Jump to content
  • Welcome to Online Baptist

    Free to join.

swathdiver

Mark And Avoid Or Spit Out The Bones?

Recommended Posts

Tis true, that Jesus gave us no new commandment, neither did He seek to undo the Law.
This would happen at His Death, God would rend the Veil.

Paul was given instructions for the Church that were different. Why?
Because they were people who werent raised under The National Jewish Law. This is of utmost importance, as some of the Epistles of the Apostles were written to Christians converted from Judaism, who still lived in an area that enforced Mosaic/ pharisaic law, until 70 A.D.

The Gentiles, having not known the Law, were instructed not to hold their spouses who would not be converted, if they wanted to leave.

Any Gentile , no matter what their Marital status before their new birth,
was only held to what they did afterwards.
So, yeah, there is a whole lot of divorce, when married people get saved, and it is to be expected, it is dealt with.
Let them go, or let them stay, it's the choice of there Free Will, and is a picture, once again, of our Free Will choice to choose our brideGroom, Christ.

Anishinaabe

 

Well, well, looky here. I we got us a closet dispensationalist.

 

Bible becomes oh so much clearer when the Spirit shows you where God changes His dealings with us or the Jews, don't it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Easy, Paul because I'm in the church age.

 

Jesus gave us no new doctrine, he just reiterated the original plan and what God permitted through Moses because of man's hardened heart.

 

 

So you rightly divide between church age and Moses.

 

What about between Jesus and Paul?

 

Do you believe the church age started before Christ went to the cross?

Edited by AVBibleBeliever

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then what does Paul mean when he says,15 But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases:"?

 

Under bondage to what? It means we are not under bondage to that unbelieving spouse that has left-its abandonment. If my unbelieving wife left me, walked out, wanted a divorce, Paul is saying that I am not under bondage to that person-thus, if we dvorce and I remarry, I am free to do so. Not under bondage means not bound to them.

 

Jesus' comment on fornication has nothing to do with the hardness of heart issue, and He makes it clear in the context. The hardness of heart issue had to do with divorce for any reason. Then He says that the way it was meant to be was one man, one woman, and there should be no divorce, save for the cause of fornication.  So here He gives one good cause for divorce. And of course, the believer/unbeliever issue isn't brought yet into play because as yet there are no believers/unbelievers, per se, or no saved/unsaved-He is dealing with the people of Israel, God's people still at the time.  Paul deals with the church, regenerate married to unregenerate, which the Bible makes clear is not God's will in the first place, unless two are married as both unsaved, then one is saved.

 

To try and explain away the clear words of Jesus and Paul is why so many divorced people are thrown away by churches. It has been my experience in some IFB churches who see it that way, that a divorced person is good for two things only: to fill a seat and to pay a tithe. Otherwise sit down and shut up.

I see UKU, you rightly divide between Israel and the church.  I am glad to see you had a understanding of pre cross and post cross.  Many don't see it that is why they blend the gospel of the Kingdom and the gospel of Grace into one gospel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, well, looky here. I we got us a closet dispensationalist.

Bible becomes oh so much clearer when the Spirit shows you where God changes His dealings with us or the Jews, don't it?

Well, Jesus kinda gave us the Intro...

Mat 5:17-20
17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets:I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven:but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Gal 3:24-25
24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. 25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.


Jesus, until His death, was the fulfillment of the Schoolmaster, always showing us that we can't possibly work our way in.

Jn 5:39
39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life:and they are they which testify of me.

Where we disagree, is in division of Matthew.
Where Jesus said this :

Mat 16:18
18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

And this:

Mat 18:17
17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church:but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.

Before this:

Mat 24:4
4 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you.

To these, who he had begun to call the church:

Mat 24:3
3 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?

After saying, to Israel, this:

Mat 23:37-39
37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!
38 Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.
39 For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.

Signifying that their restoration would not begin until His second Coming, which happens ...

Mat 24:29-31
29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:
30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven:and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.
31 And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

"After the Tribulation".


Anishinaabe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then what does Paul mean when he says,15 But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases:"?

 

Under bondage to what? It means we are not under bondage to that unbelieving spouse that has left-its abandonment. If my unbelieving wife left me, walked out, wanted a divorce, Paul is saying that I am not under bondage to that person-thus, if we dvorce and I remarry, I am free to do so. Not under bondage means not bound to them.

 

No, such a meaning makes Paul look silly, for just seconds ago he said remain unmarried or be reconciled.  He says the same thing in verse 28.

 

Verse 15 means that the unbeliever is not entitled to come back and spend the night, expect to be cared for, etc.  Unless of course, they reconcile.  

 

That's the only way that whole passage makes sense.

 

Same with Christ, again he was talking about what God permitted under Moses which was still in effect.  They were only allowed to divorce for the cause of fornication and that was because their hearts were hardened.  See?  They didn't have enough grace in them to be like Hosea with Gomer.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Gentiles, having not known the Law, were instructed not to hold their spouses who would not be converted, if they wanted to leave.
 

 

If what you say about verse 15 is true, how do you reconcile verse 11 and 27?  What do they then mean?  Reconcile or remain unmarried cannot mean get back together or stay single anymore.  It must mean something else.  What?

 

 

What about between Jesus and Paul?

 

Do you believe the church age started before Christ went to the cross?

 

 

If there is an apparent conflict between Paul and Christ we must look to who their messages were meant for.  Right?  That doesn't mean we ignore the 4 gospels and follow Paul or visa versa, every word in the scriptures benefits us. 

 

The bible says the law and the prophets were until John.  So yes, the church age started before Calvary, before Pentecost. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The first, reconciliation, refers to believers, both spouses, while the other refers to a believer and an unbeliever.

 

Mike, I have considered your position and again have to reject it on biblical grounds.  Verses 12 and 13 clearly admonish the believer not to leave his or her unbelieving spouse.  The Lord then gives the reason for such in verses 14 and 16, because they and the children are sanctified and that they may get saved.  

 

God's plan for the church age is no divorce for any reason.  If it does occur, one is to remain unmarried or be reconciled.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sadly, those who are unwilling to make their marriage work and choose to file for divorce are not going to accept resolving to either remain unmarried or reconcile with their spouse.

 

Even among Christian women one of the first things I hear when a woman divorces her husband is her "friends" telling her to start dating, that God will send the right man to her, that she'll be married and happy in short order.

 

Biblical teaching on marriage, divorce and remarriage is greatly lacking. Add to this the willingness of most Christians to ignore, skip or re-interpret Bible verses on these matters and it's no wonder this prOBlem plagues Christians in like manner as the lost.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If what you say about verse 15 is true, how do you reconcile verse 11 and 27?  What do they then mean?  Reconcile or remain unmarried cannot mean get back together or stay single anymore.  It must mean something else.  What?

 

 

If there is an apparent conflict between Paul and Christ we must look to who their messages were meant for.  Right?  That doesn't mean we ignore the 4 gospels and follow Paul or visa versa, every word in the scriptures benefits us. 

 

The bible says the law and the prophets were until John.  So yes, the church age started before Calvary, before Pentecost. 

NoOne I included ever said to ignore any books of the Bible.  We just don't apply everything to us that's all.

 

The church of the first born is the church that the gates of hell will not prevail against and that is Israel, also known as the church in the wilderness.

Edited by AVBibleBeliever

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The church of the first born is the church that the gates of hell will not prevail against and that is Israel, also known as the church in the wilderness.

 

Well...  Christ said he would build his church and the gates of hell would not prevail against it.  That's the local New Testament Church, not Israel.  Which do you mean?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mike, I have considered your position and again have to reject it on biblical grounds. Verses 12 and 13 clearly admonish the believer not to leave his or her unbelieving spouse. The Lord then gives the reason for such in verses 14 and 16, because they and the children are sanctified and that they may get saved.

God's plan for the church age is no divorce for any reason. If it does occur, one is to remain unmarried or be reconciled.

The context is OBvious, if the unbeliever wants to leave, let them go.
It is talking about a marriage where one of the partners gets saved, but not the other.
You now have light in union with darkness.
The husband is the head of the home, thus, if he is a believer, sanctified everyone under his authority.
The wife has instructions for her, if she believes first.
God allows that the Gospel carries an offense.

Anishinaabe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The context is OBvious, if the unbeliever wants to leave, let them go.
It is talking about a marriage where one of the partners gets saved, but not the other.
You now have light in union with darkness.
The husband is the head of the home, thus, if he is a believer, sanctified everyone under his authority.
The wife has instructions for her, if she believes first.
God allows that the Gospel carries an offense.

Anishinaabe

 

I'm not sure we're in disagreement here.  Whether a believer or not, God's plan for marriage today does not include divorce.

 

I might add that any believer in a home of unbelievers sanctifies that home according to the scriptures (verse 14 for example).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure we're in disagreement here.  Whether a believer or not, God's plan for marriage today does not include divorce.

 

I might add that any believer in a home of unbelievers sanctifies that home according to the scriptures (verse 14 for example).

I agree-but God's plan also didn't include sin, death, murder, or a plethora of things that have occurred. So, for the remedy of those things, Christ died on the cross so that such things can be placed under the blood. And, in the case of marriage, while it is not God's plan, clearly, yet knowing it would happen, He gave certain allowances for those who are the 'left', if you will. If one's spouse leaves them, commits adultery and departs, particularly being an unbeliever, does the 'innocent' party then have to be found a guilty sinner when it wasn't their sin that caused it?

 

And if so, even at the worst, is it a sin that cannot be forgiven, placed under the blood of Christ, and forgotten, as with all sins? Is this the one we don't let go of? Or do we forgive men their trespasses, as we are told to do? Or is it a forgiveness with strings attached?

 

Now, certainly, there are some things that may have strings attached, so to speak-you aren't going to assign a converted child molester to a Sunday School teacher. But that's less about strings as it is protection of that person, so they are not brought into temptation, as well as the children.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well...  Christ said he would build his church and the gates of hell would not prevail against it.  That's the local New Testament Church, not Israel.  Which do you mean?

you might want to study before you comment.  A simple search of any KJV Bible program will assist you well.

 

I think that people who dont study aren't worth discussions on topics they have not studied. 

 

Look up chuch in the wilderness and the church of the first born.

 

Do so to learn not to prove an error,  many who do the later never learn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sometimes it doesn't matter what one thinks...AVBB, swath simply asked you a question to clarify. If you were truly interested in a discussion, you would not dismiss him as worthless to a discussion. You would answer the question.  If you want to be counted worthy to discuss things with people, stop insulting and simply answer questions asked of you. That's what discussion is. Be advised  -  don't start getting snarky again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And, in the case of marriage, while it is not God's plan, clearly, yet knowing it would happen, He gave certain allowances for those who are the 'left', if you will. If one's spouse leaves them, commits adultery and departs, particularly being an unbeliever, does the 'innocent' party then have to be found a guilty sinner when it wasn't their sin that caused it?

 

And if so, even at the worst, is it a sin that cannot be forgiven, placed under the blood of Christ, and forgotten, as with all sins? Is this the one we don't let go of? Or do we forgive men their trespasses, as we are told to do? Or is it a forgiveness with strings attached?

 

The Lord permitted divorce for fornication because of the hardness of the hearts of the Jews under the law.  1st Corinthians 7 is the doctrine on divorce and it is not permitted for any reason now.  That being said, no, it's not an unpardonable sin to divorce or remarry another.  If Mao and Stalin made repentance before God and put their trust in Jesus Christ, they too would be redeemed.  As for strings, could that mean a man is then not eligible to pastor a church or be a deacon?  Yes, that's what the bible teaches, doesn't it? 

Edited by swathdiver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you might want to study before you comment.  A simple search of any KJV Bible program will assist you well.

 

I think that people who dont study aren't worth discussions on topics they have not studied. 

 

Look up chuch in the wilderness and the church of the first born.

 

Do so to learn not to prove an error,  many who do the later never learn

 

So, what then is the correlation between Christ's statement and the Jewish "church"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sometimes it doesn't matter what one thinks...AVBB, swath simply asked you a question to clarify. If you were truly interested in a discussion, you would not dismiss him as worthless to a discussion. You would answer the question.  If you want to be counted worthy to discuss things with people, stop insulting and simply answer questions asked of you. That's what discussion is. Be advised  -  don't start getting snarky again.

to discuss the differences of the church of the wilderness/the church of the first born, and the the church, the body of Christ, one must study them out first to know the differences, it is OBvious by his question he has not.  So why waste time discussing with someone who does not know the topic at hand?

 

It is like knowing the differences between divorce for Israel and for the Body of Christ.  If you don't know the differences then you will blend them and so you end up going around and around like he and UKU are doing and like he does on many subjects.

 

It is like talking about the differences in a Granny Green Apple and Red Delicious if you know the differences then you can proceed along and discuss details of those difference.  But if you don;t you just keep calling them apples and lump them all together.

Edited by AVBibleBeliever

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Lord permitted divorce for fornication because of the hardness of the hearts of the Jews under the law.  1st Corinthians 7 is the doctrine on divorce and it is not permitted for any reason now.  That being said, no, it's not an unpardonable sin to divorce or remarry another.  If Mao and Stalin made repentance before God and put their trust in Jesus Christ, they too would be redeemed.  As for strings, could that mean a man is then not eligible to pastor a church or be a deacon?  Yes, that's what the bible teaches, doesn't it? 

Except that teaching seems to suggest a current situation, (the husband of one wife) not a past/present situation, (has had more than one wife, or has been divorced).  It could very easily be interpreted either way, depending upon your view. Your way of seeing it says that even though Jesus gave an acceptable, (not ideal), reason for divorce, and Paul gave another, they would still disqualify you from some service, meaning forgiveness but with strings.  

 

Multiple spouses in the middle east was still done at the time of the writing of the Bible, and still is in come cultures. In this case, culture was to be rejected, because the marriage between husband and wife was a picture of Jesus and His church. Thus, a husband could not have multiple wives. But if a marriage was over for a reason that was acceptable by Christ, apparently to be married again would not be seen as disqualifying one for such service.  

 

Consider the woman of Samaria, (I think I mentioned it earlier). Jesus never accused the woman of having five husbands, but of having HAD five husbands. Past. So, If I had had one wife, divorced and remarried, I would still only HAVE one wife.

 

But look, I'm not going to try and convince you any more. I'm not your pastor, and I suspect you would not acept me as such if you could, and that's fine-I have no prOBlem with that. You do as you understand to be right in the Lord's eyes and so will I and when we each stand before the Lord, we will each give account.

 

One thing I don't generally do, though-I don't endorse divorce. In fact having been there and knowing the pain it brings, I stand pretty strong against it. But a woman should not have to stay with a physically abusive husband who has no intention of changing, and a man shouldn't feel the need to stay with a adulterous wife who has no intention of changing. Both break the picture Christ intended for marriage, and if one is unwilling to seek restoration, I won't tell them they must forever remain married. But I will help them fight to keep it if there is a chance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Considering other NT teachings it would seem if we are truly intent upon following Christ, even presented with a terrible marriage situation, the Christian shouldn't sue for divorce. Even if there must be separation between the couple, that certainly doesn't mean divorce should accompany it. If the other spouse files for divorce, that's upon them.

 

I know many pastors put forth a whole list of "good reasons" for a Christian to divorce their spouse that has nothing to do with fornication even though Scripture doesn't list any of them as any form of biblical reason for divorce.

 

No doubt, we live in a fallen world and even Christians allow the world, the flesh and devil to lead them into sin so divorce will be a fact among the lost and saved alike.

 

The really bad thing today is what should be very rare among Christians is now as common place as among the lost. It seems most pastors simply go with the flow on this rather than taking a biblical stand.

 

From my experience, when Christians decide they want a divorce, they avoid those who will speak biblical truth to them and seek out those Christians (and sometimes even non-Christians) who will agree with them. This makes them feel better and justified in getting a divorce. Since their pastors don't preach or teach on the matter, they won't be hearing what they need to hear.

 

I find it very sad when a Christian couple divorces. This is especially so when one spouse is doing their biblical best to save the marriage but the other spouse refuses to even consider anything other than divorce. The idol of self dooms many marriages.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your way of seeing it says that even though Jesus gave an acceptable, (not ideal), reason for divorce, and Paul gave another, they would still disqualify you from some service, meaning forgiveness but with strings.  

 

Mike, we cannot have and should not accept moral relativism.  I'm guilty of it it too, it's so ingrained in our culture.  But it's not what the verses mean to me but rather what, "sayeth the Lord".

 

Christ gave no new exception for divorce.  All he did was bring the questioners back to the OT and the law.  He left the doctrine for Paul to give.  Therefore, no divorce would be acceptable to God and Christ during the church age.

 

The examples you provide as legitimate reasons in your last paragraph while seemingly prudent to you and I is still unacceptable according to God's Word.  The person being abused can and should leave, and according to the bible, remain separated or be reconciled.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Who's Online   0 Members, 0 Anonymous, 68 Guests (See full list)

    There are no registered users currently online

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...