Mark And Avoid Or Spit Out The Bones?

[AVBibleBeliever]

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

[AVBibleBeliever]

opps triple post

[AVBibleBeliever]

oops double post

[HappyChristian]

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.

[swathdiver]

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? 

[swathdiver]

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"?

[AVBibleBeliever]

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.

[Ukulelemike]

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.

[John81]

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.

[swathdiver]

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.  

[HappyChristian]

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.

Being on a forum is about discussion and learning. It's fine if you don't want to answer him.Just don't start with the snarkiness. That's my point. I'm actually surprised you don't want toexplain...you seem to enjoy teaching people.

[AVBibleBeliever]

Being on a forum is about discussion and learning. It's fine if you don't want to answer him.Just don't start with the snarkiness. That's my point. I'm actually surprised you don't want toexplain...you seem to enjoy teaching people.

Teaching only works when people are wanting to learn.  In every instance of conversing with Swath I have yet to find him desiring to learn.  Most of the time he enjoys saying he doesn't agree and argue.

[HappyChristian]

Teaching only works when people are wanting to learn. This is true...although we all still try it when others disagree with us. In every instance of conversing with Swath I have yet to find him desiring to learn.  Most of the time he enjoys saying he doesn't agree and argue. And this could describe all of us at one time or another (some of us all the time   )

[DaveW]

Eph_5:23  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. 

Col_1:18  And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence. 

Col_1:24  Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body's sake, which is the church: 

 

 

37 times the Bible uses the word "Churches".

80 times the Bible uses the word "Church".

 

You can not have "universal churches" - any reference to churches indicates local churches.

Any reference to "church" in Acts before chapter 9 is talking about the church at Jerusalem - Acts 9 is where Saul left Jerusalem for Damascus to search out those who had left Jerusalem BECAUSE OF HIS PERSECUTION. In Acts 2:47 fir instance where it says that the Lord added to the Church, it speaks singular because there was only one church at that time - the LOCAL church at Jerusalem.

 

In Acts 12 for instance we are still talking the church at Jerusalem - the context indicates this.

 

The vast majority of references tot he word "Church" use definitive terms like "the church at..." indicating a particular local church at a particular place; or terms like "every church", which indicates a multiplicity of singular units.

 

The overwhelming weight of evidence is that the church is only ever spoken of as a local unit - even "the church in the wilderness" speaking of Israel, is a local "church", and the gathering of the saints in Heaven, whist being made up of all saints from all time, is a local church - local in heaven.

 

And it is plainly stated that the body is the local church (see references above).

 

I think that maybe certain people who think themselves to be superior in their study should do a small amount of basic word study and they will find that the overwhelming evidence is that the Body of Christ is the local church - not some all inclusive term for all believers.

There are certain verses which are somewhat doubtful, but the overwhelming usage of the term body is in reference to the local church.

 

Maybe you should stop demeaning Swath, do some study for yourself, and try to answer his questions.