Jump to content
  • Welcome to Online Baptist

    Free to join.

swathdiver

Mark And Avoid Or Spit Out The Bones?

Recommended Posts

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"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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"

 

I see what you are saying, but keep in mind that we have great examples from Paul of how those he marked, he also warned about. Yes, mark them, pay attention to them, notice them and take heed to avoid them, but we also have a responsibility to warn others about them. Paul named names, gave issues, made them public-shouldn't we also, so long as we have good information?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

 

All I wanted was an honest discussion on whether or not we had an accurate understanding of what that verse says because I disagree that it's as plain as you seem to think it is; but nevermind. I truly have no interest in discussing anything with you now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see what you are saying, but keep in mind that we have great examples from Paul of how those he marked, he also warned about. Yes, mark them, pay attention to them, notice them and take heed to avoid them, but we also have a responsibility to warn others about them. Paul named names, gave issues, made them public-shouldn't we also, so long as we have good information?  

I might also make another "OBservation" concerning this particular "congregation".  Rather than being "spiritual" and thus gentle and kind,

they seem to "focus" on having an angry spirit concerning things totally outside their control, such as certain "conspiricies" of a particular

religious order and (progressive) "liberalism" in general.  Perhaps they do not really trust the Holy Spirit... or perhaps even worse...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All I wanted was an honest discussion on whether or not we had an accurate understanding of what that verse says because I disagree that it's as plain as you seem to think it is; but nevermind. I truly have no interest in discussing anything with you now.

You summarily dismissed the literal interpretation.
Now you want to discuss what?

How can "must be" not mean "must be"?

Anishinaabe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While the OP doesnt necessarily speak to this exactly. In terms of "eating meat and spitting out bones" I think personal decernment helps a lot... I personally had to stop listening to Todd friel, as the gaggle of calvinistic theology played in clips by paul washer and company just ate away at my Joy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You summarily dismissed the literal interpretation.
Now you want to discuss what?

How can "must be" not mean "must be"?

Anishinaabe

 

Didn't dismiss anything, but I don't care to dig it back up. Pass.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I might also make another "OBservation" concerning this particular "congregation".  Rather than being "spiritual" and thus gentle and kind,

they seem to "focus" on having an angry spirit concerning things totally outside their control, such as certain "conspiricies" of a particular

religious order and (progressive) "liberalism" in general.  Perhaps they do not really trust the Holy Spirit... or perhaps even worse...

Well, I certainly can't argue with you that there are those who allow their zeal to give them a poor spirit and attitude. These are the kinds that give other believers a bad name. I certainly have no prOBlem with warning ministries, so long as they are done with kindness and wisodm, and well-document what they are saying. After all, Jeremiah and Isaiah and Ezekiel definitely had warning ministries, particularly to israel, but much can be applied to the NT believer who takes for granted what the Lord has done for him, of those who seek to  include ungodliness and error in the work.

 

A great example would be, of course, the well-known 'god hates fags' "church", Westboro Baptist. They are just bubbling over with zeal, without an ounce of discernment or Christian love to be seen. Of course, they're an extreme example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

You seem to suggest that only adultery can be committed in the heart and/or that married men can only commit adultery but not fornicate.

 

Matt. 15:19-  For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:

 

It all comes from the heart and thoughts.

Edited by ASongOfDegrees

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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? 

I'm sure there's a Greek word somewhere to explain it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You seem to suggest that only adultery can be committed in the heart and/or that married men can only commit adultery but not fornicate.

 

Matt. 15:19-  For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:

 

It all comes from the heart and thoughts.

Yeah it does kind of sound like that.

 

NO, The point I am clumsily trying to make, is that, while adultery can be of the heart OR the flesh, then becoming fornication as well, fornication is strictly of the flesh. Now certainly, fornication dirives from adultery of the heart, but that domain is between you and the Lord, as far as the consequences are concerned, while fornication has now officially and manifestly made the breech in the marriage.

 

Like what I asid about the hate/murder thing: We can hate a brother without a cause, and be seen of God as a murderer in heart, but we can't be tried in court for that. However, when that hate breaks forth into physical assault or murder, THEN the courts can try us and find us guilty. Yes, murder is borne out of hate, generally, but hate alone cannot cause us to be judged by man, only God. So adultery which can be of the heart, while IN the heart, its still adultery, but we are judged then of God, but fornication, when it manifests in flesh, can then find physical judgment.

 

That's the best way I can explain it.

 

Also, in reference to the verse, adultery and fornication are separated, because adultery is not always fornication,  and fornication is not always adultery-sometimes adultery is only of the heart, and sometimes, fornication is done where there is no marriage involved, thus no adultery.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah it does kind of sound like that.

NO, The point I am clumsily trying to make, is that, while adultery can be of the heart OR the flesh, then becoming fornication as well, fornication is strictly of the flesh. Now certainly, fornication dirives from adultery of the heart, but that domain is between you and the Lord, as far as the consequences are concerned, while fornication has now officially and manifestly made the breech in the marriage.

Like what I asid about the hate/murder thing: We can hate a brother without a cause, and be seen of God as a murderer in heart, but we can't be tried in court for that. However, when that hate breaks forth into physical assault or murder, THEN the courts can try us and find us guilty. Yes, murder is borne out of hate, generally, but hate alone cannot cause us to be judged by man, only God. So adultery which can be of the heart, while IN the heart, its still adultery, but we are judged then of God, but fornication, when it manifests in flesh, can then find physical judgment.

That's the best way I can explain it.

Also, in reference to the verse, adultery and fornication are separated, because adultery is not always fornication, and fornication is not always adultery-sometimes adultery is only of the heart, and sometimes, fornication is done where there is no marriage involved, thus no adultery.


Adultery, when it becomes physical, becomes fornication.
Pornography viewing is physical, and is adultery, for a married man.

We can't judge the inward thoughts of any brother, but we are to judge the outward expression of those thoughts.

Anishinaabe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Adultery, when it becomes physical, becomes fornication.
Pornography viewing is physical, and is adultery, for a married man.

We can't judge the inward thoughts of any brother, but we are to judge the outward expression of those thoughts.

Anishinaabe

Whosoever looketh upon a woman to lust after her has committed adultery with her in his heart. Isn't this exactly what viewing pornography is? Jesus calls it of the heart.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The terms of Adultery and Fornication are so closely related in the Bible that one generally does not go without the other. 

 

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.
Mt 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.
Ga 5:19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The terms of Adultery and Fornication are so closely related in the Bible that one generally does not go without the other. 

 

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.
Mt 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.
Ga 5:19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
.

 

I disagree with not just this post but most of this thread that deals with adultery.

Adultery and fornication have almost nothing to do with each other.

The verses quoted above are completely misinterpreted by most if not all Christians IMO.

 

Hints:

Adultery is a turning of the heart away from someone

Fornication is a sin of sex only

 

Can anyone guess where I am going with this?

 

Here is another hint from your own common sense:

 

Since when has sex ever been a thing of the heart for a man?

Since when has sex NOT been a thing of the heart with a woman (unless she is a harlot (whore) or taken advantage of-doped up)?

 

Think about it

Edited by wretched

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree with not just this post but most of this thread that deals with adultery.
Adultery and fornication have almost nothing to do with each other.
The verses quoted above are completely misinterpreted by most if not all Christians IMO.

Hints:
Adultery is a turning of the heart away from someone
Fornication is a sin of sex only

Can anyone guess where I am going with this?

Here is another hint from your own common sense:

Since when has sex ever been a thing of the heart for a man?
Since when has sex NOT been a thing of the heart with a woman (unless she is a harlot (whore) or taken advantage of-doped up)?

Think about it

Not a
100% with you, but you are closer than most to this.

Adultery has a definition : marital infidelity.

Fornication is a much broader category, it includes any sexual sin.

A man commits adultery, in his heart, when he LOOKS on a woman, to lust after her.
Pornography is adultery.

But.....

Nowhere, ever, is a woman told that she is allowed to put away her husband.



Anishinaabe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not a
100% with you, but you are closer than most to this.

Adultery has a definition : marital infidelity.

Fornication is a much broader category, it includes any sexual sin.

A man commits adultery, in his heart, when he LOOKS on a woman, to lust after her.
Pornography is adultery.

But.....

Nowhere, ever, is a woman told that she is allowed to put away her husband.



Anishinaabe

 

Agreed,

 

I am also thinking on this line:

 

Jesus Himself expresses a distinct difference between fornication and adultery within the same verses.

 

If adultery is a sin of the heart and mind and not a sin of sex itself. Which I believe since the Bible clearly states we can commit adultery against the Lord, then consider:

 

I believe the Lord refers to the man's fornication in these verses

 

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.
Mt 19:9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery

 

Here is the example: Man has sex outside of marriage with harlot (s), (sex only, no heart feelings - fornication) but still loves and wants his wife: wife finds out and is inconsolable and will not stop making man's life unbearable because of it; man divorces wife because of her reaction; wife falls out of love with man (turns from man to another man in heart - adultery)

 

Reason: Why would God not have simply written "saving for the cause of adultery" if how we traditionally look at these passages is correct?

 

Reasoning: as I stated in the post above

 

Since when has sex ever been a thing of the heart for a man?
Since when has sex NOT been a thing of the heart with a woman (unless she is a harlot (whore) or taken advantage of-doped up)?

 

In conclusion:

 

I feel the Lord is referring to a triple, even quad sin on the part of the man over the man's need to have sex with various women:

1. Man fornicates with harlots

2. Man divorces wife because she is inconsolable over it

3. Man causes wife to turn her heart away from him and to another (her adultery) but MAN was the cause of it

4. Man now turns his heart away from wife to another woman and remarries (his adultery).

 

Up until 100 years ago, it was not legal or heard of for a woman to put away her husband even in this country. To this day in most of the world it is still not legal.

Certainly 2000 years ago the only recourse a spurned married woman had against a cheating husband was to react this way and force him to divorce her.
 

Admittedly, not one of my better theories but still something to think about.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have heard preaching time and time again that "fornication" can only be committed before marriage. I don't think so.

I know of a man, awesome singer, beautiful family, who was asked to sing a special program at our former church, and was later put in prison for molesting his kids. A young man who once rode my church bus later married, then was sent to prison for the same. I could tell you of two others affiliated with my own church. Is molesting your kids "adultery"? I know of a man who one day told his wife that he "liked men" and that was along about the time the AIDS virus hit the headlines. Was he simply an adulterer? 

 

Jude 1:7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

 

The Sodomites were not merely having premarital relations, they were depraved perverts. That's what "fornication" is. Any married man who commits perversion, not just "adultery", is committing fornication. Therefore, if "Hubby" is chasing prostitutes, homosexuals, another woman or any other dangerous behavior, the "except it be" clause protects "Mom" from STD's. If "Dad" is a child molester, it protects the children. He needs to be "put away". Actually, he would be stoned in the OT. Adultery is just a specific KIND of fornication....a perversion.

Edited by heartstrings

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have heard preaching time and time again that "fornication" can only be committed before marriage. I don't think so.
I know of a man, awesome singer, beautiful family, who was asked to sing a special program at our former church, and was later put in prison for molesting his kids. A young man who once rode my church bus later married, then was sent to prison for the same. I could tell you of two others affiliated with my own church. Is molesting your kids "adultery"? I know of a man who one day told his wife that he "liked men" and that was along about the time the AIDS virus hit the headlines. Was he simply an adulterer?

Jude 1:7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

The Sodomites were not merely having premarital relations, they were depraved perverts. That's what "fornication" is. Any married man who commits perversion, not just "adultery", is committing fornication. Therefore, if "Hubby" is chasing prostitutes, homosexuals, another woman or any other dangerous behavior, the "except it be" clause protects "Mom" from STD's. If "Dad" is a child molester, it protects the children. He needs to be "put away". Actually, he would be stoned in the OT. Adultery is just a specific KIND of fornication....a perversion.

The "except it be clause" was not extended to Mom.

Anishinaabe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Who's Online   1 Member, 0 Anonymous, 42 Guests (See full list)

Article Categories

About Us

Since 2001, Online Baptist has been an Independent Baptist website, and we exclusively use the King James Version of the Bible. We pride ourselves on a community that uplifts the Lord.

Contact Us

You can contact us using the following link. Contact Us or for questions regarding this website please contact @pastormatt or email James Foley at jfoley@sisqtel.net

Android App

Online Baptist has a custom App for all android users. You can download it from the Google Play store or click the following icon.

×
×
  • Create New...