.
Atheist2Apologist,
You wrote:
“There are COUNTLESS testimonies that show the exact opposite. Divorced Christians from terrible marriages who found new love and were treated great, are showered with blessings and children in their new marriage and serve the Lord together. Happens every day. If this was truly sinful behavior it wouldn’t be complimented with abundant blessings.”
Reply:
3 “Blessed are the poor in spirit,
For theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
4 Blessed are those who mourn,
For they shall be comforted.
5 Blessed are the meek,
For they shall inherit the [a]earth.
6 Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness,
For they shall be filled.
7 Blessed are the merciful,
For they shall obtain mercy.
8 Blessed are the pure in heart,
For they shall see God.
9 Blessed are the peacemakers,
For they shall be called sons of God.
10 Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake,
For theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Matthew 5:3-10 NKJV
Abundant blessings are for those who have the attitude above.
Want to truly understand divorce? Here are a few suggestions:
1) Read Stephen Baskerville’s book entitled Taken Into Custody: The War Against Fathers. https://www.amazon.com/Taken-Into-Custody-Against-Marriage/dp/1581825943
2) Join Promise Keepers https://promisekeepers.org/promise-keepers/about-us-2/
3) Do research on the effects of divorce on children
https://www.verywellfamily.com/psychological-effects-of-divorce-on-kids-4140170
https://www.familymeans.org/effects-of-divorce-on-children.html
https://www.aacap.org/AACAP/Families_and_Youth/Facts_for_Families/FFF-Guide/Children-and-Divorce-001.aspx
God hates putting away/divorce because He desires godly children and that statement applies to everyone, everywhere, throughout all of mankind’s history, but especially to the USA where 50% of marriages end in divorce.
38 For whoever is ashamed of Me and My words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of him the Son of Man also will be ashamed when He comes in the glory of His Father with the holy angels.” Mark 8:38 NKJV
This verse tells WHY Christ comes to Rapture His Bride the Church. Notice the word “adulterous” and compare with Matthew 5:32 and Mark 10:11-12.
32 But I say to you that whoever divorces his wife for any reason except [a]sexual immorality causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a woman who is divorced commits adultery. Matthew 5:32 NKJV
11 So He said to them, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her. 12 And if a woman divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.” Mark 10:11-12 NKJV
1 saved
You act like I am not completely aware of the verses you keep bringing up. It is simple…I do not think it means what you think it means. I used to understand it as Aiden did, but after studying deeply I changed my mind.
I have given logical, scriptural, well reasoned arguments from the original language using the whole of scripture as has Ed…
You keep making straw man arguments. Reconciling is preferable to divorce when possible. Putting away for ANY REASON is not a good practice. Circumstances matter. You take such a legalistic approach to it and can’t see where you are applying presuppositions to come to your ultimate conclusion. In the end, the way you present God is exactly the God that I didn’t believe in as an Atheist, because that is a cruel, dictator like God who is legalistic and lacks empathy, compassion, love and forgiveness.
Praise the Lord He revealed His true nature and character to me, as I now know Him and accepted His gift of salvation!
A2A,
Jesus ended the Mosaic law on both putting away and divorce. He reinstated marriage back to its original state.
Having been joined together by God, the two are one and no longer two; inseparable by any man.
1saved
A2A, You wrote:
“I used to understand it as Aiden did, but after studying deeply I changed my mind. I have given logical, scriptural, well reasoned arguments from the original language using the whole of scripture as has Ed…”
Response: I’m sure that’s what Calvinists say too! But in ignoring the context of scripture you have made a fatal error which has led you to a faulty premise. It seems like you want to use this site to fine tune your arguments as an apologist. If so, I would advise you not to ignore the context so much.
Aidan,
A2A, You wrote:
“I used to understand it as Aiden did, but after studying deeply I changed my mind. I have given logical, scriptural, well reasoned arguments from the original language using the whole of scripture as has Ed…”
Response: I’m sure that’s what Calvinists say too! But in ignoring the context of scripture you have made a fatal error which has led you to a faulty premise. It seems like you want to use this site to fine tune your arguments as an apologist. If so, I would advise you not to ignore the context so much
Wow! Aidan, well said again.
Impressive!
1saved
Well, so far that’s what he has done in his interactions with me — including emotive arguments as part of his strategy. Ed is doing the same along with ad-hominem attacks. This reminded me of the tactics of the pro-choice side in the abortion debate. The worst thing about it is that it works — that’s why they do it!
Aidan
Aidan,
You wrote, “Well, so far that’s what he has done in his interactions with me — including emotive arguments as part of his strategy. Ed is doing the same along with ad-hominem attacks. This reminded me of the tactics of the pro-choice side in the abortion debate. The worst thing about it is that it works — that’s why they do it!”
Reply:
Yes, you are right about so many who think “the end justifies the means.”
Their agenda is set in stone, so whatever they have to say or do is perfectly okay with them.
They’ll omit facts, pick data which supports and ignore data which conflicts, change the definition of words, use shame, intimidation, ridicule and are even willingly to threaten dissenters – all unchristian behavior.
Cancel Culture is a tool of theirs. They’ll ignore the law and when caught, they’ll refuse to prosecute law breakers.
They gang together on Internet sites – even faith-based sites.
If you point out their errors, they will never correct themselves. They simply ignore their error and move on. Thus, they NEVER learn – like a dog returning to its vomit, so a fool repeats his folly (Provers 26:11).
Deceptions of False Teachers
18 For when they speak great swelling words of emptiness, they allure through the lusts of the flesh, through lewdness, the ones who [i]have actually escaped from those who live in error. 19 While they promise them liberty, they themselves are slaves of [j]corruption; for by whom a person is overcome, by him also he is brought into [k]bondage. 20 For if, after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overcome, the latter end is worse for them than the beginning. 21 For it would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than having known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered to them. 22 But it has happened to them according to the true proverb: “A dog returns to his own vomit,” and, “a sow, having washed, to her wallowing in the mire.” 2 Peter 2:18-22 NKJV
1saved
1saved
Thus, they NEVER learn – like a dog returning to its vomit, so a fool repeats his folly (Provers 26:11).
br.d
1saved – comments like this are what push people into more reactive and eventually belligerent responses.
The truth is – the same thing could be observed by the silent reader – who reads your posts here.
We are not going to allow SOT101 to become a platform for self-righteous belligerence.
Please be advised
I have not used ad-hominem or emotive arguments, nor am I taking scripture out of context. Stating that people who have legalistic views of God were what kept me from being Christian is true. Just because you are taking a legalistic stance does not mean I am attacking you, I am pointing out the consequences of such beliefs. Strain at a gnat while swallowing a camel.
The argument about people facing spiritual abuse is not emotive, it is a moral argument. To disregard the NEEDLESS pain and suffering of others in favor of strict legalism is wrong, it is exactly what Jesus rebuked the Pharisees for repeatedly.
I believe the Bible is true, and since it is true, it manifests itself in reality. This isn’t emotional, it is observational and logical.
Finally, you are really agreeing with 1saved? He disagrees with you. He says you can’t remarry for any reason, or divorce for any reason, including adultery. He says you CAN marry as many wives as you want, and that polygamy is not a sin.
I’ve explained the Greek and Hebrew words, historical context, the distinction made and used the whole of scripture. You have decided Jesus is talking about divorce. I simply disagree, and this was after holding that view for a long time, until I did a deeper dive.
You don’t have to agree with me, you can say I am ignoring context, but I can say the same thing about you. It doesn’t really get us anywhere. Your interpretation at least fits better with Jeremiah 3:8 and doesn’t make God a hypocrite like 1saved does. I agree with you WAY more than I agree with 1saved, which is funny, as you are patting each other’s backs, uniting against a common “enemy” in me, when you disagree with each other more than I disagree with you.
Blessings to the both of you. I pray you will be able to consider Hod’s compassion, mercy, and forgiveness in His character and that His laws are always just and upright!
A2A,
8 And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went and played the harlot also. Jeremiah 3:8 KJV
According to Ed Chapman, committing adultery MUST be punished until death. God didn’t put Israel to death for committing adultery, so is God contradicting Himself? No, of course not!
That’s because those stoning may decide not to stone to death and could even not begin stoning as recorded in John 8:1-11. If stoning to death is mandatory, those casting stones could not have walked away after reflecting upon their own sin. Note: Jesus did not come to change the law, but to fulfill the law, so He did not change the law here.
Driving through an Hasidic Jewish neighborhood on the Sabbath, may get your car stoned. Does anyone think the driver should be stoned to death? A son how disrespects his father is to be stoned. Can the father commute the sentence? Here’s a link to Jewish death by stoning. http://www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1010-99192021000300007 Who among us is without sin and worthy to cast the first stone?
1saved
The option under the law is there. God showed mercy, but would have been just had He chosen to pass judgement. I don’t see what point you make here. If a man wanted out of a marriage with his wife if she was an adulterer, all he had to do was get her stoned to death. Then he could remarry even by your interpretation.
Besides, that isn’t a contradiction…what IS a contradiction is IF your interpretation that God says divorcing and remarrying is ALWAYS adultery, and He did it Himself, that makes Him a hypocrite, and He committed a sin. My interpretation, and Aidan’s, avoids this pitfall.
Somehow you ignore that and say “my ways are higher than your ways” and “who are you to question God” as if those verses are a show stopper.
By that logic, Jesus could have been engaged in all manner of sinful behavior but it wouldn’t have actually been a sin because He is God, His ways are higher than yours and who are you to question Him!
We know He didn’t though, not even a sinful THOUGHT!
A2A,
You wrote,
“…IF your interpretation that God says divorcing and remarrying is ALWAYS adultery, and He did it Himself, that makes Him a hypocrite…”
Reply:
I already explained this. Yes, it’s adultery and yes, God divorced Israel and yes, He will marry His bride the Church.- but He will eventually purify Israel and remarry her. Israel hasn’t remarried, so remarrying her isn’t forbidden.
Then God will have two wives, which isn’t forbidden either.
No, God isn’t a hypocrite as explained here: https://www.gotquestions.org/did-God-divorce-Israel.html
If you bothered to do even a small amount of research BEFORE you admonish me, it would be appreciated.
But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart. ~ Matthew 5:28
So, should this person be stoned to death for adultery?
Regarding why a man would not want to stone his adulterous wife to death.
1) He might anger her friends and family who may take revenge upon him.
2) He may not want to raise their children himself.
3) He may not have sufficient evidence to convict her in court
4) He may want to keep an option open for reconciliation of the marriage.
5) He may have read Hosea and realized if Hosea couldn’t divorce Gomer, he shouldn’t divorce his wife.
Sexual immorality by a wife would include adultery, homosexuality, incest and bestiality.
Some would say masturbation and sex simply for the sake of pleasure is lustful, and therefore a sin.
Are all above to be ignored by your legalistic position?
1saved
A2A,
Anticipating your next inquiry.
He answered, “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. Mark 10:11
God divorced Israel and will marry His bride the Church. You might ask then, “Is God committing adultery against Israel when He remarries?”
Is Israel a woman? Is His Bride the Church a woman? No.
1saved
1saved,
Mark 10:11 doesn’t use the word divorce in the GREEK. Why do you insist on using the word divorce?
Who told you do use the English word divorce? The Catholics? That’s where this word mix-up originated from. And, as usual, the reformation folks carried on Catholic tradition, and hence, we have protestants with Catholic baggage.
Ed Chapman
Ed,
I’m not Catholic nor any denomination. It’s interesting that you call me Catholic and Br.d claims I’m a Calvinist.
I point out both Augustine and John Calvin are ravenous wolves in sheep’s clothing (Matthew 7:15), so Catholics and Calvinist’s don’t like me at all. Go figure.
My source is the Bible. I often choose the NASB because it provides footnotes. Usually I prefer the NKJV. The ASV is considered to be he most literal, so I sometimes consult it.
11 And He *said to them, “Whoever [a]divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her;
Mark 10:11 NASB
Footnotes
Mark 10:11 Or sends away
18 “Everyone who [a]divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries one who is [b]divorced from a husband commits adultery. Luke 16:18 NASB
Footnotes
Luke 16:18 Or sends away, the Heb term for divorce
Luke 16:18 Or sent away
Why do I have to constantly repeat myself with you? Are you trying to wear me down?
1saved,
The point I’m trying to make is, the ENGLISH WORD (DIVORCE) is WRONGLY USED in the NASB and others.
Put away is GREEK WORD XXXXXXXX
Divorce is GREEK WORD YYYYYYYY
Two different Greek words, two different meanings.
Matthew 5:32
But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.
Note: The word “divorced” in the above should be “put away”. Note the Greek word used twice in this verse. You will see this in the following verse.
Matthew 19:9
And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.
Do you see the word “divorce” in Matthew 5:32?
It should not be there at all.
The Greek word for PUT AWAY is what it should read, because the Greek word for PUT AWAY is what was used, not divorced.
There is a completely different Greek word for DIVORCED.
The NASB is wrong, and so is a whole bunch of others.
From the Strong’s Concordance:
But G1161 I G1473 say G3004 unto you, G5213 That G3754 whosoever G3739 G302 shall put away G630 his G846 wife, G1135 saving G3924 for the cause G3056 of fornication, G4202 causeth G4160 her G846 to commit adultery: G3429 and G2532 whosoever G3739 G1437 shall marry G1060 her that is divorced G630 committeth adultery. G3429
Put away is: G630
But wait!!!!!!!! What is this? Divorce here is ALSO G630????????? No, that is WRONG.
So here is the CORRECT verse repeated in the same book, different chapter:
Mat 19:9
And G1161 I say G3004 unto you, G5213 G3754 Whosoever G3739 G302 shall put away G630 his G846 wife, G1135 except G1508 it be for G1909 fornication, G4202 and G2532 shall marry G1060 another, G243 committeth adultery: G3429 and G2532 whoso marrieth G1060 her which G3588 is put away G630 doth commit adultery. G3429
G630 is mentioned TWICE here, where there is NO DIVORCE mentioned, but PUT AWAY.
Now…DIVORCEMENT:
Matthew 19:7
They say G3004 unto him, G846 Why G5101 did Moses G3475 then G3767 command G1781 to give G1325 a writing G975 of divorcement, G647 and G2532 to put G630 ➔ her G846 away? G630
Divorcement: G647
Put away: G630
Two different Greek words, two different meanings:
G630 Put Away:
ἀπολύω apolýō, ap-ol-oo’-o; from G575 and G3089; to free fully
The KJV translates Strong’s G630 in the following manner: release (17x), put away (14x), send away (13x), let go (13x), set at liberty (2x), let depart (2x), dismiss (2x), miscellaneous (6x).
Outline of Biblical Usage [?]
G647 Divorcement
ἀποστάσιον apostásion, ap-os-tas’-ee-on; neuter of a (presumed) adjective from a derivative of G868; properly, something separative
The KJV translates Strong’s G647 in the following manner: divorcement (2x), writing of divorcement (1x).
These are the kinds of things you discover when you DEEP DIVE study. And I know you are not a Catholic. But the Catholics are RESPONSIBLE for this mess. Not you!
Ed Chapman
This is way off the topic of soteriology, but just wanted to agree with you on this one. There has been so much abuse and heartache perpetuated due to the inaccurate rendering of the original language concerning ‘putting away’ and ‘divorce’, which are two entirely different things. Jesus was condemning the hypocrites for ignoring the Law of Moses concerning the proper way to deal with a broken marriage, and instead merely sending their wives away without a proper bill of divorcement, causing them to be, according to the written Law, adulteresses when they remarried or entered into another relationship. This was because these men did not want the stigma of being ‘divorced’. And, surprise, surprise, even though, technically, men were just as guilty of adultery as women by not properly ending a marriage, they were rarely held accountable for it.
God, who is merciful and compassionate, would never bind people hopelessly into lifelong bondage with spouses who are abusive or, just as bad, have no real affection toward them. Yes, there is a lot of Roman Catholic power-seeking and corruption behind this ‘error’, and scholarship over the last few decades has begun to reveal the issues; but this has not reached many of the average lay people within Christianity.
Of course God desires that every marriage be permanent. And that every spouse be loving, patient, kind, gentle, supportive, etc. And that no person sin against another person. But we do not meet God’s standards, do we? Which is why He, knowing our hard hearts, gave direction as to how to protect women, in particular, in an era in which they had little means of providing for themselves or their children on their own; marriage was the typical means of doing so. Thus, Jesus reproved the Pharisees for not following the Law of Moses’ instructions for properly giving a wife a written bill of divorcement so that she could lawfully marry again, without being considered an adulteress. This has been terribly, tragically misinterpreted to the great harm of countless women, children and men as well, by conflating and improperly interchanging the different words/concepts for divorce and putting away.
TS00,
I couldn’t have said it better than you did. That’s exactly right. Great explanation! If it wasn’t for the spiritual abuse blogs, I never would have even been interested in investigating this issue. We have divorced/remarried people in our own church, so to me, it was never an issue. Then I learned of the Catholics hard stance against remarriage, and then I saw how that trickled down to Calvinism, as well. The spiritual abuse victims came from Calvinism church’s.
I kinda forgot how we even got on to this subject of divorce.
Ed Chapman
Ed,
The Catholic Church in Rome was corrupted by Augustine starting in 387 A.D.
Hundreds of years prior there were “fathers” of the church. Perhaps researching their teaching on divorce and remarriage will help.
The first three, Clement, Ignatius, and Polycarp, are considered the chief ones.
Clement of Rome died 97 A.D.
Ignatius of Antioch died 110 A.D.
Polycarp of Smyrna died 155 A.D.
Justine Martyr died 165 A.D.
Irenaeus died 202 A.D.
Here’s a link to early church teaching on divorce and remarriage.
https://tamedivorce.com/early-christian-writings
Tertullian of Carthage was not in Rome. Here’s his testimony on divorce and remarriage.
“For the apostle, although preferring the grace of continence, yet permits the contraction of marriage and the enjoyment of it, and advises the continuance therein rather than the dissolution thereof. Christ plainly forbids divorce, Moses unquestionably permits it. . . Even Christ, however, when He here commands “the wife not to depart from her husband, or if she depart, to remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband,” both permitted divorce, which indeed He never absolutely prohibited, and confirmed (the sanctity) of marriage, by first forbidding its dissolution; and, if separation had taken place, by wishing the nuptial bond to be resumed by reconciliation. Tertullian (A.D. 198) Ante-Nicene Fathers vol.3 pg. 443” http://www.earlychristiancommentary.com/early-christian-dictionary/divorce-and-remarriage/
It should be noted the Eastern Orthodox Church allows marriage after divorce, but only twice. https://www.oca.org/questions/sacramentmarriage/divorce-and-remarriage
How many times do you say a man can divorce and remarry, if he provides his wife a certificate of divorce?
1saved
1saved,
I’m not into “church fathers”, however thank you for that citation, which brings me to say the following:
One thing I learned from studying this issue about divorce is the words, “MOSES ALLOWED DIVORCE”, or “MOSES TOLERATED DIVORCE”.
But further study indicates that when that is stated in the gospels, the Pharisees were not discussing MOSES, THE PERSON, but they were talking THE LAW OF MOSES.
Many seem to think that Jesus changed the rules of the law in regards to divorce, and that Moses, the person, allowed, or as some state, “tolerated” divorce, against God’s will or plan, so, Jesus comes on the scene to correct that error. But the only error is in identifying what the word, “Moses” signifies in Matthew 19:7. Many incorrectly identify “Moses” as the person of Moses, but that is far from the truth.
The Pharisees were not discussing Moses, THE PERSON, but the Law of Moses. The Law of Moses is not an invention of Moses. The law of Moses is the Law of God, to wit:
Joshua 24:26
And Joshua wrote these words in the book of the law of God, and took a great stone, and set it up there under an oak, that was by the sanctuary of the Lord.
Nehemiah 8:8
So they read in the book in the law of God distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading.
Nehemiah 8:18
Also day by day, from the first day unto the last day, he read in the book of the law of God. And they kept the feast seven days; and on the eighth day was a solemn assembly, according unto the manner.
Nehemiah 10:28
And the rest of the people, the priests, the Levites, the porters, the singers, the Nethinims, and all they that had separated themselves from the people of the lands unto the law of God, their wives, their sons, and their daughters, every one having knowledge, and having understanding;
The Law of Moses is known by many names, one of which is the Law of God. Another name for the Law of Moses is, “The Law”, for which some confuse with the word “Torah”, which it isn’t. Torah begins in Genesis 1:1, whereas the Law of Moses begins in Exodus 20.
Still, other names include the words, “Book of Moses”, or, just “Moses” alone. So, we should be able to see that Matthew 19:7 is not discussing the person of Moses, but rather, the Law of Moses, or more specifically, the Law of God. Deuteronomy 24:1-4 is the Law of God, not a toleration of Moses.
Hebrews 10:28
He that despised Moses’ law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:
Moses’ law? Or God’s Law?
So let’s start off with a question.
Is divorce, based on Deuteronomy 24:1-4 the law of God, or a toleration of Moses?
I say that God is the one who allowed for divorce, not Moses, the person.
Ed Chapman
Ed,
God directed what Moses wrote in Deuteronomy 24.
Because of the hardness of the Jews’ hearts, God allowed them to divorce provided they first provided a certificate of divorce.
This was not God’s intent at creation and Jesus reinstated the original doctrine. Marriage joins two together and they become one flesh. They are no longer two but one. Whatever God joins together, let no man separate.
This is a very strict doctrine, so the disciples said, “It’s best that no man marry.” Jesus agreed, suggesting men get married to have children. Paul wasn’t married and advised men to no get married like him.
Jesus didn’t reprimand the Church in Rome for it’s doctrine on divorce and remarriage when he went to John on the Isle of Patmos in ~95 A.D. Therefore I argue the Roman Church like the one in Philadelphia was teaching correct doctrine at that time.
You are ducking two questions I asked you.
1) How many times can a man divorce his wife and marry another if he always provides a certificate of divorce?
2) Why would Adam eat something he knew would cause him to die in the same day he ate it?
1saved
1saved,
At the end of this, I will answer your two questions, one of which, I already answered.
But before I begin this, I’m going to ask you a question:
Can you FORCE your wife to love you? If we didn’t love Jesus, would Jesus let us go? If Jesus didn’t love us, are we compelled to remain with him? How does Jesus treat his bride, being the HEAD? Does he DEMAND that the wife BRING HIM HIS SLIPPERS, or GET HIM ANOTHER BEER?
Are you indicating that no one has hardened hearts anymore, just because Jesus said “in the beginning it was not so”?
You had quoted Jesus as saying:
” let no man separate”
And this is where your legalistic mindset comes into play…BUT…
Have you seen Paul’s words regarding the word “LET”?
1 Corinthians 7:10
And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband:
1 Corinthians 7:13
And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him.
Sounds like she is FORBIDDEN TO LEAVE, huh?
11 But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.
Forbidden to leave, but she left ANYWAY. Hmmmm.
Which means, LET HER REMAIN UNMARRIED, but she remarries ANYWAY.
Well, if she remains unmarried, then she is SEXLESS:
So we are right back to this:
1 Corinthians 7:2
Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.
Do you really think that Jesus wants to deprive someone of sex? It’s not adultery if she is divorced.
The law allowed DIVORCE, AND REMARRIAGE in Deuteronomy 24:1-4…AND insofaras adultery, she is to be killed as a capital punishment, not divorced. And that is TILL DEATH DO US PART.
However, to END THIS ENDLESS conversation about what Jesus meant by “IN THE BEGINNING IT WAS NOT SO…”
According to Ephesians 5, THIS IS WHAT JESUS WANTS:
21 Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.
22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.
23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.
24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.
25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;
26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,
27 That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.
28 So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.
29 For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:
30 For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.
31 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.
32 This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.
33 Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.
NOTICE IN DEUTERONOMY 24:1-4, IF THE HUSBAND HATES HIS WIFE, HE CAN DIVORCE HER.
NOTICE IN VERSE 31 THAT THIS IS WHAT JESUS SAID, AND ALSO SAID IN GENESIS 2:24
BUT SHORTLY AFTER THAT…THE FALL HAPPENED.
So, can you FORCE your wife to do all those things listed in Ephesians 5…or does something like this COME FROM THE HEART, to where she WANTS to please you, and you WANT to please her? Forcing someone to love you when they don’t is NOT what Jesus wants in a “FROM THE BEGINNING IT WAS NOT SO”.
Love comes from the heart.
Now, to answer your two questions:
Question #1, you had asked:
1) How many times can a man divorce his wife and marry another if he always provides a certificate of divorce?
My response:
As many as it takes to get it right.
Question #2, you had asked:
2) Why would Adam eat something he knew would cause him to die in the same day he ate it?
My response:
I already answered that with 1 Cor 15:42-46, and with a question to you that you still sin, so why do you still sin if you know it is wrong?
However, your point was that Adam knew nothing about SPIRITUAL DEATH, and that a day could mean 24 hours or a thousand years.
Further study of the bible knows that SIN SEPARATES oneself from God, and THAT is what spiritual death is.
But this should answer your question SPECIFICALLY:
Romans 7:7-9
7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.
8 But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead.
9 For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.
What was the NAME OF THAT TREE?
The Tree of KNOWLEDGE of Good and Evil.
The Law of Moses is the KNOWLEDGE OF SIN.
Before Paul knew the law, he was ALIVE…VERSE 9
When he was taught the law about coveting…VERSE 9…HE DIED.
As you can see, he wasn’t talking about the NATURAL DEATH OF THE BODY.
—————————
Side note:
You had said:
“Jesus didn’t reprimand the Church in Rome for it’s doctrine on divorce and remarriage when he went to John on the Isle of Patmos in ~95 A.D. Therefore I argue the Roman Church like the one in Philadelphia was teaching correct doctrine at that time.”
My response:
Jesus didn’t go to Rome, nor did he go to Patmos. John was IN THE SPIRIT. But you can defend the Catholics all you want. They are not my cup of tea, and I don’t trust anything Catholics teach or say.
Ed Chapman
Ed,
You wouldn’t make a good detective.
I already told you Adam wouldn’t have understood the concept of “spiritual death.” I also provided a blog on the subject we are discussing.
You chose to cite all kinds of Scripture attempting to claim Adam did understand spiritual death means separation from God. Adam had just been created and was completely uneducated. Do you know any preschoolers that understand the spiritual death concept? No? So what makes you think Adam understood?
I also told you that God told Adam and Adam must have told Eve. Adam was not deceived, but Eve was deceived by the serpent. If Adam understood it was a “spiritual death” he would have told that to Eve and therefore Eve wouldn’t have been deceived by the serpent.
Thus, it was not Adam’s understanding it was a spiritual death in which he would die in the same day he ate the forbidden fruit.
To have been deceived, Eve must have believed it was a literal death in a 24 hour day.
Care to try again to explain why Adam would eat the forbidden fruit knowing he would die in the same day he ate? Or do you admit you can’t explain why?
Br.d says I leap frog to false conclusions. Am I leap frogging or using deductive reasoning like a good detective?
1saved
I stand by what I said. I don’t change my mind.
Paul DIED in Romans 7:9. PAST TENSE. And he wasn’t talking about a natural death of the body.
Do you know what “BORN AGAIN” is all about? It is a SPIRITUAL RESURRECTION FROM SPIRITUAL DEATH.
Romans 6:13
Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God.
Ephesians 2:1
And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;
Colossians 2:13
And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;
1 Peter 2:24
Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.
Luke 15:24
For this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found. And they began to be merry.
And to further MY INVESTIGATION…did God tell Adam ANYTHING about the TREE OF LIFE?
God never told Adam anything about the tree of life. Nothing. Therefore, he never told Adam that if he ate of that tree of life, he would NEVER DIE.
So Adam didn’t know a lot of things.
However, God had to block that tree after the fall, so that Adam would NOT obtain eternal life in a fallen state, because that would mean that Adam would FOREVER BE SEPARATED FROM GOD, yet live eternally.
There is a lot of things that Adam didn’t know.
Show me where God told him about the Tree of Life! IF he would have known about that tree, maybe he would have went there FIRST, and saved himself a lot of trouble. But he didn’t know about that.
What else did Adam not know?
He had NO CLUE he was naked.
Genesis 3:10 (ADAM SPEAKING)
And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself.
Genesis 3:11 (GOD SPEAKING)
And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?
Note the words, “WHO TOLD YOU THAT YOU WERE NAKED?”
God didn’t. Satan didn’t either. Information that a TREE gave him did.
Yep, Adam was an UNEDUCATED dude. He didn’t know much. But Satan told Eve, STOP BEING SO IGNORANT, AND GET EDUCATED…so she ate.
Adam may not have been deceived, but he ate and got educated, and his eyes were opened to things that God didn’t want him to know.
I stand by what I originally said. If you reject it…that’s on you.
Ed Chapman
Ed,
You wrote, “I stand by what I said. I don’t change my mind.”
“Adam may not have been deceived, but he ate and got educated, and his eyes were opened to things that God didn’t want him to know.
I stand by what I originally said. If you reject it…that’s on you.”
What things did God not want Adam to know? Good from evil? That he was naked? That Adam and Eve are to voluntarily worship Him? What?
1saved
1saved,
You had said:
“What things did God not want Adam to know? Good from evil? That he was naked? That Adam and Eve are to voluntarily worship Him? What?”
My response:
I don’t care.
What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? You are going off on tangents.
All I know is that the tree was aptly named, therefore, if God wanted Adam to know something, he would have told him. If God withheld information, then he didn’t want him to know.
In the US Navy, we call that, “You are on a NEED TO KNOW basis”.
So why didn’t God tell him about THAT OTHER TREE?
Ed Chapman
1saved,
Again, you had said:
“What things did God not want Adam to know? Good from evil? That he was naked? That Adam and Eve are to voluntarily worship Him? What?”
If you are going to CONTINUE declaring that God told him that he would DIE within a thousand years, IF HE ATE OF THAT TREE…
Then I will AGAIN present you with 1 Corinthians 15:42-46, FOR THE THIRD TIME, showing you that Adam was going to die a NATURAL DEATH ANYWAY, whether he ate of that tree or not. He was going to die a natural death ANYWAY, and that tree had nothing to do with it at all. The only tree that mattered was THAT OTHER TREE, and God did not disclose that info to Adam.
Therefore, THEREFORE, T H E R E F O R E, natural death was NOT THE CONVERSATION that God was talking to Adam about.
That other tree is what God didn’t want Adam to know about.
I again, reiterate, that I stand by what I said.
Ed Chapman
Ed,
You wrote, “If you are going to CONTINUE declaring that God told him that he would DIE within a thousand years, IF HE ATE OF THAT TREE.”
Reply:
I’m not saying that, Ed. You are leap-frogging to a false conclusion.
I gave you a blog site to begin with. I’m given you hints. You say you don’t care.
God told Adam and Adam told Eve. Adam wasn’t deceived. Eve was deceived.
How is that possible?
You say it’s not a physical death, it’s a spiritual death.
Adam didn’t even know he was naked, yet you say he understood the concept of “spiritual death.”
If Adam indeed understood the concept of “spiritual death” wouldn’t he have explained this to Eve?
If he explained “spiritual death” to Eve, then she wasn’t deceived by the serpent.
Maybe you should “phone a friend” or “ask the audience” for a clue.
1saved
You are being speculative. I stand by what I said, I gave you evidence of scripture. If you don’t like it, so be it. Conversation over.
Ed Chapman
Ed,
You wrote, “You are being speculative. I stand by what I said, I gave you evidence of scripture. If you don’t like it, so be it. Conversation over.”
Wasn’t my issue – Heather brought this topic up for discussion.
Ask her if she’s satisfied with your exegesis.
1saved
I think it’s funny that you ask everyone but Santa Claus if they agree with me. If it wasn’t your issue, were you speaking for, and on behalf of Heather?
br.d
Asking everyone but Santa Claus!
You have a good sense of humor Ed
And keeping things lighthearted is good wisdom. :-]
Ed,
You wrote, “I think it’s funny that you ask everyone but Santa Claus if they agree with me. If it wasn’t your issue, were you speaking for, and on behalf of Heather?”
I answered Heather’s question and you said my answer was incorrect.
We began a series of conversation seeking the best answer for Heather.
You ended the conversation saying you stand by what you said.
I said perhaps you should ask Heather whether she accepts your explanation.
If she doesn’t accept your exegesis, doesn’t her question still remain?
1saved
1saved
and Br.d claims I’m a Calvinist.
br.d
You won’t find a quote from br.d to that affect.
But you will find statements from br.d where he points out INDICATORS of Calvinist influence within the behavior patterns of various individuals including yourself.
BTW:
One does not do himself any favors – leap-frogging to poorly thought out conclusions.
When people see that pattern – they soon conclude – this is someone who is best not to take seriously.
Br.d,
You wrote, “You won’t find a quote from br.d to that affect.”
Ed
What you really mean is, LEAN ON 1saved’s understanding!
br.d
That in fact is typical of anyone who has been influenced by Calvinism.
Calvinism practices a form of “Self-Canonization”.
When the Calvinist says “you are leaning on your own understanding” or “you are operating in human logic” – what he is HIDING – is he AUTO-MAGICALLY assumes he stands in a position of divinity.
Hence “Self-Canonizing”
Reply:
I’m quoting Proverbs 3:5.
From your statement to Ed, it seems you think it’s typical of those influenced by Calvinism, forming self-canonization and a person professing Proverbs 3:5 assumes himself to stand in a position of divinity.
Did I find a quote from you claiming me to be a Calvinist? Perhaps not directly, but seemingly by implication.
You have issues with me when I cite 1 Corinthians 2:14 and say I have received the spiritual gift of discernment (1 Corinthians 12L10). Scripture says you are to test the spirits (1 John 4:1-6). Is that what you are doing?
1saved
1saved
I’m quoting Proverbs 3:5.
br.d
And Ed was discerning enough to discern what comes along for the ride – with you making that quote – and to point it out.
It became all to obvious – that for 1saved – “leaning on one’s own understanding” simply means leaning on any understanding other than 1saved understanding.
Thus – Ed manifested discernment which someone else did not! :-]
1saved:
Did I find a quote from you claiming me to be a Calvinist? Perhaps not directly, but seemingly by implication.
br.d
Already addressed that in my responses to each of the various applicable statements you made – and in which I provided the Calvinist influence behind those statements.
So I was careful to point out the Calvinist influence – and also to provide the evidence.
1saved:
You have issues with me when I cite 1 Corinthians 2:14 and say I have received the spiritual gift of discernment ….
br.d
Firstly:
I addressed that in my responses to you where I pointed out – church history is full of “Strange doctrines” 99% of which are claimed to be derived from a “spiritual gift” – and in many cases the gift of discernment.
Secondly:
The consistent pattern of a person leap-frogging to poorly thought out conclusions – is in fact a manifestation of a lack of discernment.
So when people hear someone claim to have -quote “the spiritual gift of discernment” – and they consistently observe that someone leap-frogging into poorly thought out conclusions – those people are going to say “YEA RIGHT! WINK WINK!” :-]
Br.d,
You wrote, “The consistent pattern of a person leap-frogging to poorly thought out conclusions – is in fact a manifestation of a lack of discernment.
So when people hear someone claim to have -quote “the spiritual gift of discernment” – and they consistently observe that someone leap-frogging into poorly thought out conclusions – those people are going to say “YEA RIGHT! WINK WINK!” :-]”
Reply:
Aren’t you the guy comparing me to a gorilla throwing dust in the air?
Weren’t there emojis also?
Didn’t you compare me with Jerry Jones and David Koresh?
Are these acts and implications the actions of an unbiased Christian charged with “testing the spirits?”
Perhaps you like to join the discussion I’m having with Ed Chapman regarding why Adam ate the forbidden fruit?
Or, at least consider becoming an unbiased observer.
1 saved
1saved
Aren’t you the guy comparing me to a gorilla throwing dust in the air?
br.d
It would be wisdom for you to read exactly what I stated before leap-frogging to yet another poorly thought-out conclusion.
That post was a representation of a *BEHAVIOR PATTERN*
Why wouldn’t a person with normal discernment recognize that?
1saved:
Didn’t you compare me with Jerry Jones and David Koresh?
br.d
Same answer as above.
1saved:
Are these acts and implications the actions of an unbiased Christian charged with “testing the spirits?”
br.d
In this case – the test was simple!
Not every human manifestation is a manifestation of a spirit.
Many manifestations are simply “of the flesh”
1saved:
Perhaps you like to join the discussion I’m having with Ed Chapman regarding why Adam ate the forbidden fruit?
br.d
Thanks for the invitation.
1saved
Or, at least consider becoming an unbiased observer.
br.d
That statement assumes the opposite – which I can discard as yet one more poorly thought-out conclusion.
I’m curious to see if people will eventually not bother to respond to you.
And if so – how long it will take for people to get to that point.
However – I am thankful that you are keeping your posts civil – as you indicated you would to Ed.
Br.d,
That post was a representation of a *BEHAVIOR PATTERN*
Definition of Representation
1.the action of speaking or acting on behalf of someone or the state of being so represented.
2. the description or portrayal of someone or something in a particular way or as being of a certain nature.
Definition of Behavior Pattern
a recurrent way of acting by an individual or group toward a given object or in a given situation.
I understand.
1saved
1saved:
Definition of Representation
1.the action of speaking or acting on behalf of someone or the state of being so represented.
2. the description or portrayal of someone or something in a particular way or as being of a certain nature.
br.d
Lets imagine I am looking at an object.
My “Representation” of that object is as follows:
1) it is a closed 2-dimensional shape
2) it has 3 sides
3) it has 3 angles
4) it has 3 vertices
5) it is a polygon
Can anyone guess what the object is from that “Representation”? 😀
You might want to look up two different fallacies
– The fallacy of “persuasive definition”
– The fallacy of “Exclusion and Suppressed Evidence”
Your definition of “Representation” is “Representative” of a combination of those two errors.
1saved
Definition of Behavior Pattern
a recurrent way of acting by an individual or group toward a given object or in a given situation.
br.d
That one is correct!
Good job!
Br.d,
Definition of Representation
1.the action of speaking or acting on behalf of someone or the state of being so represented.
2. the description or portrayal of someone or something in a particular way or as being of a certain nature.
I am not an object, I am a person. Your example of a polygon doesn’t apply.
Therefore, the description or portrayal of someone in a particular way or as being of a certain nature applies.
I understand.
1saved
1saved
I am not an object, I am a person. Your example of a polygon doesn’t apply.
br.d
Suffice to say – your definition of “Representation” failed to meet the mark.
And a “Representation” can easily be of a *BEHAVIOR PATTERN*
DUH!!!!
Beam me up Scotty!
Br.d,
You wrote, “Suffice to say – your definition of “Representation” failed to meet the mark.”
Not my definition – I’d not qualified to define the meaning of words – so I Google the word in question and provide the result.
Is there a dictionary you insist I use?
Some on SOT101 have objected to my using the NASB. Some may only consult the KJV. When I used the NIV, I heard about it.
If I used gotquestions.org as a tool, there were those here who objected. Why?
“GotQuestions.org is a volunteer ministry of dedicated and trained servants who have a desire to assist others in their understanding of God, Scripture, salvation, and other spiritual topics. We are Christian, Protestant, conservative, evangelical, fundamental, and non-denominational.”
Last, do you agree with Ed Chapman regarding a man can divorce his wife ANY number of times so long as he gives each ex-wife a certificate of divorce?
Some celebrities are infamous for their many divorces:
https://www.cnbc.com/2011/03/28/The-13-Most-Divorced-Celebrities.html#:~:text=Zsa%20Zsa%20Gabor&text=She%20first%20married%20Turkish%20political,1937%2C%20divorcing%20him%20in%201941.
I understand.
1saved
1saved
You wrote, “Suffice to say – your definition of “Representation” failed to meet the mark.”
1saved:
Not my definition
br.d
The Lord is sure giving me brownie points for patience on this one!
Its the definition you posted.
That is what is meant by “your” definition.
Whew!!!
BTW:
Please refrain from posting links to other web-sights.
SOT101 could possibly construed as promoting those sites.
If you have text etc from another source – please just provide that text.
1saved
Last, do you agree with Ed Chapman regarding a man can divorce his wife ANY number of times so long as he gives each ex-wife a certificate of divorce?
br.d
As I mentioned before – I’m waiting to see if people here will eventually come to the point where they won’t bother to answer your posts.
I’m curious to see if that will happen – and if so – how long it will take people to get to that point.
Again – please refrain from posting links to other web-sites
Thanks!
I went to a Calvinist church that claimed to be non-denominational too. You keep acting like people aren’t aware of this website as one part of a research tool. I use it myself occasionally, they do have a Calvinistic/Reformed bias.
I said Ed was employing ad-hominem attacks, not you. That’s his style which is why people try to avoid him at times. And I didn’t see you accusing me of being legalistic up until now. It was 1saved you classed as legalistic. Did you know that the opposite of legalistic is “illegalism” which is defined as illegal activity? Which is basically lawlessness! Jesus didn’t condemn the Pharisees for strict adherence to the law, but rather, for their hypocrisy in neglecting the weightier matters of the law like justice, mercy and faith. What He actually said is that: “These you ought to have done, without leaving the others undone” (Mat. 23:23). That is a far more strict adherence to the law than they were practicing.
The NT actually commends those who strive to keep God’s commandments and defines it as love (Jn. 14:15,21; 1 Jn. 2:3; 1 Jn. 5:2,3; 2 Jn. 1:6). If I am just repeating what Jesus actually said (which I believe I am), then your accusations of “disregarding the NEEDLESS pain and suffering of others in favor of strict legalism” is not really against me, but against Jesus! If that’s the case, then you are about as wrong as Paul was in his zeal before he became a Christian.
And no, I don’t agree with 1saved in his stance on marriage, divorce, and remarriage! I think he knows that already. Perhaps you did explain the Greek and Hebrew words, historical context, the distinction made and used the whole of scripture to 1saved concerning the etymology of words; but I’m always suspicious when someone disagrees with the consensus of scholarship and translators. And when I look at the context of the passages in question that he is required to write her a certificate of divorce before sending her away, it confirms that they are right about the subject matter. In that case “putting her away” amounts to divorce. But we’ve both made up our minds on this, which means at the very least one of us is wrong!
One last point: You are not my “enemy.” I know who my enemy is and it’s not flesh and blood. These are matters of salvation and are too serious to get caught up in petty games simply because someone disagrees with me. And I too hope and pray that though it might not seem like it to you, Christ’s restriction on divorce/putting away is in fact the more compassionate one over all.
Aidan
Aidan,
You wrote, “One last point: You are not my “enemy.” I know who my enemy is and it’s not flesh and blood. These are matters of salvation and are too serious to get caught up in petty games simply because someone disagrees with me. And I too hope and pray that though it might not seem like it to you, Christ’s restriction on divorce/putting away is in fact the more compassionate one over all.”
Kudos to you.
1saved
Aidan,
You wrote, “I don’t agree with 1saved in his stance on marriage, divorce, and remarriage! ”
8 “Everyone who [s]divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries one who is [t]divorced from a husband commits adultery. Luke 16:18 NASB
(s) Or sends away, the Heb term for divorce
(t) Or sent away
11 And He *said to them, “Whoever [a]divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her; 12 and if she herself [b]divorces her husband and marries another man, she is committing adultery.” Mark 10:11-12 NASB
(a) Or sends away
(b) Or sends away
32 but I say to you that everyone who [a]divorces his wife, except for the reason of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery; and whoever marries a [b]divorced woman commits adultery. Matthew 5:32 NASB
(a) Lit sends away, the Heb term for divorce
(b) Lit woman sent away
I’m disregarding Matthew 19:9, since it is exactly the same as Matthew 5:32 in the autograph (original text).
I am only quoting Scripture verbatim..
1saved
Aidan,
ad hominem attacks? Sarcasm is my charming personality. But call it as you will.
However, I know enough about your beliefs that I would never step one foot in your church. We disagree on just about everything. About the only thing we agree on is Calvin, bad man.
But we disagree on this marriage/divorce/remarriage issue, baptism issue, musical instruments in church, gifts, etc.
And yes, I’ve made that known to all here. I can’t remember if you believe in Original Sin or not, but I don’t. I know the Arminian side does, and I can’t remember if you are on the Arminian’s PREVENIANT Grace side, or the Palagian side, where Original Sin is non-existent.
As you have seen from this blog, I am a die hard Zionist, and I find it hard to imagine that people don’t believe in dispensation, and that the Jews are under a completely different soteriology than the rest of us lowly gentiles.
Yes, I have a way of presenting the debate that people don’t like. I’m non-denomination, and therefore, I am not beholden to ANY church father.
When I was a young lad of about 19 years old, on my first ship in the US Navy, my job was that of a payroll clerk. Any time that I had a technical question about pay, LAW OR PROCEDURE, my supervisor would never answer my question. He always said, “WHAT DOES THE BOOK SAY”.
Now, I don’t know if you know how to read LAW, but it gets pretty technical, as our pay laws on entitlements and allowances, and fiscal accounting were laws passed by congress. I would stay up late hours to find the answers to my own questions, and it paid off years later when I was awarded two Navy and Marine Corps Achievement Medals.
In any case, Aidan, I did the same thing with the Bible. I spent 8 years studying everything anyone ever wanted to know about Jehovah’s Witnesses, 7th Day Adventists, Herbert W and Garner Ted Armstrong, and others, too.
I wanted to know why the JW’s don’t believe that Jesus is God, I wanted to know why the 7th Day Adventists insist on going to Church on Saturday, I wanted to know why Garner Ted Armstrong believed that Jesus was crucified on Wednesday instead of Friday.
Well, I had to study the Bible to find out why. All of them are WRONG about a lot of things in their doctrines. But why?
The Why is what I wanted to find out. So when I say something on any blog, it is due to “I’ve already studied this topic out”. This is why A2A and myself agree on this subject of marriage/divorce/remarriage, and I am just as flabbergasted at your conclusions as he is on the subject.
But I thought I needed to inform you as to where I come from on subjects, so as not to be accused of ad hominem attacks.
Calvinists accuse us of that all the time. But I always thought that hominem was some kind of breakfast thing in Alabama! Before Calvinism, I never heard of that word. Seriously!!
I have no beef with you personally.
Ed Chapman
Ed, you wrote:
“ad hominem attacks? Sarcasm is my charming personality. But call it as you will.”
Response:
Sometimes there’s a fine line between sarcasm and ad-hominem attacks. You said some really emotive things about me that I never said, nor did I imply.
Here’s what you said in one post to A2A:
“BEGGING to get out of their abusive marriages, but Aidan won’t allow them to, telling them that Jesus demands that they get abused, so stick it out til death do they part, when the husband murders them. Aidan wants “til death do you part”? Well, there it is! Aidan, Compassion much?”
And in another post you wrote:
“So, Aidan’s answer to the abused wife is…SUCK IT UP! ENDURE TIL THE END, UNTIL YOU ARE BEATEN TO A PULP AND DIE! Because that’s what Jesus commands of you!”
What’s funny is that I never talked about these things. You and I certainly never talked about these things. In fact, if memory serves, most of my interactions about divorce was either with A2A and 1saved. I looked over many of the posts where you mention me, and often what you say is either a complete misrepresentation or something I actually didn’t say! But, at the end of the day, the only thing that will matter is what JESUS said, which came into effect AFTER His death and resurrection. If repeating what Jesus said is actually true (and I believe it is), then the sad truth is that your emotive, ad-hominem attacks, are not against me, but against Him. But this is just your charming personality at work…. Right?!!
You also wrote:
“But we disagree on this marriage/divorce/remarriage issue, baptism issue, musical instruments in church, gifts, etc.”
Response:
Wow! I didn’t realize you had such a gift for getting so much wrong😉!
And, yes, I don’t believe in original sin, so at least you got one right 👍.
And the only “ian” I subscribe to is Christ – ian. I’m on a roll here!
Maybe some of that “charming personality” is starting to rub off on me. Ooops! What’s happening, was that sarcasm😏?
So, you’re a die hard Zionist? Listen, don’t let anyone put you down for that — you can be wrong if you want to😉!
You wrote:
“But I thought I needed to inform you as to where I come from on subjects, so as not to be accused of ad hominem attacks.”
Response:
Listen, ad-hominem attacks are when you use emotive language that attacks the man instead of the argument in a way that unfairly undermines his credibility in the debate. We could all resort to those tactics – but in the end nobody would really benefit, we would all lose.
As long as it’s kept civil I have no beef either – – – except perhaps on a Sunday for dinner!
Aidan
Aidan,
You had said:
“You said some really emotive things about me that I never said, nor did I imply.”
You did indeed imply that divorce/remarriage is NOT PERMISSIBLE under any circumstances, which is why I said, “…suck it up!…”
In any case, here in America, Chicken is a traditional Sunday Dinner! I’m not sure when or where that began, but maybe Kentucky Fried Chicken was the only place open after church, besides Denny’s!!
Have a great and better day, Aidan!
Ed Chapman
Ed, you wrote:
“You did indeed imply that divorce/remarriage is NOT PERMISSIBLE under any circumstances, which is why I said, “…suck it up!…”
Response:
There you go again with the misrepresentations! And you said a lot more than that! But here’s what I actually said a number of times. And I’m speaking about what should occur under the new covenant not the old:
I think I sent this one to A2A:
“if one was to SEND her AWAY just for any cause, the CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE would not be recognized in God’s eyes. It has to be for fornication.”
I definitely said this to A2A:
“So you are saying, if a divorced man marries he has not sinned and therefore this would contradict how I interpret Matt. 5:32 and 19:9?? Not necessarily so! My interpretation of those passages is that he can remarry only if he divorced her for fornication.”
To 1saved I wrote:
“The exception allows the innocent party to remarry without committing adultery.”
Either way you had no right to say what you did because I never spoke about those things!
Anyways, thanks for the apology! Ooops! more sarcasm.
Aidan
Aidan,
You had said:
“I think I sent this one to A2A:
“if one was to SEND her AWAY just for any cause, the CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE would not be recognized in God’s eyes. It has to be for fornication.” ”
My response:
This is where we keep attempting to correct you. Under the law of Moses, there is no such thing as divorce for fornication.
Under the law of Moses, you do indeed put her away, then KILL HER! They were all under the law of Moses.
But you indicate that Jesus is TRANSITIONING to the NEW TEST.
No…he wasn’t.
Both you and 1saved keep quoting the ENGLISH words of the Bible regarding DIVORCE, but fail to see the GREEK WORK that was used.
When you do that, you will see that the word DIVORCE is in ERROR, and should never have been used.
There is different Greek word for divorce.
It’s like going to Pizza Hut and ordering a Big Mac, because they have both Pizza and BIG MAC on the menu, but don’t serve a Big Mac. They only serve Pizza.
But you keep ordering a Big Mac at Pizza Hut.
Ed Chapman
Ed, you wrote:
“This is where we keep attempting to correct you. Under the law of Moses, there is no such thing as divorce for fornication. Under the law of Moses, you do indeed put her away, then KILL HER! They were all under the law of Moses.”
Also: “that the word DIVORCE is in ERROR.” And that Jesus wasn’t “TRANSITIONING to the NEW TESTAMENT.”
Response:
Okay, I know what you are saying, that the word should be “put away” instead of “divorce.”
Okay, so you say:– “Under the law of Moses, there is no such thing as divorce for fornication.”
But, you also say:– “Under the law of Christ, there is no such thing as divorce for fornication.”
Instead, you say:– Under the law of Moses, you put her away for fornication and then kill her!
And you also say:– Christ wasn’t talking about the NT period!
So lets see how this works under the law of Moses:
Matthew 5:32
“But I say to you that whoever [puts away] his wife for any reason except sexual immorality causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a woman who is [put away] commits adultery.”
(1) So if she is [put away] for fornication AND is put to death, how can Jesus say whoever marries her commits adultery? For if she is dead who can marry her and commit adultery?
(2) So tell me again how this could possibly apply to the old testament period?
Okay, so those who commit adultery are guilty of the death penalty under the law of Moses? Lets see how the law of Moses works in these verses:
Matthew 5:32
“But I say to you that whoever [puts away] his wife for any reason except sexual immorality causes her to commit adultery [death penalty]; and whoever marries a woman who is [put away] commits adultery [death penalty].”
(3) Okay, so if she is “put away” for fornication she is put to death. And if she is put away for “any other reason” she commits adultery and should also be put to death. Again, if she is put to death how can anyone marry her and commit adultery and also be guilty of death?
(4) Can you explain again how these verses apply to the OT period?
Mark 10:12
“And if a woman [puts away] her husband and marries another, she commits adultery [death penalty].”
(5) Were women allowed to [put away] their husbands in the OT times? If not, then please explain how Jesus could only be talking about the old testament here?
Aidan
Your last point actually proves our point more. Women did not have the authority to give a writ of divorce, they had to get one from their husbands. All they could do was leave, depart or tell their husband to leave. The Greek word in Mark 10:12 again is apuolo, not apostation. And, yes, marrying a woman who is currently married to someone else without a divorce absolutely is adultery!
A2A,
I think Aidan’s point was this.
11 And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her: 12 and if she herself shall put away her husband, and marry another, she committeth adultery. Mark 10:11-12 ASV
Mark 10:12 cannot apply to Mosaic law, since Jewish wives were not permitted to put away their husbands.
Therefore, this verse must be a commandment for Gentiles.
According to Mosaic law, by remarrying and therefore committing adultery, she would be stoned to death, which again cannot be the intent here.
Therefore, two laws on putting away/divorce, a temporary Mosaic law (Deuteronomy 24) and the one at creation, which Christ reinstated.
Ed Chapman has said a man may divorce and remarry ANY number of times as long as he gives his ex-wife a certificate of divorce each time. Do you agree with Ed?
1saved
Pay attention to the previous verses. This is Mark’s account (which makes it Peter’s) of the same conversation in Matthew 19. It is IN RESPONSE to Pharisees asking a question about Mosaic Law! It IS about Mosaic Law and NOT addressed to Gentiles.
The whole premise you are positing is inaccurate because women COULD NOT issue a writ of divorce in those times, only a man could. This by default HAS to be talking about putting away and not divorce because a woman could leave, separate or even ask her husband to leave, but she couldn’t make a divorce happen. This works to the interpretation I have been saying and not against it!
A2A,
I’m sure there were many cases where the husband was quite happy to grant her wishes and give a writ of divorce because of irreconcilable differences. But did you notice that the exception clause “for fornication” is not given here in Mark 10:12? Therefore Jesus is only talking about putting away “for any cause” in these verses, and not for fornication. It is for that reason, and that reason alone, that she commits adultery when she marries another.
What you and Ed don’t seem to understand is that Jesus is not answering the question from their perspective, but from the perspective of God’s law from the beginning of creation. Jesus by-passes the law of Moses and their perversion of it and brings it right back to the beginning, to God’s original plan for marriage. This is very clear when you read Matthew 19:1-9 and Mark 12:1-12. The only exception He gives is “fornication.”
What you and Ed are failing to see is that if this doesn’t apply to the Gentiles, then none of it applies to the Gentiles — we can do as we like!
Aidan,
You wrote, “What you and Ed don’t seem to understand is that Jesus is not answering the question from their perspective, but from the perspective of God’s law from the beginning of creation.”
Very well said again.
1saved
This isn’t how the correlative gospels work. The Gospels are testimonies of Jesus life. If you have 4 witnesses to a crime, for example, they will all pick up details the other didn’t. Altogether it creates a more complete story. The account in Mark is THE SAME conversation Jesus had, Matthew is simply providing more details from his perspective.
For example, Luke’s account of the soldier who got his ear cut of just says it was one of Christ’s disciples. John clarifies it was Peter. This isn’t a different account. Forensically, this actually adds credibility to the Gospels as an accurate account. I encourage you to read J. Warner Wallace’s book Cold Case Christianity, as he breaks down every such example and he himself was a cold case homicide detective.
Hi, A2A,
I know how the gospels work and I have watched some of J. Warner Wallace’s stuff overtime. I like his approach!
Aidan,
You are CONFUSING two different scenarios. That’s the issue.
Scenario #1
Husband and Wife are married to each other. Wife gets a little tail on the side. Husband finds out, kicks her out, and by the law, she gets stoned (by rocks, not by canibus).
Are we clear so far?
Scenario #2, having nothing to do with scenario #1
Husband and Wife are married to each other. Husband HATES his wife. She did not commit adultery on him at all. But he hates her. She refuses to cook for him, and keeps a messy house. So…he kicks her out. But he forgot to give her a divorce decree.
So, she goes an marries another man. And due to the fact that she never got a divorce decree, she is committing adultery, all because she is still married to a man that hates her, and he didn’t give her a divorce decree.
Conclusion:
Scenario #1 DUE TO FORNICATION.
Scenario #2 CAUSES fornication.
Do you see the difference?
So, in scenario #2, when you kick her out, you are to give her a divorce decree to avoid adultery.
In Scenario #1, the adultery already occurred before you kicked her out.
It’s hard to fathom that people can’t see the two scenario’s being discussed.
So to avoid adultery in scenario #2, you had better give her a divorce decree on her way out the door.
Ed Chapman
Ed, the people thank you for the education!
Now answer the questions you are avoiding since you believe what Christ taught here applies only to the Mosaic law:
Matthew 5:32 with insertions in brackets:
“But I say to you that whoever [puts away] his wife for any reason except sexual immorality causes her to commit adultery [death penalty]; and whoever marries a woman who is [put away] commits adultery [death penalty].”
(1) So if she is put away “FOR FORNICATION” and is put to death, how can Jesus say whoever marries her commits adultery? For if she is dead who can marry her and commit adultery?
(2) If that’s the case, how can this possibly apply to the old testament period?
(3) And if she is put away “FOR ANY OTHER CAUSE” she commits adultery and should also be put to death. Again, if she is put to death how can anyone marry her and commit adultery and also be guilty of death?
(4) Again, if death is the penalty, explain how what Jesus said applies to the OT period?
Aidan
Answer is easy. EXCEPT FOR, is what you miss here. One can put away (apuolo, separate) their wife if there is adultery because by the law he would already be just to have her stoned to death (under the law)!
The other part you miss is Matthew 5:32 and 19:9 are CORRELATIVE teachings. It is the same concept, but provides us more clarity. 19 is more detailed and goes more into depth and detail of what Jesus is teaching. This is why 19:9 clarifies “puts away his wife AND marries another”. The act of just being separated is NOT adultery. Adultery has to include sexual activity, incest or bestiality. The word marriage is gamos in the Greek which also refers to nuptial relations.
This is why Paul taught if you engage in sex with a prostitute you “become one flesh”
1 Corinthians 6:16 What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh.
Marriage and sex were very closely tied. Isaacs marriage to Rebekah was created by sex. He simply took her into a tent and they were “married”. The terms are slightly interchangeable in the way which they are used. It is entirely possible Jesus is referring to sexual relations.
A2A,
Please let me try again to explain Matt 5:31-32, Matthew 19:9, Mark 10:11-12 and Luke 16:16 and how they all are congruent.
31 It was said also, [l]Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: 32 but I say unto you, that every one that putteth away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, maketh her an adulteress: and whosoever shall marry her when she is put away committeth adultery. Matthew 5:31-32 ASV
3 And there came unto him [a]Pharisees, trying him, and saying, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? Matthew 19:3 ASV
Here is what you miss in this verse. Pharisees weren’t asking if it was lawful to put their wife away (without a certificate of divorce) for every cause. They knew they must give her a certificate of divorce (Deuteronomy 24).
They were asking if they could put away their wife with a certificate of divorce for every cause.
4 And he answered and said, Have ye not read, [b]that he who [c]made them from the beginning made them male and female, 5 and said, [d]For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and the two shall become one flesh? 6 So that they are no more two, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. Matthew 19:4-6 ASV
Obviously the Pharisees would question Him by citing Deuteronomy 24.
7 They say unto him, [e]Why then did Moses command to give a bill of divorcement, and to put her away? ASV
8 He saith unto them, Moses for your hardness of heart suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it hath not been so. ASV
NOTE: …suffered you to PUT AWAY your wives… This is the Deuteronomy 24 way of putting away your wives with a certificate of divorce, because Mosaic law required a certificate of divorce. “Put away your wives” here CANNOT mean without giving her a certificate of divorce. Therefore, “putting away” doesn’t ALWAYS mean sending away without a certificate of divorce.
Jesus acknowledged their point – but AGAIN said it wasn’t that way at creation (verses 4-6).
Therefore, the Mosaic law in Deuteronomy 24 is null and void.
9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, [f]except for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: [g]and he that marrieth her when she is put away committeth adultery. ASV
(f) Matthew 19:9 Some ancient authorities read saving for the cause of fornication, maketh her an adulteress: as in 5:32.
(g) Matthew 19:9 The following words, to the end of the verse, are omitted by some ancient authorities.
The confusion in the church is over verse 9. Some ancient authorities read the same as Matthew 5:32 and some ancient authorities have omitted words. Scripture interprets scripture, so clarification comes from Scripture.
11 And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her: 12 and if she herself shall put away her husband, and marry another, she committeth adultery. Mark 10:11-12 ASV
NOTE: “Whosoever” leaves no exception for if she was sexually immoral. Therefore, the ancient manuscripts reading the same in Matthew 5:32 and Matthew 19:9 are true and the ancient authorities used by the scholars writing the KJV were corrupted.
Not convinced yet?
18 Every one that putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and he that marrieth one that is put away from a husband committeth adultery. Luke 16:18 ASV
NOTE: :Every one” again means “whosoever” and is all inclusive – no exception for divorcing a sexually immoral wife and remarrying.
Aidan makes good points.
If a man marries a woman who is put away without a certificate of divorce (Mark 10:12), then under Mosaic law he (her husband) would have to stone her (his new wife) to death, since she becomes an adulteress upon remarriage. Absurd right?
A woman who is put away without a certificate of divorce only because she found no favor in her husband’s eyes becomes an adulteress (Matthew 5:32). She should be put to death by stoning. Also absurd right?
1saved
The EXCEPT FOR is something I have been pointing out all along. I understand that Matthew 5 assumes her remarriage. But as you say the “put away” person can commit adultery in all sorts of ways! Either way, even with just remarriage been assumed, if she is “put away” for fornication she has committed the sin already and should be put to death, as per the law of Moses! That doesn’t remove your problem. YOU STILL CAN’T marry one PUT TO DEATH for fornication.
Jesus said: “Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: AND whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.” (Mt. 19:9).
This is why Jesus cannot be talking about the law of Moses!
Have you considered WHY the Pharisees asked the questions in Matthew 19? Chronologically, the sermon on the Mount (where Matthew 5:32 comes from) happens BEFORE the account in 19. Jesus openly taught what He did on divorce. Seeing as how word gets around and His teachings were announced publicly to a HUGE crowd, the Pharisees knew what He was teaching, they were asking Him to challenge Him. Jesus then offered MORE information about said teaching in 19 to provide EVEN MORE clarity.
Yes, I have considered that Matthew 5:32 was one of the reasons they tried to catch Him out in Matthew 19.
We know what adultery means. Adultery only happens if someone who is married has nuptials with someone other than their spouse (or other sexual acts). A divorce, by definition, ends the bond of marriage. A divorced person is not married. Deuteronomy 24:2 makes this clear.
If someone has not been given a divorce, but has been put away, and someone else marries them OR has nuptials with them, because they are still married that IS adultery and by definition of the word.
This goes back to the original question, putting away wives for any reason.
Jesus very easily and more accurately (if He WAS talking about divorce) used the same word that is used for divorce.
Even in English, BY TODAY’S language, there is a distinction.
Are you married? Right now we are separated. This is something people not divorced yet say.
Compared to
Are you married? No, we are divorced.
It is very easy to make it very clear what the position is just by using the right word. People MIGHT get confused about someone saying they are separated, but there is NO CONFUSION in saying “ I am divorced.”!
Jesus very clearly could have used the equivalent words for His time, yet He used the word for separated. Not once does He even use the equivalent word that would remove any doubt. Is Jesus not a purposed speaker? Is God the author of confusion?
Does God hate divorce? Why didn’t He use the word for divorce in Malachi 2:16, but rather the word for separated? Yet another instance He could have made it crystal CLEAR that was what He intended…but He didn’t. Did God make a mistake?
A2A and Aidan,
A2A wrote, “The other part you miss is Matthew 5:32 and 19:9 are CORRELATIVE teachings.”
In fact, Matthew 5:32 and Matthew are EXACTLY the same teaching.
A2A wrote, “It is the same concept, but provides us more clarity. 19 is more detailed and goes more into depth and detail of what Jesus is teaching. This is why 19:9 clarifies “puts away his wife AND marries another”. The act of just being separated is NOT adultery. Adultery has to include sexual activity, incest or bestiality.”
Thinking the two verses are different has led to grievous error for men who think they are being righteous when in fact they are being deceived.
9 Or know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with men, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 ASV
1saved
The error of supposed Piety
A certain Bible teacher once said:
“Piety should never be used as criteria for scriptural exegesis”
Here is a parable that shows why:
—————————————————–
Once upon a time – there was a village in which two scholars lived.
Scholar_A had a certain interpretation of a particular Bible verse based on current evidence within Biblical archaeology.
Scholar_B had a different interpretation which he considered the best possible explanation.
Scholar_A’s interpretation was considered to be an interpretation of renowned Piety.
Thus Scholar_A’s interpretation was deemed correct – and Scholar_B’s interpretation rejected.
A few years later however – new evidence from Biblical archaeology came to light which showed Scholar_A’s interpretation was in fact false – and Scholar_B’s interpretation was in fact the “Best Possible Explanation”.
The moral of the story:
Piety is a criteria corrupted by human subjectivity – and laden with human prejudice.
When I make human subjectivity and human prejudice my criteria – that is what I end up getting.
Br.d,
Gotquestions: “The term piety usually refers to godliness or reverence for God. A person who shows great devotion to God through religious observance is said to be “pious.””
Christianity.com: “As generally defined today, Piety means “the quality of being religious or reverent.” Piety means faithfulness to something to which one is bound by pledge or duty. For Christians, this means trust and love for God, by following His commandments and faithfully praying to Him for mercy and strength.
The Merriam-Webster Dictionary gives the following definition for piety:
1: the quality or state of being pious: such as
a: fidelity to natural obligations (as to parents)
b: dutifulness in religion; Devoutness
Pious, as also defined by Merriam-Webster means “marked by or showing reverence for God and devotion to divine worship.”
Bible Meaning of Piety
In the Bible, piety is used to mean proper honour and respect toward parents (1 Timothy 5:4). In Acts 17:23, the Greek verb is rendered “ye worship,” as applicable to God.
According to Smith’s Bible Dictionary, “This word occurs but once in the Authorized Version: “Let them learn first to show piety at home,” better “toward their own household” or family. (1 Timothy 5:4) The choice of this word here instead of the more usual equivalents -of “godliness,” “reverence,” and the like, was probably determined by the special sense of pietas, as “erga parentes,” i.e. toward parents.”
Jesus’ greatest commandment was a call for piety to His followers, saying “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind, and your neighbour as yourself.” (Luke 10:27)”
1saved
1saved
The term piety usually refers to godliness or reverence for God. A person who shows great devotion to God through religious observance is said to be “pious.””
br.d
Correct
The Pharisees considered themselves pious and their understanding of the God to be the pious understanding.
That is why they considered the man born blind – to be utterly born in sin – and he should never assume to teach them.
That is why the moral of the story is:
Piety is a criteria corrupted by human subjectivity – and laden with human prejudice.
When I make human subjectivity and human prejudice my criteria – that is what I end up getting.
And as we can see – that is what the Pharisee ended up getting.
Piety is good, pride, arrogance and stubbornness is not. Part of piety is also humility…claiming to be pious isn’t humble, so it refutes the claim of piety. Do not take this as an attack, but a claim of “having the gift of discernment” really comes off as not very humble. Anyone can claim God gave them discernment and showed them things. It isn’t an argument that holds water.
Just in case you are wondering, I could absolutely be wrong about my interpretation of divorce and remarriage. I do think it lines up with scripture, original language, logic, history and the character of God, and other interpretations do not do that for me, hence I find it to be the best explanation until someone can give me good reasons for a different one that also lines up with those things.
A2A
claiming to be pious isn’t humble
br.d
Yes – claims are messy business!
Br.d,
A2A
claiming to be pious isn’t humble
br.d
Yes – claims are messy business!
Leaping-frogging.
All I provided was the definition of pious.
Here’s several definitions of pettiness.
1. undue concern with trivial matters, especially of a small-minded or spiteful nature.
“the sheer pettiness of the officials was quite startling”
2. lack of importance or worth; triviality.
“these awesome moments lift us above the pettiness of the world”
1. the quality or condition of being of little, lesser, or no importance, consequence, or merit; insignificance:
The economic cost of these wildfires pales into pettiness when compared to the real victims—the wildlife and the natural landscape.
The film is a comedy about the boredom, pettiness, and general strangeness of working in an office, as the protagonists spend their days plotting a way out of their dull and meaningless jobs.
2. the quality or condition of having or expressing limited ideas, interests, etc.; narrow-mindedness:
The novel is set against a background of small-town deceit and pettiness.
3. the quality or condition of being unkind, stingy, or ungenerous, especially in small or trifling things; meanspiritedness:
Their pettiness is perhaps best demonstrated by the threatened removal of an assortment of services provided to residents—things like fresh fruit, free coffee, and a monthly outing.
Pettiness — whether it’s in a term paper or an argument between politicians — is a focus on issues so small and trivial that it’s almost silly. Another way to use the noun pettiness is to describe the quality of a person that’s also called “small-mindedness.” A friend’s pettiness can be hard to live with, since she focuses on trivial matters and has a tendency to seek revenge for the slightest offenses. Petty comes from the French word for “small,” petit.
Definitions of pettiness
1. noun the quality of being unimportant and petty or frivolous
synonyms:puniness, slightness, triviality
see more
2. noun lack of generosity in trifling matters
synonyms:littleness, smallness
see more
3. noun narrowness of mind or ideas or views
1saved
1saved
Leaping-frogging.
All I provided was the definition of pious.
br.d
The leap-frogging is once again on your part 1saved
My comment did not state that a definition of a word is messy business.
But rather that making claims is messy business.
Claims are messy business because they are often unfounded or unrealistic or imagined.
Br.d,
IMO merely providing a definition of a word isn’t making a claim about oneself.
IMO someone assuming that providing a definition is making a claim is jumping to an unsubstantiated conclusion, aka leap-frogging.
1saved
1saved
IMO someone assuming that providing a definition is making a claim is jumping to an unsubstantiated conclusion, aka leap-frogging.
br.d
Correct.
And since that was simply imagined on your part – it was another leap-frogged conclusion.
Sorry!
You don’t seem to be aware – that leap-frogging conclusions is a pattern with you.
And you don’t seem to be aware when you do it.
Its good for you – that someone is kind enough to point it out to you.
br.d
Many years ago I worked with a pastoral ministry – part of which involved counseling for Christians – and sometimes counselling Christian married couples.
I remember a certain young couple who came in for help.
The counselling ministry addressed the wife and asked her if there was anything she would like ask the husband to change. She was very happy to answer that question.
Yes she said: “He consistently does A-B-C and it would be wonderful if instead he did X-Y-Z.
The ministry turned to the husband and asked how he felt about making that change.
He appeared to be an easy going fellow – said he was ok with it – and committed to do it.
The next week followed the same pattern – where they asked the wife how this had worked for them – and if she had another request for a change on her husbands part.
She indicated she was happy with his latest change and yes she had another request – which again the husband was pliable, and ok with – and committed to do.
This went on for several sessions. And finally the ministry felt it was time to give the husband a turn.
So they asked the husband if there was anything his wife was doing that he would like to change.
And he mentioned something to that affect.
This is where it gets interesting
The ministry turned to the wife to ask her how she felt about that and would she be willing to commit to it.
I watched in surprise – as her demeanor changed – and she sat back and folded her arms in defiance and said “I’m not going to participate in this any more because you people are biased against me!”
That was this couples last counselling session.
The wife adamantly refused to come back for any further sessions – insisting the counselors were biased and had it in for her.
My assumption was that this young girl had issues that she needed to overcome in her life.
And those issues were manifesting in her marriage.
She apparently could not accept any feedback from anyone – in which that feedback was not in the form of a compliment.
I suspect she was stuck in that mode – and unable to grow and mature out of it.
Unless she could somehow let the Lord touch whatever was keeping her stuck – she was going to remain stuck.
When you mentioned you see observations people make here of you as biased – I was reminded of her.
Br.d,
Br.d, A2A claiming to be pious isn’t humble br.d Yes – claims are messy business! Leaping-frogging. All I provided was the definition of pious. Here’s several definitions of pettiness. 1. undue concern with trivial matters, especially of a small-minded or spiteful nature. “the sheer pettiness of the officials was quite startling” 2. lack of importance […]
You wrote:
1saved
IMO someone assuming that providing a definition is making a claim is jumping to an unsubstantiated conclusion, aka leap-frogging.
br.d
Correct.
And since that was simply imagined on your part – it was another leap-frogged conclusion.
Sorry!
You don’t seem to be aware – that leap-frogging conclusions is a pattern with you.
And you don’t seem to be aware when you do it.
Its good for you – that someone is kind enough to point it out to you.
Reply:
A2A wrote “claiming to be pious isn’t humble” and you agreed with him with the word “Yes” .and added claims are messy business. To which I pointed out I only provided the definition of a word and didn’t claim anything. To which you replied I only imagined it and leap-frogged. I see all this as exhibiting pettiness and I’ve already provided you with the definition, since I anticipated how this was going to end.
Furthermore, you wrote after a long anecdotal story ending with:
“When you mentioned you see observations people make here of you as biased – I was reminded of her.”.
What I read on this site is bias toward Calvinists and Roman Catholics. Some here judge them not for who they are, but by the doctrine of who deceived them. Are you claiming to be “perfect” even as “perfect” as our Father in heaven is “perfect” (Matthew 5:48). Do you even understand what Jesus means by “perfect?”
What I have experienced on this site and elsewhere is an unwillingness to test the spirits as directed by John (1 John 4:1-6).
Jesus claimed to be the Son of God (Matthew 27:43, John 19:7}. He was tested by the Pharisees and Sadducees
Paul claimed to be an apostle of Christ (Galatians 1:1, 1 Corinthians 1:1). He was tested by His other apostles.
I claim to have received the spiritual gift of discernment.
“One of the spiritual gifts God gives the Church is discernment (1 Corinthians 12:10). The Church needs people who are able to discern error since we’re called upon to “test the spirits to see if they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world” (1 John 4:1).” source on Google
It is the obligation of the Church to test the spirits to see if they are from God NOT the obligation of the gift recipient to prove whether he or she indeed has received a spiritual gift.
Do you test those claiming to have the spiritual gift of service or mercy? No, you accept them without challenge.
Then can it be said you are biased against those claiming to have the gift of prophecy, wisdom, discernment or exhortation? I would say yes, because you challenge one and not the other. Who told you to do that?
List of spiritual gifts in Scripture.
Romans 12:6–8
6 Having gifts that differ according to the grace given to us, let us use them: if prophecy, in proportion to our faith; 7 if service, in our serving; the one who teaches, in his teaching; 8 the one who exhorts, in his exhortation; the one who contributes, in generosity; the one who leads,[a] with zeal; the one who does acts of mercy, with cheerfulness. ESV
1 Corinthians 12:8–10
8 For to one is given through the Spirit the utterance of wisdom, and to another the utterance of knowledge according to the same Spirit, 9 to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by the one Spirit, 10 to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another the ability to distinguish between spirits, to another various kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues. ESV
1 Peter 4:11
1 whoever speaks, as one who speaks oracles of God; whoever serves, as one who serves by the strength that God supplies—in order that in everything God may be glorified through Jesus Christ. To him belong glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen. ESV
6 Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience. 7 Therefore do not become partners with them; 8 for at one time you were darkness, but now you are light in the Lord. Walk as children of light 9 (for the fruit of light is found in all that is good and right and true), 10 and try to discern what is pleasing to the Lord. 11 Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them. 12 For it is shameful even to speak of the things that they do in secret. 13 But when anything is exposed by the light, it becomes visible, 14 for anything that becomes visible is light. Therefore it says, Ephesians 5:6-14 ESV
Is announcing you have been given a spiritual gift exposing your light to brethren or is it boastful and demonstrating a lack of humility? I am only being obedient to His Word.
Lastly:
5 Examine yourselves, to see whether you are in the faith. Test yourselves. Or do you not realize this about yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you?—unless indeed you fail to meet the test! 2 Corinthians 13:5 ESV
1saved
1saved
Br.d, A2A claiming to be pious isn’t humble br.d Yes – claims are messy business! Leaping-frogging. All I provided was the definition of pious
br.d
Already corrected that misconception on your part.
For some reason – you seem to have a need to manufacture events which don’t exist.
I don’t think that is a good sign.
Br.d,
1saved
Br.d, A2A claiming to be pious isn’t humble br.d Yes – claims are messy business! Leaping-frogging. All I provided was the definition of pious
br.d
Already corrected that misconception on your part.
For some reason – you seem to have a need to manufacture events which don’t exist.
I don’t think that is a good sign.
Reply:
To which I’ve already replied.
By saying “Yes” you agreed with A2A.
I haven’t any misconception – those were your words.
All of this falls under the category of “pettiness” – the definition of which I provided in advance – anticipating where this was going.
I invite you to test me further to determine whether or not I have received the spiritual gift of discernment from God.
Or, you could simply ask God in faith concerning this and He will answer you, provided you do not doubt (James 1:5-6).
Do you have faith to ask Him or not?
1saved
1saved:
By saying “Yes” you agreed with A2A.
I haven’t any misconception – those were your words.
br.d
Of course they were my words!
I made that post!!!
They certainly weren’t the words of Thomas Jefferson! 😀
The leap-frogging to a poorly thought-out conclusion – was your misconstrual of them.
You posted a definition.
The point I made concerned a claim
Anyone with normal discernment would know there is a difference
I think I’m seeing a pattern here – of what I might be called a “Youthful Imagination” :-]
Br.d,
Obfuscate means to make obscure or unclear. It is the concealment of intended meaning in communication, making communication confusing, intentionally ambiguous, and difficult to interpret. It can be deliberate confusing in order to conceal the truth. For example: Repetitive and overlapping arguments cannot obfuscate the fact that a timely termination petition was not filed; Before leaving the scene, the murderer set a fire to obfuscate any evidence of his or her identity.
Definition of obfuscate
transitive verb
1a: to throw into shadow : DARKEN
b: to make obscure
obfuscate the issue
officials who … continue to obscure and obfuscate what happened
— Mary Carroll
2: CONFUSE
obfuscate the reader
Definition of obfuscate
verb (used with object), ob·fus·cat·ed, ob·fus·cat·ing.
to confuse, bewilder, or stupefy.
to make obscure or unclear:
to obfuscate a problem with extraneous information.
to darken.
verb (used without object) ob·fus·cat·ed, ob·fus·cat·ing.
to make something unclear, obscure, or difficult to understand:
Notice how she obfuscates when asked directly about her conversations with the defendant.
1saved
br.d
I do have compassion for you!
You have a need – and that need is manifesting itself.
The Lord himself is able to fill that need.
Brd,
“You wrote, “You have a need – and that need is manifesting itself.
The Lord himself is able to fill that need.”
Reply:
My need is to fulfill my, calling which is to reveal the Truth.
The Lord Himself is able to fill that need, when you ask Him in faith and without doubting He will answer.
1saved
The Lord can break through that and deliver.
But we have to be willing to allow him to do so.
And that sometimes means giving up things we cling to.
Br.d,
You wrote, “The Lord can break through that and deliver.
But we have to be willing to allow him to do so.
And that sometimes means giving up things we cling to”
Reply:
2 Corinthians 9:6-8
Each of you should give what you have decided in your heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver. And God is able to bless you abundantly, so that in all things at all times, having all that you need, you will abound in every good work.
My wife and I notice you don’t capitalize the G in God or the H in “him” above.
Here are two more examples of your writing where God isn’t capitalized.
…”There were Christian thinkers in Calvin’s day – who disagree with the image of god Calvin created.”
…”The creatures…are so governed by the secret counsel of god, that NOTHING HAPPENS but what he has knowingly and willingly decreed.”
To us, that demonstrates a lack of proper respect for the Lord thy God.
1saved
1saved
My wife and I notice you don’t capitalize the G in God or the H in “him” above.
br.d
You’ve probably noticed I definitely don’t use an upper case “G” when I refer to Calvin’s god.
And I don’t think the Lord who loves us both – cares about whether I use an upper case “h” when referring to him – any more than he cares about me wearing wide phylacteries, or blowing a horn before I pray, or making sure I look a certain part.
However – if I were going to author a book – I would certainly want to ensure capitalization, spelling, and grammar are appropriate for that venue. :-]
Straining at a gnat while swallowing a camel…
br.d
Isn’t that a wonderful saying!!!
I totally love how the Lord gets right to the heart – and cuts through all of that stuff!!!!
Every Word is a treasure!
In the very least, it is a verse I don’t see legalistic people refer too it very often. One of those glossed over verses that people ignore when it goes against their beliefs/practices.
br.d
Oh I got a kick out of that one A2A!
Yea its one of the verses we wouldn’t expect a legalistic person to quote.
God must have a good sense of humor! 😀
Br.d,
You wrote, “You’ve probably noticed I definitely don’t use an upper case “G” when I refer to Calvin’s god.”
Reply:
God’s name is Yahweh. His Son’s name is Yeshua.
There are about 2.4 billions Christians worldwide seeking the same God.
Church affiliation breakdowns:
There are about 1.2 billion Roman Catholics worldwide.
There are about 220 millions Eastern Orthodox practitioners worldwide.
There are about 85 millions Anglicans and 2 million Episcopalians worldwide.
There are about 81 millions Lutherans worldwide.
There are about 75 millions Calvinists worldwide.
There are about 67 millions members of Assembly of God churches worldwide.
There are about 40.5 millions Methodists worldwide.
There are about 14.8 millions Southern Baptists worldwide.
There are about 2 millions Church of Christ members in the world.
There are about 1.2 millions non-denominational church members worldwide.
Your bias toward Calvinists and Catholics is against (1.275 billion/2.4 billion x 100%) = 53% of all Christianity.
In other words, you are bias against more than half of all Christians worldwide.
Talk about grieving the Spirit 😢.
1saved
br.d
That one is hilarious 1saved!
Somehow I don’t think the Holy Spirit is grieved over not honoring graven images!
I wonder what kind of discernment would do so! :-]
Eyes they have – but they see not.
Ears they have – but the do not see.
And those who worship them become like unto them.
Once one gets familiar enough with Calvin’s god – it becomes pretty obvious he is created after the image of John Calvin. I’m not even sure Calvin would be grieved over someone not honoring his image. :-]
Br.d,
You wrote, :Somehow I don’t think the Holy Spirit is grieved over not honoring graven images!
I wonder what kind of discernment would do so! :-]”
Which do you think is more grievous to the Spirit?
Catholics honoring angels, because they are deceived or Protestants committing adultery because they are deceived thinking they can divorce and remarry?
Here’s a hint.
No adulterers shall enter the kingdom of heaven (1 Corinthians 6:9).
1saved
Well, Protestants tend to lean more on the Catholic side of that issue, so you don’t really have that right.
Also, liars, thieves, fornicators, idolators etc…won’t enter the Kingdom of heaven. Also transgressing in one law makes someone guilty of transgressing ALL of them…so no, one isn’t worse than another as far as what it does to anyone’s eternity.
Christ died for the sins of the world, and God is faithful and just to forgive us our sins if we repent.
Remember what I said about being legalistic? Legalism emphasizes law and rules but is short on Grace, which God is abundant in.
A2A,
You wrote, “Christ died for the sins of the world, and God is faithful and just to forgive us our sins if we repent.
Remember what I said about being legalistic? Legalism emphasizes law and rules but is short on Grace, which God is abundant in.”
Reply:
The key phrase above is “…if we repent.”
False teachers deceive others, so they will not repent their sins and die in their sins.
Reply on grace – undeserved, unmerited, unwarranted favor from God:
God is abundant in grace. He graciously sends those He has graciously provided spiritual gifts.
For example, He graciously taught Paul so Paul could write His Word and graciously sent Paul to the Gentiles.
He saves us from the consequence our sins by grace, through faith, in Christ.
If you have faith in God, why not ask Him yourself concerning His marriage/divorce doctrine as in James 1:5-6?
He will answer, if you do not doubt He will.
1saved
Yes I have, and all that He showed me I have shared here.
Genuinely, I did pray and seek Him on this issue and this is the discernment He gave me.
But do you see how that is a fallacious argument to just claim you prayed and God showed you something? Anyone can say that.
A2A
But do you see how that is a fallacious argument to just claim you prayed and God showed you something? Anyone can say that.
br.d
A few years ago I saw a documentary of the remaining followers of David Koresh
Even years after the incident in that compound – these people were totally convinced he had spiritual gifts.
A2A,
You wrote, “But do you see how that is a fallacious argument to just claim you prayed and God showed you something? Anyone can say that.”
Reply:
That is why you test the Spirits
1 Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world. 2 By this you know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God, 3 and every spirit that does not confess [a]that Jesus [b]Christ has come in the flesh is not of God. And this is the spirit of the Antichrist, which you have heard was coming, and is now already in the world.
4 You are of God, little children, and have overcome them, because He who is in you is greater than he who is in the world. 5 They are of the world. Therefore they speak as of the world, and the world hears them. 6 We are of God. He who knows God hears us; he who is not of God does not hear us. By this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error. 1 John 4:1-6 NKJV
You wrote, “Yes I have, and all that He showed me I have shared here.
Genuinely, I did pray and seek Him on this issue and this is the discernment He gave me.
Reply:
You already admitted you could absolutely be wrong about what you teach on divorce and remarriage; so which is it?
Either the doctrine came from God (but could be wrong), which is ridiculous – or you deceived yourself into thinking it came from God and it is wrong.
1saved
John Piper holds your position on divorce and remarriage. In his paper he starts by saying Godlier men than he take a different position and he could be wrong, but he will lay out his research and reasoning. While I don’t agree with Piper on much, I appreciate the humility demonstrated there.
It goes like this: humans are subject to error. I am human, therefore I am subject to error.
A2A,
You wrote, “Also, liars, thieves, fornicators, idolators etc…won’t enter the Kingdom of heaven. Also transgressing in one law makes someone guilty of transgressing ALL of them…so no, one isn’t worse than another as far as what it does to anyone’s eternity”
Reply:
Previously you wrote:
“Piety is good, pride, arrogance and stubbornness is not. Part of piety is also humility…claiming to be pious isn’t humble, so it refutes the claim of piety. Do not take this as an attack, but a claim of “having the gift of discernment” really comes off as not very humble. Anyone can claim God gave them discernment and showed them things. It isn’t an argument that holds water.
Just in case you are wondering, I could absolutely be wrong about my interpretation of divorce and remarriage.”
24 but let him who boasts boast in this, that he understands and knows me, that I am the Lord who practices steadfast love, justice, and righteousness in the earth. For in these things I delight, declares the Lord.” Jeremiah 9:24 ESV
1) Having been given the gift of discernment Jeremiah 9:24 tells you I have a freedom to boast, because I understand and know the Lord.
2) You admit you could absolutely be wrong about your interpretation of divorce and remarriage.
.Putting those two statements together, do you really think you are qualified to say “…so no, one isn’t worse than another as far as what it does to anyone’s eternity.”?
Before you answer, keep in mind that teachers will be held to a stricter standard.
3 Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness. 2 For we all stumble in many ways. And if anyone does not stumble in what he says, he is a perfect man, able also to bridle his whole body. James 3:1-2
Finally, do you recall my advising you to search the Scriptures on the word “perfect” using biblegateway.com?
Did you?
1saved
1saved
Which do you think is more grievous to the Spirit?
Catholics honoring angels, because they are deceived or Protestants committing adultery because they are deceived thinking they can divorce and remarry?
br.d
I had a sense from the last post – you were starting to go wherever a wind happened to be blowing
I’ll refrain from that – but thanks anyway.
Hello 1saved
I can’t remember if when you came on board here at SOT101 – whether you gave your name.
I’m in conference with SOT101 Admin today
There is a request for you and for A2A to post your first name in your posts and responses to others.
Are you ok with that?
Thanks
br.d
Br.d,
You wrote:
Hello 1saved
I can’t remember if when you came on board here at SOT101 – whether you gave your name.
I’m in conference with SOT101 Admin today
There is a request for you and for A2A to post your first name in your posts and responses to others.
Are you ok with that?
Thanks
br.d
Reply:
I have nothing to hide.
Since you have previously revealed my full name to those on the SOT101 website, providing my first name seems rather superfluous. Should you or the administrator want to question me directly – you have my email and I encourage you to contact me directly on any questions you have.
1saved
1saved:
Since you have previously revealed my full name to those on the SOT101 website, providing my first name seems rather superfluous.
br.d
That would not have been me.
Perhaps you are referring to a post that Ed made?
And that would not be considered – something you provided.
1saved
Should you or the administrator want to question me directly – you have my email and I encourage you to contact me directly on any questions you have.
br,d
SOT101 Admin is already approaching you in this manner
Please provide an answer one way or the other.
Br.d,
You wrote:
br,d
SOT101 Admin is already approaching you in this manner
Please provide an answer one way or the other.
Reply:
My first name is George.
I’m glad to hear the SOT101 Administrator will contact me.
1saved
1saved
My first name is George.
br.d
Thank you – but the question you are being asked – is if you are comfortable posting your first name in your posts – rather than 1saved?
Br.d,
You wrote:
1saved
My first name is George.
br.d
Thank you – but the question you are being asked – is if you are comfortable posting your first name in your posts – rather than 1saved?
Reply:
I thought I answered the question when I said I have nothing to hide.
I’ll provide both my first and last names on every post if it helps, since apparently Ed Chapman previously revealed them, an action which I believe you concurred with.
When can I expect SOT Admin to contact me? We’re coming up on a holiday weekend.
George
Thank you George
Please go ahead and use your first name from now on within your posts – in any place in which you had previously used 1saved. That is sufficient for the time being.
1saved
I invite you to test me further to determine whether or not I have received the spiritual gift of discernment from God.
br.d
That test was completed a long time ago! :-]
I was actually thinking about that this morning.
You have – what I at this point – would call “A Familiar Friend”
In your case – your “Familiar Friend” is a self-image – which you’ve created.
And the urgency to tell people up front – is part of establishing and maintaining that image.
And probably for the same basic needs out of which a child will create a “Familiar Friend”.
The “Familiar Friend” serves a need for something within the child’s life – which the child would otherwise would not have.
A2A,
I can’t remember if when you came on board here at SOT101 – whether you gave your name.
I’m in conference with SOT101 Admin today
There is a request for you and for 1saved to post your first name in your posts and responses to others.
Are you ok with that?
Thanks
br.d
I might be open to it. Forgive my reluctance, I tend to like to know reasoning behind such requests…what reasons were given?
Thanks A2A
The reason – is to see how relational a user is willing to be – as a professing believer.
My name is Kurt. While a believer, I am also a little paranoid and guarded at privacy when it comes to online, but I love the work and ministry Dr. Flowers is doing here, so I’ll stick my neck out a little!
Do I need to include my name each post or just this time for introductions?
Thanks Kurt!
SOT101 is asking if you are ok using your first name in all of your posts.
So where you might have A2A within a post – which indicates your statement within that post – you would instead use Kurt.
Are you comfortable with that?
Part of why I am using a handle is I am personally going through some spiritual abuse, from some reformed people, who have both belittled me on my opposition to Calvinism and are condemning me on the remarriage I am about to enter into this year. While I doubt they would frequent this site, they have also done private research on me, digging into my divorce dates etc…in a very intrusive manner without my permission. (Hence my recent deep study into divorce).
I am certain if they found what I was posting here was me, they would use it all as ammo to try and sabotage my relationship. I know it is a long-shot, but I do hope the Admin here would understand and show compassion in this matter. Do let me know.
br.d
I understand!
If that is the case – perhaps it would be best for now – for you to discontinue participation at SOT101?
Not because there is anything in particular having to do with you
But simply because they would prefer the use of first names – and because of the sensitivity of your current circumstances – that might not be best wisdom at this point in time?
If he puts her away it CAUSES her to commit adultery. Why might this be? Well, she is kicked out of where she has been living and being taken care of. She has no other means of caring for herself, and so goes with another man while still married. Jesus isn’t saying putting her away makes her GUILTY of adultery, but that it CAUSES her to commit adultery (eventually and for lack of options). Also, whatever man goes with her (because she is still married) ALSO commits adultery. Don’t put your wife away, try to work it out, or divorce her is the lesson here.
The point that seems to be not understood in this conversation is that the act of putting an adulterous wife away is actually an act of mercy. She cannot be granted a divorce, which would assert her sexual purity. This concept is reflected in Joseph’s intention of putting away Mary, who he initially assumed had been adulterous, rather than having her stoned. A ‘put away’ wife, technically, was a wife who was indeed adulterous, but whose husband mercifully spared her life. Obviously an unfaithful wife who was stoned, as per the Law, could not be put away or remarry. It was only the unfaithful wife who was not stoned who could legally be ‘put away’. She was already an adulteress, and any man who married her would know this. She had already broken the covenant of marriage, and as far as her husband was concerned, she was as good as dead. He was no longer legally bound to her.
The issue was that this process was being abused. Men were ‘putting away’ wives who were not adulteresses, and not granting them the proper papers of divorce so that they could legally remarry, as per the Law. In other words, men who were wanting to end their marriages for reasons other than unfaithfulness on the part of their wives were wrongly treating their wives as if they had been unfaithful, leaving them under that false condemnation, as well as almost ensuring that they did indeed become adulteresses, as harlotry was their only alternative role in life, unless a father was willing to endure the shame of taking in his guilty daughter.
A put away wife, technically, was an unfaithful wife who had been spared the death penalty. No other situation allowed for ‘putting away’, which was essentially a picture of God’s grace. All knew that she was guilty, and her husband would likely be admired for being so ‘gracious’ as to spare her life. The hypocritical Pharisees were putting away innocent wives, for reasons other than unfaithfulness, and not granting them the divorces required by the Law of Moses (given by God), all so that they would preserve their reputation (of not frivolously divorcing their wives) and even falsely appear pious. The women were helpless, unless a man who believed in their innocence – probably by knowing the character of their husbands – and married them, making them both technically guilty of adultery.
Jesus correctly stated that God did not ever desire divorce (I mean He would know, right?), but allowed it out of his heart of compassion. Just as God did not really desire sacrifice, but the hard (sinful) heart of man made it a necessity. It is utterly unlike God to condemn any person to a lifetime of marriage in which they are not loved. This is the enormous and gross mischaracterization that has long been caused by the institutional Church’s faulty interpretation of Jesus’ words concerning divorce. Countless men and women have been deeply wounded by the false idea that God would have them remain in bondage in an abusive or loveless (which inevitably becomes at least emotionally abusive) marriage. It is only when we do not understand the heart of God, the purpose of the Law, what ‘putting away’ meant and what divorce meant that the statements of Jesus are misunderstood, to great harm.
When we remember that God’s heart is always one of love and compassion we will be encouraged to study until confusing – and misinterpreted – passages of scripture make sense.
TS00,
If only the Catholics would have had all of our conversations in this matter, it would have saved a lot of heartache down the line when Protestants defected the Catholic church.
I once heard a Catholic joke, to where a pope died, got to the pearly gates, met Peter, and that this pope was granted his desire to go to the heavenly library. He spent a lot of time there, and one day he bursts out laughing uncontrollably.
Peter asks why he is laughing, and the pope said, “The word was CELEBRATE, not CELIBATE.”
Ed Chapman
TS00,
Deuteronomy 24:1-4 was made null and void by Christ. He reinstated God’s law on marriage at creation (Matthew 19:4-6).
Do you adhere to Deuteronomy 24:5 ?
If a man has recently married, he must not be sent to war or have any other duty laid on him. For one year he is to be free to stay at home and bring happiness to the wife he has married. ESV
Perhaps you will answer my question asked of others here.
How many times can a husband divorce his wife and remarry if he provides a certificate of divorce each time?
1saved
Jesus didn’t state He was reinstating the original intent. Gods original intent was a perfect world without sin, did He reinstate that?
Ed did answer that question about how many marriages. As many as it takes.
A2A,
You wrote:
“Jesus didn’t state He was reinstating the original intent. Gods original intent was a perfect world without sin, did He reinstate that?”
First, I said He reinstated the original doctrine on marriage – not His original intent. If you are going to question what someone has said, quote them correctly. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Luke 6:31
Second, God called His creation “very good” (Genesis 1:31) – not “perfect” and perfect doesn’t mean without sin anyway. Jesus hasn’t yet reinstated that.
Where there is no law, there is no sin. The only sin Adam and Eve could commit was to eat the forbidden fruit, because that was the only law they were given.
Having eaten the forbidden fruit their minds were filled with the entire law (knowledge of all good/right and evil/wrong).
They were banished from the garden so they couldn’t eat from the Tree of Life and each was punished. Adam would have to work hard to eat and Eve would have painful childbirth, want to dominate her husband, but he would lord over her.
They couldn’t keep every aspect of the law, so they sinned. We are all sinners in need of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.
1saved
Please point to me where it says He was reinstating anything. It doesn’t say that. Anywhere. You are reading something into the text that simply isn’t there.
A2A,
Please point to me where it says He was reinstating anything. It doesn’t say that. Anywhere. You are reading something into the text that simply isn’t there.
Definition of reinstate:
re·in·state
/ˌrēinˈstāt/
Learn to pronounce
verb
restore (someone or something) to their former position or condition.
Merriam-Webster
transitive verb
1: to place again (as in possession or in a former position)
2: to restore to a previous effective state
3 And there came unto him [a]Pharisees, trying him, and saying, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? 4 And he answered and said, Have ye not read, [b]that he who [c]made them from the beginning made them male and female, 5 and said, [d]For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and the two shall become one flesh? 6 So that they are no more two, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. 7 They say unto him, [e]Why then did Moses command to give a bill of divorcement, and to put her away? 8 He saith unto them, Moses for your hardness of heart suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it hath not been so. Matthew 19:3-8 ASV
2 And there came unto him Pharisees, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? trying him. 3 And he answered and said unto them, [a]What did Moses command you? 4 And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away. 5 But Jesus said unto them, For your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment. 6 But from the beginning of the creation, Male and female made he them. 7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, [b]and shall cleave to his wife; 8 and the two shall become one flesh: so that they are no more two, but one flesh. 9 What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. Mark 10:2-9 ASV
Simply there twice for all to see.
1saved
Right. I know the verses and have a Bible. Nowhere does it say He is reinstating anything. He explained how things were before hearts were hardened. Do we not still have the problem of hardened hearts?
And still, He is talking about putting away, NOT divorce. The word for put asunder in the Greek is chorizo, which means to send away, to separate. It isn’t a word used anywhere to describe divorce, which DOES HAVE specific words!
Again, even today, someone says we’re separated or “we’re divorced” the 2 things mean something very different!
A2A,
You wrote, “He explained how things were before hearts were hardened. Do we not still have the problem of hardened hearts?”
Reply:
Yes, many still have hard hearts. We also have the problem of blind guides leading the blind. We have the problem of false prophets dressed in sheep’s clothing. We have the problem of tares growing up amongst the wheat – none of which is germane here.
We did not have those problems at creation when God made them male and female (Genesis 1:27).
22 Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib[h] he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.
23 The man said,
“This is now bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called ‘woman,’
for she was taken out of man.”
24 That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh. Genesis 2:22-24 NIV
No longer two, but one flesh. Inseparable by putting away with or without a certificate of divorce.
1saved
Again, it doesn’t state THE CONCLUSION you came to. Yes, they cleave to each other and become one flesh. The question is, what does that mean?
When someone “joins” with a harlot, they become one flesh. When Isaac took Rebekah into a tent, they became married. Sex and marriage are very closely related, so much so that they are often recognized as the same thing. When Abraham went into Hagar she became his “wife”.
A2A,
You wrote, “Again, it doesn’t state THE CONCLUSION you came to. Yes, they cleave to each other and become one flesh. The question is, what does that mean?”
Reply:
If God joined them together in marriage they are not to be separated by anyone (Matthew 19:6).
You wrote, “When someone “joins” with a harlot, they become one flesh.” True, but God didn’t join them together.
You wrote, “When Isaac took Rebekah into a tent, they became married.” Didn’t God join them together?
1saved
Now you are getting it! Did God join 2 satanists together? Did God join a man who beats his wife every day together? Did he join together a drug addict who abandons his wife? Why are we assuming every marriage is one God joined together?
Even so, it uses the word separate. While married, do not separate. There is a covenant together. Honor the covenant while in it. If you can’t, sever the covenant.
A2A,
You wrote, “Now you are getting it! Did God join 2 satanists together? Did God join a man who beats his wife every day together? Did he join together a drug addict who abandons his wife? Why are we assuming every marriage is one God joined together?
Even so, it uses the word separate. While married, do not separate. There is a covenant together. Honor the covenant while in it. If you can’t, sever the covenant.
Reply:
Look who’s leap-frogging now Br.d. I never assumed every marriage is one God joined together. Do you think the pronoun “we” above applies to A2A, Ed Chapman, TS00, etc? It definitely doesn’t apply to me.
Note: A2A’s comments above are from the same A2A who previously admitted he could absolutely be wrong on the subject, while at the same time claiming the doctrine came from the Lord.
1saved
Look who’s leap-frogging now Br.d.
I never assumed …….xyz
br.d
What I see here is A2A asking a question.
When Person_A asks a question about Person_B’s position on [X]
Person_A is trying to discover Person_B’s position on [X]
That is the opposite of assuming Person_B’s position on [X]
Yes, admitting one could be wrong on a subject I believe is an act of humility, as opposed to claiming to be a final authority on truth. I’ve researched and have backed my research with reasoning, but I am always open to being mistaken so that I may grow in knowledge.
I found I was mistaken on this divorce issue BEFORE I prayed, sought and studied where I used to hold Aidan’s position.
br.d
A little note here
Just as a person can be self-deceived about a certain doctrinal issue – that person can just as easily be self-deceived when they -quote “Seek the Lord for an answer – and in faith the Lord will give that answer”
History shows us clearly that believers can be deceived about what they believe the Lord is giving them, showing them, or doing within them.
The critical issue is human PERCEPTION and the inability to be self-discerning concerning the secret places of the heart.
The heart is deceitfully wicked – who can know it?
A believer – such as 1saved – can have the PERCEPTION that he is going to the Lord in faith – with the full expectation that because his faith met some specified criteria – the Lord will bypass his human free-will and sovereignly implant spiritual discernment (i.e. SOME TRUTH) into his brain.
This is a deception in and of itself – about how the Holy Spirit works.
A counterfeit spirit will TAKE OVER a faculty of the individual.
The Holy Spirit will never do such a thing.
We have for example – believers within the charismatic movement – who have done exactly what 1saved states.
They have gone to the Lord in faith – and asked the Lord for spiritual gifts or manifestations.
And as far as their PERCEPTION is concerned – they have meet the proper criteria for faith just as 1saved assumes.
In the process – they have been influenced and used by counterfeit spirits because they did not rightly understand the the difference between the way the Holy Spirit works – and the way a counterfeit spirit works.
The net result – is that we have believers walking around having spastic body movements which they cannot control – believing they received that manifestation from God himself – because they went to God in faith.
We have believers crawling around on floors like snakes during church meetings – believing they received that manifestation by God himself – because they went to God in faith.
1saved may have the PERCEPTION that he met some special criteria of going to God in faith.
And with that belief that he received some kind of special gift from God
When in fact – all he did was deceive himself – because he was not self-discerning enough to realize he was seeking God out of a LUST for self-promotion – rather than for Godly reasons.
Well said!
This is why I believe in running interpretations through unchanging, unbiased FILTERS to see if said interpretation is accurate.
Logic, reason, what the interpretation does to God’s character, if an interpretation creates a contradiction with other scripture, IT ALL helps us get closer to the truth if it passes those tests!
br.d
Yes exactly!
And that is the way TRUE scholarship is designed to work.
For example – F.F. Bruce was considered one of the top 10 leading scholars of the twentieth century.
He had his own personal beliefs and ways of interpreting scripture.
But as a teacher and scholar – he did not promote himself.
As a teacher and scholar – his duty was to provide all of the possible exegetical, hermetical, etc options – and give people absolute freedom to make up their own minds about which option provided the best possible understanding.
That is the sign of a true scholar!
Anyone who runs around trying to convince people he has some special divine gift or understanding – would be considered a child playing power games – assuming himself to be something he isn’t.
And would never be considered trust-worthy.
We often bump into believers who posture speaking with authority – and do not have much good to say about scholarship.
The reason they are doing that – is because they know they don’t qualify to sit at the table of scholarship – because it requires a discipline and a price they were not willing to pay.
A2A,
You wrote:
“This is why I believe in running interpretations through unchanging, unbiased FILTERS to see if said interpretation is accurate.
Logic, reason, what the interpretation does to God’s character, if an interpretation creates a contradiction with other scripture, IT ALL helps us get closer to the truth if it passes those tests!”
Reply:
That is what the noble Bereans did. They searched the Scriptures to determine whether a professed doctrine was true.
Acts 17:11
I suggested you search the Scriptures for the meaning of “perfect” using biblegateway.com You may be enlightened by the result.
1 saved
You might not realize it, but it comes off as very condescending to present commonly known biblical examples (like the Bereans) as if the other person isn’t aware of it. Yes, I know the Bereans, I admire their example and practice it.
I am also aware of biblegateway, got questions etc…anyone who has ever googled knows these tools. I don’t stop at ONE of them as a final authority, but cross reference several of them, opposing interpretations, read myself AND talk to several pastors for their interpretations too before I come to a conclusion.
Kurt, I’m guessing you have heard these interpretations before. But here is mine. If your divorced wife is not yet remarried, she is still your wife in God’s eyes. I hope you’ll have confidence from God for the next right thing to do!
Divorce & Remarriage
In brief, though not dogmatically, I hold adultery and divorce do not break the marriage bond in God’s eyes by themselves. Death breaks that bond, and so does divorce and remarriage together break that bond in God’s eyes. The first person to remarry after a divorce for whatever reason commits adultery in forming that new marriage. The other former spouse, after their divorced spouse remarries, is now no longer a “spouse” and is therefore free to marry, in the Lord.
Matthew 19:5-6 NKJV — “and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”
Romans 7:2 NKJV — For the woman who has a husband is bound by the law to her husband as long as he lives. But if the husband dies, she is released from the law of her husband.
Mark 10:11 NKJV — So He said to them, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her.”
1 Corinthians 7:27-28 NKJV — Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be loosed. Are you loosed from a wife? Do not seek a wife. But even if you do marry, you have not sinned…
John 4:17-18 NKJV — The woman answered and said, “I have no husband.” Jesus said to her, “You have well said, ‘I have no husband,’ for you have had five husbands, and the one whom you now have is not your husband; in that you spoke truly.”
Also … God’s forbidding returning to the first husband after the death of the second (Deut 24) indicates the first bond was broken in God’s eyes. And the implied meaning in Jesus’ command – “let not man put asunder” doesn’t seem to imply deat