Mark And Avoid Or Spit Out The Bones?

[Ukulelemike]

Mark, yes. Slander, no.

[beameup]

Mark, yes. Slander, no.

According to the pastor's wife (I asked the pastor also), "marking" means to tell others that so-and-so is departing from "sound doctrine".

So, according to "the King James Bible", vocalizing (speaking out) to others that one comes in contact with, is what this verse means.

 

Is there anything in the Bible concerning bearing false witness and spreading tales, rumors and innuendos concerning other Christians?

[TheSword]

Then there should be no bishops or deacons.

God's rules, deal with it.

Anishinaabe

 

Interesting...well I guess there's no arguing with that...your reasoning is just too solid. It's a good thing we could discuss this as adults to be sure we both had a proper understanding of Scripture...

[HappyChristian]

It almost seems of late as if every thread has to turn into a bone gnawing session.

Yes, there is very definitely a spirit of contention lately.

[Ukulelemike]

According to the pastor's wife (I asked the pastor also), "marking" means to tell others that so-and-so is departing from "sound doctrine".

So, according to "the King James Bible", vocalizing (speaking out) to others that one comes in contact with, is what this verse means.

 

Is there anything in the Bible concerning bearing false witness and spreading tales, rumors and innuendos concerning other Christians?

Of course there is-we are not to be tale-bearers or gossips, or bearing false witness. But that is not marking one who is truly in error or blatantly spreading false doctrines.  

 

Going strictly by your story, what she did was wrong, if she hadn't checked her facts, and she was wrong about what she said. Of course, she could have been in error and had she a right heart, upon being presented with factual information, she should have changed her story, If she did not, and in fact refuses to do so, then she is a liar and should, herself, be publicaly marked.

 

But when we have good information, facts, that one is spreading falsehoods or has removed themselves from the faith, they should be marked-not as an enemy, mind you, but as a danger, because a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump. As a pastor, it would be in the best interests of my church to publicly mark someone who is a fale teacher. If I am found wrong, though, I should be willing and eager to retract what I said, just as publicly, and give a public apology to the one I had inavdertently slandered.

 

But we are still to mark when the need arises.

[Ukulelemike]

Jesus did say that divorce was ok if sexual immorality took place.  Mt 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.

 

What of a man who was married before he was saved, his wife runs off with another man, he remains faithful to her hoping for her to come back, she gets a deadly disease while off with others, and the man decides to divorce her?

 

Could he not after he got saved remarry and it not be considered he is married to two wives?

Divorce for fornication, NOT adultery, is acceptable, the difference being, adultery can be of the heart, and I believe Jesus didn't want divorce occurring every time one spouse thought the mind of the other was wandering. Had to be the physical act. Though I suspect this is what you meant, so not trying to split hairs.

 

Divorce is also acceptable if an unbelieving spouse leaves a believer-we are not under bondage to such, the Bible tells us.

[ASongOfDegrees]

Divorce for fornication, NOT adultery, is acceptable, the difference being, adultery can be of the heart, and I believe Jesus didn't want divorce occurring every time one spouse thought the mind of the other was wandering. Had to be the physical act. Though I suspect this is what you meant, so not trying to split hairs.

 

Divorce is also acceptable if an unbelieving spouse leaves a believer-we are not under bondage to such, the Bible tells us.

I'm sorry, but you have me totally confused here.

[Ukulelemike]

I'm sorry, but you have me totally confused here.

What exactly are you confused about? I did put this out in a bit of haste, so maybe I wasn't as clear as I meant to be. Please allow me to clarify

[TheSword]

Divorce for fornication, NOT adultery, is acceptable, the difference being, adultery can be of the heart, and I believe Jesus didn't want divorce occurring every time one spouse thought the mind of the other was wandering. Had to be the physical act. Though I suspect this is what you meant, so not trying to split hairs.

 

Divorce is also acceptable if an unbelieving spouse leaves a believer-we are not under bondage to such, the Bible tells us.

 

Interesting point I hadn't really considered in-depth. Would a woman whose husband is unrepentently addicted to pornography then have no grounds for divorce because it was merely mental/heart adultery?

[Ukulelemike]

Interesting point I hadn't really considered in-depth. Would a woman whose husband is unrepentently addicted to pornography then have no grounds for divorce because it was merely mental/heart adultery?

Apparently not. Jesus specifically said 'Fornication", markedly different from Adultery, because one is physically interacting with another person, while the other is of the mind-both still sins and needing to be dealt with as such, and both, in some aspect, certainly dishonoring to the spouse, but not both a divorceable offense. Biblically-speaking.

 

Of course, we also have: "The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife." (1Cor 7:4) and I believe THIS deals with physical, uhhh...self-satisfaction, for lack of a better, cleaner term. However, still not divorceable.

 

I am a divorced man. My foirst wife left me for another man, came back for a short time, and left again with yet another man. I gave her many years of waiting time, but after living with two other men as their wife, and then accepting a ring from one, I chose to let her go-I figure I had done all I needed to fulfil all I could in a godly manner. She has since gone off to live the life of a reprOBate from the faith in most ways. I won't elaborate any more than that.  But even having said this, I believe that we, even Christians, find way too many tings we consider worthy of divorce. I fought it tooth and nail from start to finish. But biblically, I believe I did all I could. Even in this, I submitted myself to God and repented of what I may have done to be implicit in the divorce.

 

But before I was separated, before I even knew there was a prOBlem, I was called to be a preacher. The divorce put me off the track for a time, but I believe the gifts and calling of God are without repentance. God wasn't surprised by my wife leaving me but He still called me. I tried to turn away from the call but was continually pulled back, virtually given no choice. Its hard to explain, but those who are pastors may understand better than those not. I have regularly told the Lord that if He would bring someone to take over, who was more qualified, that I would willingly step down, but not unless that occurred, because I don't believe it is His will that a church shut down if not necessary. But He knows my heart and willingness, and thus far, no one has come who is either willing, and very few qualified, to take over as pastor. So I believe it is God's will I remain until such time as He removes me.

 

Do I take my experience over His word? Of course not-from what I read and understand in His word, I am the husband of one wife, the one I am married to today. The former one left me as apparently an unbeliever and an adultress, and as such I am no longer married to her, thus, the husband of one wife. The experience just confirms it. 

 

No one here has to agree or come to my church-this is just where I am. For what it's worth.

[beameup]

Of course there is-we are not to be tale-bearers or gossips, or bearing false witness. But that is not marking one who is truly in error or blatantly spreading false doctrines.  

 

Going strictly by your story, what she did was wrong, if she hadn't checked her facts, and she was wrong about what she said. Of course, she could have been in error and had she a right heart, upon being presented with factual information, she should have changed her story, If she did not, and in fact refuses to do so, then she is a liar and should, herself, be publicaly marked.

 

But when we have good information, facts, that one is spreading falsehoods or has removed themselves from the faith, they should be marked-not as an enemy, mind you, but as a danger, because a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump. As a pastor, it would be in the best interests of my church to publicly mark someone who is a fale teacher. If I am found wrong, though, I should be willing and eager to retract what I said, just as publicly, and give a public apology to the one I had inavdertently slandered.

 

But we are still to mark when the need arises.

If I handed you a telescope or microscope and you started yelling into it like it was a microphone, what would I think of you?

 

Instead of clearly understanding Romans 16:17, this "pastor's wife" (and the pastor backed her actions as well)

has committed the act of spreading false rumors and back-biting and verballying slandering a great man of God.

She clearly is blind-as-a-bat as far as understanding this scripture:

 

Now I beseech you, brethren, mark skopeō them which cause divisions and offences

contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them. 

 

As a result, I have since "avoided" these "-ites".  I suspect she gets her "Hog-wash" from the "Hog-yard"

[TheSword]

Apparently not. Jesus specifically said 'Fornication", markedly different from Adultery, because one is physically interacting with another person, while the other is of the mind-both still sins and needing to be dealt with as such, and both, in some aspect, certainly dishonoring to the spouse, but not both a divorceable offense. Biblically-speaking.

 

Of course, we also have: "The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife." (1Cor 7:4) and I believe THIS deals with physical, uhhh...self-satisfaction, for lack of a better, cleaner term. However, still not divorceable.

 

I am a divorced man. My foirst wife left me for another man, came back for a short time, and left again with yet another man. I gave her many years of waiting time, but after living with two other men as their wife, and then accepting a ring from one, I chose to let her go-I figure I had done all I needed to fulfil all I could in a godly manner. She has since gone off to live the life of a reprOBate from the faith in most ways. I won't elaborate any more than that.  But even having said this, I believe that we, even Christians, find way too many tings we consider worthy of divorce. I fought it tooth and nail from start to finish. But biblically, I believe I did all I could. Even in this, I submitted myself to God and repented of what I may have done to be implicit in the divorce.

 

But before I was separated, before I even knew there was a prOBlem, I was called to be a preacher. The divorce put me off the track for a time, but I believe the gifts and calling of God are without repentance. God wasn't surprised by my wife leaving me but He still called me. I tried to turn away from the call but was continually pulled back, virtually given no choice. Its hard to explain, but those who are pastors may understand better than those not. I have regularly told the Lord that if He would bring someone to take over, who was more qualified, that I would willingly step down, but not unless that occurred, because I don't believe it is His will that a church shut down if not necessary. But He knows my heart and willingness, and thus far, no one has come who is either willing, and very few qualified, to take over as pastor. So I believe it is God's will I remain until such time as He removes me.

 

Do I take my experience over His word? Of course not-from what I read and understand in His word, I am the husband of one wife, the one I am married to today. The former one left me as apparently an unbeliever and an adultress, and as such I am no longer married to her, thus, the husband of one wife. The experience just confirms it. 

 

No one here has to agree or come to my church-this is just where I am. For what it's worth.

 

That's an interesting answer. I had always considered adultery as a type, or subset, of fornication. It's an intriguing thought, but I'm not yet fully on board with the idea of it being a distinction between physical and non-physical interaction. John 8:3-4 seems to describe adultery as a physical act and the adultery of the heart passage (Matt 5:28) seems to indicate that the common understanding was that adultery was physical, but Jesus extended it to non-physical. Thus, when I read Matt 5:23 I understand the provision for divorce to be all kind of sexual sin to include adultery. Thoughts? 

[Ukulelemike]

That's an interesting answer. I had always considered adultery as a type, or subset, of fornication. It's an intriguing thought, but I'm not yet fully on board with the idea of it being a distinction between physical and non-physical interaction. John 8:3-4 seems to describe adultery as a physical act and the adultery of the heart passage (Matt 5:28) seems to indicate that the common understanding was that adultery was physical, but Jesus extended it to non-physical. Thus, when I read Matt 5:23 I understand the provision for divorce to be all kind of sexual sin to include adultery. Thoughts? 

generally, I would say nthat they are pretty much part and parcel, but it gives me pause when Jesus spoke that adultery can be committed in the heart, while fornication can't, due to the specifically physical nature of it. Thus, when He says that fornication, not adultery, is worthy of divorce, it gives me pause to think that He is speaking of acting out on the wicked thoughts.

 

A murderer in God's eyes is one who thinks hatefully about a brother without a cause, but to man, we can't convict them until they act upon those thoughts and end, or attempt to end, a life. So the same with adultery and fornication-we can commit mental adultery, but divorce cannot occur until it is acted upon in fornication, (or perhaps attempted fornication?).

[TheSword]

generally, I would say nthat they are pretty much part and parcel, but it gives me pause when Jesus spoke that adultery can be committed in the heart, while fornication can't, due to the specifically physical nature of it. Thus, when He says that fornication, not adultery, is worthy of divorce, it gives me pause to think that He is speaking of acting out on the wicked thoughts.

 

A murderer in God's eyes is one who thinks hatefully about a brother without a cause, but to man, we can't convict them until they act upon those thoughts and end, or attempt to end, a life. So the same with adultery and fornication-we can commit mental adultery, but divorce cannot occur until it is acted upon in fornication, (or perhaps attempted fornication?).

 

Makes sense to me. I think we are on the same page here.

[prophet1]

Interesting...well I guess there's no arguing with that...your reasoning is just too solid. It's a good thing we could discuss this as adults to be sure we both had a proper understanding of Scripture...

They were spelled out as a list of requirements.
If no one meets the requirements, then no one gets installed in the office.
What is there to discuss?

You want me to agree that "no one is qualified", so we can ignore the list, or make it a suggestion , not a command, before you will discuss it.

We have to accept the Word of God, before we can discuss it.



Anishinaabe