Jump to content
  • Welcome Guest

    For an ad free experience on Online Baptist, Please login or register for free

David Cloud


Anon

Recommended Posts

  • Members
28 minutes ago, John Young said:

 

The principle in Psalm 66:18 is in fact linked to the remarriage issue hindering a man's ministry. In Malachi 2 were he said God would not hear them because they despised the covenant of their youth and God took it personally as a reflection on them despising His own covenant with them:

Malachi 2

And now, O ye priests, this commandment is for you. 2 If ye will not hear, and if ye will not lay it to heart, to give glory unto my name, saith the Lord of hosts, I will even send a curse upon you, and I will curse your blessings: yea, I have cursed them already, because ye do not lay it to heart. 3 Behold, I will corrupt your seed, and spread dung upon your faces, even the dung of your solemn feasts; and one shall take you away with it. 4 And ye shall know that I have sent this commandment unto you, that my covenant might be with Levi, saith the Lord of hosts.5 My covenant was with him of life and peace; and I gave them to him for the fear wherewith he feared me, and was afraid before my name.6 The law of truth was in his mouth, and iniquity was not found in his lips: he walked with me in peace and equity, and did turn many away from iniquity. 7 For the priest’s lips should keep knowledge, and they should seek the law at his mouth: for he is the messenger of the Lord of hosts. 8 But ye are departed out of the way; ye have caused many to stumble at the law; ye have corrupted the covenant of Levi, saith the Lord of hosts. 9 Therefore have I also made you contemptible and base before all the people, according as ye have not kept my ways, but have been partial in the law.

10 Have we not all one father? hath not one God created us? why do we deal treacherously every man against his brother, by profaning the covenant of our fathers? 11 Judah hath dealt treacherously, and an abomination is committed in Israel and in Jerusalem; for Judah hath profaned the holiness of the Lord which he loved, and hath married the daughter of a strange god. 12 The Lord will cut off the man that doeth this, the master and the scholar, out of the tabernacles of Jacob, and him that offereth an offering unto the Lord of hosts. 13 And this have ye done again, covering the altar of the Lord with tears, with weeping, and with crying out, insomuch that he regardeth not the offering any more, or receiveth it with good will at your hand.

14 Yet ye say, Wherefore? Because the Lord hath been witness between thee and the wife of thy youth, against whom thou hast dealt treacherously: yet is she thy companion, and the wife of thy covenant.15 And did not he make one? Yet had he the residue of the spirit. And wherefore one? That he might seek a godly seed. Therefore take heed to your spirit, and let none deal treacherously against the wife of his youth.16 For the Lord, the God of Israel, saith that he hateth putting away: for one covereth violence with his garment, saith the Lord of hosts: therefore take heed to your spirit, that ye deal not treacherously.

17 Ye have wearied the Lord with your words. Yet ye say, Wherein have we wearied him? When ye say, Every one that doeth evil is good in the sight of the Lord, and he delighteth in them; or, Where is the God of judgment?

ummm so what?

Can you state categorically in Mike's case that this particular sin is the cause of that church's struggles?

And by the way the discussion has moved to whether or not it IS  sin.

The use of this verse in this way seems a little bit like bully tactics. 

My point is that not one of us can categorically state that it is a direct result with any sort of authority.

The principle of the verse is absolutely true, but the application of it in this particular case seems a bit mean spirited.

By all means put it as a possibility, but that is not how he phrased it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
29 minutes ago, DaveW said:

ummm so what?

Can you state categorically in Mike's case that this particular sin is the cause of that church's struggles?

And by the way the discussion has moved to whether or not it IS  sin.

The use of this verse in this way seems a little bit like bully tactics. 

My point is that not one of us can categorically state that it is a direct result with any sort of authority.

The principle of the verse is absolutely true, but the application of it in this particular case seems a bit mean spirited.

By all means put it as a possibility, but that is not how he phrased it.

I'll admit my mind has been more on the Hovind case and not on Bro. Mike's previous posts in the thread. I don't know anything about the church nor Brother Mike's situation. Nor do I intend to stand in judgement of them. My post is not a judgement against him or any church. Perhaps the personal slight by Swathdiver was out of hand but the scripture is applicable. Many a good man and church has suffered because of divorce and remarriage. Even if it was not their fault to begin with. (ie. King David, etc). Personal situations do not remove the factual truth of the passage. The question is will they seek to justify the sin before God and do their own desire or will they acknowledge it for what it is and then continue on serving God in what ever capacity God's word will allow.

Romans 14:4 Who art thou that judgest another man’s servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand.

Edited by John Young
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
3 hours ago, John Young said:

I'll admit my mind has been more on the Hovind case and not on Bro. Mike's previous posts in the thread. I don't know anything about the church nor Brother Mike's situation. Nor do I intend to stand in judgement of them. My post is not a judgement against him or any church. Perhaps the personal slight by Swathdiver was out of hand but the scripture is applicable. Many a good man and church has suffered because of divorce and remarriage. Even if it was not their fault to begin with. (ie. King David, etc). Personal situations do not remove the factual truth of the passage. The question is will they seek to justify the sin before God and do their own desire or will they acknowledge it for what it is and then continue on serving God in what ever capacity God's word will allow.

Romans 14:4 Who art thou that judgest another man’s servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand.

Now, before you cite King David, what he did was absolutely his fault, and it was not divorce and remariage, it was adultery, fornication and murder, all of which can also fall, in this case, under coveteousness. BUT, in his case, God not only forgave ALL of it, He allowed David to remain married to Bathsheba AND brought Jesus Christ through that relationship. Now, it isn't to say that David's ministry/kingship didn't suffer, but if you read the scripture, it suffered because what David did gave the heathen reason to speak against God. \

Again, in all of this, no one has yet shown me where it is sin. We stand in the same place, as it were: silence. In these cases the Bible neither directly approves not disapproves of remarriage, so the question is, what line do we draw? Do we stand on liberty, or do we stand on tradition? Because those are all that we have. As for Borther Hovind's situation, again not knowing the situation of Mary Tocco's divorce, we will have to wait and see what happens. But in mine, there is no biblical injunction that we were not to marry, and, like Kent, I went and sought godly counsel, FROM IFB preachers, and was counselled that a remarriage in our case was not against the word of God.

Maybe this is why I have allowed this subject to get my goats, (no pun intended, lol), and I DO greatly apologize if my tone has been less than charitable, I truly am sorry, and I souldn't let it be so. But I have seen the great violence that the assumptions that divorce and remarriage are always wrong, though the Bible doesn't say such, has done to good, godly people who made the error of marrying someone who left them, of no cause of their own. Such that I know churches who run 'recycling' programs to help such people who have been told God can no longer use them because of a divorce, so they can know surely that God can, indeed use them. Yet to many, God can better use a born-again murderer or thief than He can a divorced man or woman.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
14 hours ago, Ukulelemike said:

Now, before you cite King David, what he did was absolutely his fault, and it was not divorce and remariage, it was adultery, fornication and murder, all of which can also fall, in this case, under coveteousness. BUT, in his case, God not only forgave ALL of it, He allowed David to remain married to Bathsheba AND brought Jesus Christ through that relationship. Now, it isn't to say that David's ministry/kingship didn't suffer, but if you read the scripture, it suffered because what David did gave the heathen reason to speak against God.

I was not referring to Bathsheba but to his first wife Michal. Saul gave her to another and when he was hinding from Saul he married again to the widow Abigail and to Ahinoam.

1 Samuel 25:44 But Saul had given Michal his daughter, David’s wife, to Phalti the son of Laish, which was of Gallim.

1 Samuel 25:39 And when David heard that Nabal was dead, he said, Blessed be the Lord, that hath pleaded the cause of my reproach from the hand of Nabal, and hath kept his servant from evil: for the Lord hath returned the wickedness of Nabal upon his own head. And David sent and communed with Abigail, to take her to him to wife.

1 Samuel 25:43 David also took Ahinoam of Jezreel; and they were also both of them his wives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
9 hours ago, John Young said:

I was not referring to Bathsheba but to his first wife Michal. Saul gave her to another and when he was hinding from Saul he married again to the widow Abigail and to Ahinoam.

1 Samuel 25:44 But Saul had given Michal his daughter, David’s wife, to Phalti the son of Laish, which was of Gallim.

1 Samuel 25:39 And when David heard that Nabal was dead, he said, Blessed be the Lord, that hath pleaded the cause of my reproach from the hand of Nabal, and hath kept his servant from evil: for the Lord hath returned the wickedness of Nabal upon his own head. And David sent and communed with Abigail, to take her to him to wife.

1 Samuel 25:43 David also took Ahinoam of Jezreel; and they were also both of them his wives.

True, but didn't he have her brought back later? So he essentially remarried her, which, by OT standards, was wrong, since she had married another man.

And with Daivd of course we deal with the fact that God had commanded that a king was to have no more than one wife, yet David not only had more than one, apparently he also was given Saul's wives. Deut 17:14-17:

When thou art come unto the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee, and shalt possess it, and shalt dwell therein, and shalt say, I will set a king over me, like as all the nations that are about me;

Thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom the LORD thy God shall choose: one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee: thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother.

But he shall not multiply horses to himself, nor cause the people to return to Egypt, to the end that he should multiply horses: forasmuch as the LORD hath said unto you, Ye shall henceforth return no more that way.

Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold.

Later: 2Sam 12:7&8:

And Nathan said to David, Thou art the man. Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul;

And I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things."

Now, mind you, I do not point out these verses to seek to justify anything I or anyone else has done. But I point them out to show that while God has given us His will, His perfect will, He also seems willing to allow that perfect will to be, i don't know, sidestepped? I don't think that's the word I am looking for, but clearly, even after all David did, even with multiple wives, some even given to him personally by God, as the Lord Himself said, this AFTER God declared that kings were not to multiply wives to themselves, STILL David is the example always pointed at as God's man, and even Christ is often referred to as David, when the Lord declares that David will yet sit upon the Throne, a clear reference to Jesus, not literally David.  And I guess my point is, God seems to make exceptions to His rules, even hard rules, at times. It doesn't mean we take advantage of it, it means that perhaps, when Gpod has NOT spoken clear and direct, (as is my point in the verses in 1Cor 7), we ought perhaps to approach those things on the side of liberty, not law. Divorce and remarriage are pretty clear-cut subjects, yet with little exception, particularly in 1Cor 7, there is no clear-cut answer to whether remarriage is acceptable. As I said before both sides must come from a position of silence-I just happen to see the fact that a believer is 'not under bondage' to the unbelieving spouse who has left, as meaning they are truly fully free and therefore able to marry, while others see 'not under bondage' as meaning still bound enough at least to not be allowed to remarry. And to me, that seems like bondage.   And I keep hearing that it disagrees with other scriptures, yet I'm not seeing that, either, except for those things coming from the mosaic laws, to which we are also not under bondage. So I guess it comes down to, What does 'bondage' mean, and what is it to NOT be under bondage?

Again, if I seem contentious, I truly apologize I am really not trying to be, and I am not trying to justify myself. I just understand what I am reading differently. I'm not pro-divorce-it is horrible and traumatic under the best of circumstances, and those involved, directly or indirectly, will never be the same, and it should be avoided at all costs. I just don't beloieve, nor see in scripture that where one is wronged or abandoned by a spouse who goes off into adultery and fornication, that the innocent party deserves to be forever marked and unable to be with anyone again. Under the law, there were many people who could not do the work of a priest for reasons not of their own making:  Leviticus 21:16-21

And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,

Speak unto Aaron, saying, Whosoever he be of thy seed in their generations that hath any blemish, let him not approach to offer the bread of his God.

For whatsoever man he be that hath a blemish, he shall not approach: a blind man, or a lame, or he that hath a flat nose, or any thing superfluous,

Or a man that is brokenfooted, or brokenhanded,

Or crookbackt, or a dwarf, or that hath a blemish in his eye, or be scurvy, or scabbed, or hath his stones broken;

No man that hath a blemish of the seed of Aaron the priest shall come nigh to offer the offerings of the LORD made by fire: he hath a blemish; he shall not come nigh to offer the bread of his God.

These could not do certain things under the law, yet today any one of these could fully serve the Lord in any way, because we have passed from ceremonial to spiritual. God doesn't change but He does change how He deals with us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
8 hours ago, Ukulelemike said:

...perhaps, when God has NOT spoken clear and direct, (as is my point in the verses in 1Cor 7), we ought perhaps to approach those things on the side of liberty, not law.

Please forgive me if I am misunderstanding this, but it would appear that you are saying that whenever Scripture is unclear, we are permitted to err on the side of permissiveness.

This seems to run contrary to the principles taught in 1 Thessalonians 5:22 and 1 Corinthians 8:9.

For the sake of argument, let us say that divorce and remarriage (in the disputed scenarios) is permitted.  Even if so, consider the following examples of how, I believe, we are called to exercise our liberty.

I had a supervisor, at a church I worked at many years ago, whose parents were missionaries and his father was a pastor.  He told me that his father never went into movie theaters because anyone who might see him, knowing that he was a pastor/missionary, would question what movie he saw.  Did he go in to see the G rated film or the R rated film? His example to others was more important to him than saying, "I have every right to see a film in the theater and you can't judge me for it."

In my past, I had been with well over fifty women, yet never married any of them.  The last time I was with a woman was fourteen years ago and I made a conscious decision to remain permanently single because of 1 Corinthians 6:15-16 as well as the above verses.  Many people have told me that I am free to marry, since I have never actually been intentionally married with a ceremony.  I have turned down date invitations from many women because of this decision.  I definitely would like to be married and have children, but, because of my conviction on an issue that many people see as unclear, I choose to err on the side of sacrifice.  I would rather be an example of self denial than permissiveness.

In a purely secular example, it is perfectly legal to burn and walk upon the American flag (at least in Michigan).  So, just because we won't get put in jail, does that mean that it is a good idea?

Regardless of what side of the divorce issue you find yourself, I think everyone can agree that God hates divorce.  I think we can also agree that, at least in certain situations, God hates remarrying after divorce.  If this is the case, why, on Earth, would we want to dance as close to the edge of that canyon as possible?  Why, as Christians, is the default attitude not, "God hates divorce and remarriage?  I'm not getting anywhere near that!"  How can we ever see something that God abhors as something that we should intentionally seek out?

8 hours ago, Ukulelemike said:

I just don't beloieve, nor see in scripture that where one is wronged or abandoned by a spouse who goes off into adultery and fornication, that the innocent party deserves to be forever marked and unable to be with anyone again.

There are just some things that carry permanent consequences.  If a child is riding his bicycle down the sidewalk and gets shot in the back, leaving him paralyzed from the waist down, that's unfair.  He didn't do anything to warrant being shot in the back, yet the actions of another person have inflicted permanent limitations on the life of another.

Being single is not a curse or a death sentence.  In 1 Corinthians 7:6-9, Paul says that his desire is that all men were unmarried like him, and sees marriage as something that people who "cannot contain" themselves should do.  Being unmarried, I am free to spend more time focused upon the things of God.  In my case, I figure that I have grossly abused God's gift of physical intimacy and have sacrificed the privilege of being in a Biblical marriage.  Perhaps this isn't the case, but I am willing, for the sake of my testimony and witness, to forgo marriage.

When I was a boy, I had a habit of doing things without permission and then apologizing later.  One evening, after getting a spanking, my father taught me a principle that has stayed with me: "When in doubt, do without."

 

 

Edited by Brother Stafford
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
2 minutes ago, Brother Stafford said:

Please forgive me if I am misunderstanding this, but it would appear that you are saying that whenever Scripture is unclear, we are permitted to err on the side of permissiveness.

This seems to run contrary to the principles taught in 1 Thessalonians 5:22 and 1 Corinthians 8:9.

For the sake of argument, let us say that divorce and remarriage (in the disputed scenarios) is permitted.  Even if so, consider the following examples of how we are called to exercise our liberty.

I had a supervisor at a church I worked at many years ago whose parents were missionaries and that his father was a pastor.  He told me that his father never went into movie theaters because anyone who might see him, knowing that he was a pastor/missionary, would question what movie he saw.  Did he go in to see the G rated film or the R rated film?His example to others was more important to him than saying, "I have every right to see a film in the theater and you can't judge me for it."

In my past, I had been with well over fifty women, yet never married any of them.  The last time I was with a woman was fourteen years ago and I made a conscious decision to remain permanently single because of 1 Corinthians 6:15-16 as well as the above verses.  Many people have told me that I am free to marry, since I have never actually been willingly married with a ceremony.  I have turned down date invitations to many women because of this decision.  I definitely would like to be married and have children, but, because of my conviction on an issue that many people see as unclear, I choose to err on the side of sacrifice.  I would rather be an example of self denial than permissiveness.

In a purely secular example, it is perfectly legal to burn and walk upon the American flag (at least in Michigan).  So, just because we won't get put in jail, does that mean that it is a good idea?

Regardless of what side of the divorce issue you find yourself, I think everyone can agree that God hates divorce.  I think we can also agree that, at least in certain situations, God hates remarrying after divorce.  If this is the case, why, on Earth, would we want to dance as close to the edge of that canyon as possible?  Why, as Christians, is the default attitude not, "God hates divorce and remarriage?  I'm not getting anywhere near that!"  How can we ever see something that God abhors as something that we should intentionally seek out?

There are just some things that carry permanent consequences.  If a child is riding his bicycle down the sidewalk and gets shot in the back, leaving him paralyzed from the waist down, that's unfair.  He didn't do anything to warrant being shot in the back, yet the actions of another person have inflicted permanent limitations on the life of another.

Being single is not a curse or a death sentence.  In 1 Corinthians 7:6-9, Paul says that his desire is that all men were unmarried like him, and almost seems to see marriage as something that people who "cannot contain" themselves should do.  Being unmarried, I am free to spend more time focused upon the things of God.  In my case, I figure that I have grossly abused God's gift of physical intimacy and have sacrificed the privilege of being in a Biblical marriage.  Perhaps this isn't the case, but I am willing, for the sake of my testimony and witness, to forgo marriage.

When I was a boy, I had a habit of doing things without permission and then apologizing later.  One evening, after getting a spanking, my father taught me a principle that has stayed with me: "When in doubt, do without."

 

 

And I applaud you for your stand in this, however, I did not say we should go for permissiveness, but liberty. Yes, we do temper our liberty with concern for offense of the weaker brother, absolutely-I would not generally consider anyone here, for the most part, a 'weaker brother', whom I might offend and cause to fall to divorce. That being said, divorce, when I have had to counsel on such, has always been considered off the table-I would never have been divorced, had I had the opportunity not to. It is always honoring to God when a couple can work out their differences and come together with forgiveness and patience and love. Sadly, that takes two, and if one is stubborn and self-willed, which is what causes most divorces, oftentimes that second person is an unwilling participant. Not everyone CAN remain unmarried, and the Bible even says as much-better to marry than to burn. If I had to counsel someone divorced on remarriage, my first counsel would always be to put their full eyes upon the Lord, that to marry again could interfere with that relationship with Christ, as Paul clearly states, and if one can remain single and without sin, to do so. But some cannot.Better perhaps to marry than to deal with continual lust and the unfortunate but often almost inevitable direction that can take a person. Again, better to marry than to burn-that is exactly what that means.

So in such cases, I do believe in liberty. The only people I offended was a lady who wanted her boyfriend to be that pastor of the church and passed lies about my current wife, (not married at the time) and myself, and in those cases, in fact, we were so careful NOT to bring about an appearance of evil, that all she had to say was fabricated from the ground up. To this day, that I am aware, I have not given offense to anyone in my remarriage, nor caused anyone to feel feel divorce is a good, acceptable thing.

By the way, God DOES hate divorce, I absolutely agree with that, I hate it too-I just can't find justification that, when divorce occurs, God automatically hates remarriage, because I don't see it in scripture. God is usually pretty plain about what He hates. I believe it's better to not, if you can, and to place the Lord first, and that a person will have trouble in the flesh, but nothing that God hates it, or it is wrong. Obedience is better than sacrifice-but should another person's disobedience ipso-facto make me automatically the sinner?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
20 hours ago, Ukulelemike said:

God is usually pretty plain about what He hates. 

I agree and I believe that He has been crystal clear on the subject of divorce.

20 hours ago, Ukulelemike said:

...but nothing that God hates it, or it is wrong.

If you don't see it plainly in the Scriptures we have been discussing in this thread, I don't know what else to say.  We shall have to respectfully disagree.

20 hours ago, Ukulelemike said:

Obedience is better than sacrifice

I believe this is being taken out of context.  The above, taken from 1 Samuel 15:22, is referring to Saul believing that keeping the animals and the physical act of animal sacrifice would cover his disobedience of not destroying everything when told to do so.  When I refer to sacrifice in the context of erring on the side of abstention, it is specifically because I am attempting to be obedient.  Comparing that verse in 1 Samuel to my examples is to completely misunderstand that verse.  The only way that verse in 1 Sam. could apply to my examples would be if you are saying that I am being disobedient in remaining unmarried and the pastor was disobedient by not going into the theater.  It is also switching to a different definition of the word, "sacrifice" in the middle of a discussion.  It is akin to saying, "They tell me that I have to have faith in order to be saved and my daughter's name is Faith, so, technically, I do "have Faith."  It is an informal logical fallacy called, "equivocation."

20 hours ago, Ukulelemike said:

...but should another person's disobedience ipso-facto make me automatically the sinner?

Of course not.  This is a straw man response since no one has claimed that someone is "automatically the sinner" because their spouse made the decision to leave.  The issue in dispute is about the disobedience of the decision to remarry when their ex-spouse is still alive. God holds us responsible for our own sins. (2 Corinthians 5:10, Revelation 20:12-13 &c.)

Edited by Brother Stafford
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
1 hour ago, Brother Stafford said:

Please forgive me if I am misunderstanding this, but it would appear that you are saying that whenever Scripture is unclear, we are permitted to err on the side of permissiveness.

This seems to run contrary to the principles taught in 1 Thessalonians 5:22 and 1 Corinthians 8:9.

For the sake of argument, let us say that divorce and remarriage (in the disputed scenarios) is permitted.  Even if so, consider the following examples of how, I believe, we are called to exercise our liberty.

I had a supervisor, at a church I worked at many years ago, whose parents were missionaries and his father was a pastor.  He told me that his father never went into movie theaters because anyone who might see him, knowing that he was a pastor/missionary, would question what movie he saw.  Did he go in to see the G rated film or the R rated film? His example to others was more important to him than saying, "I have every right to see a film in the theater and you can't judge me for it."

In my past, I had been with well over fifty women, yet never married any of them.  The last time I was with a woman was fourteen years ago and I made a conscious decision to remain permanently single because of 1 Corinthians 6:15-16 as well as the above verses.  Many people have told me that I am free to marry, since I have never actually been intentionally married with a ceremony.  I have turned down date invitations from many women because of this decision.  I definitely would like to be married and have children, but, because of my conviction on an issue that many people see as unclear, I choose to err on the side of sacrifice.  I would rather be an example of self denial than permissiveness.

In a purely secular example, it is perfectly legal to burn and walk upon the American flag (at least in Michigan).  So, just because we won't get put in jail, does that mean that it is a good idea?

Regardless of what side of the divorce issue you find yourself, I think everyone can agree that God hates divorce.  I think we can also agree that, at least in certain situations, God hates remarrying after divorce.  If this is the case, why, on Earth, would we want to dance as close to the edge of that canyon as possible?  Why, as Christians, is the default attitude not, "God hates divorce and remarriage?  I'm not getting anywhere near that!"  How can we ever see something that God abhors as something that we should intentionally seek out?

There are just some things that carry permanent consequences.  If a child is riding his bicycle down the sidewalk and gets shot in the back, leaving him paralyzed from the waist down, that's unfair.  He didn't do anything to warrant being shot in the back, yet the actions of another person have inflicted permanent limitations on the life of another.

Being single is not a curse or a death sentence.  In 1 Corinthians 7:6-9, Paul says that his desire is that all men were unmarried like him, and almost seems to see marriage as something that people who "cannot contain" themselves should do.  Being unmarried, I am free to spend more time focused upon the things of God.  In my case, I figure that I have grossly abused God's gift of physical intimacy and have sacrificed the privilege of being in a Biblical marriage.  Perhaps this isn't the case, but I am willing, for the sake of my testimony and witness, to forgo marriage.

When I was a boy, I had a habit of doing things without permission and then apologizing later.  One evening, after getting a spanking, my father taught me a principle that has stayed with me: "When in doubt, do without."

 

 

Good points here friend.

I do question why your past fornications with 50 women would be a stumblingblock issue with anyone if you were to marry however. Unless you wear a tshirt that reads that, who or why would anyone know what you did 14 plus years ago?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
9 minutes ago, wretched said:

I do question why your past fornications with 50 women would be a stumblingblock issue with anyone if you were to marry however. 

Perhaps you didn't read the verses I included in the previous post:

(1 Corinthians 6:15-17) "Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot? God forbid. {16} What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh. {17} But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit."

and this one which I did not include previously:

(Mark 10:6-9) "But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. {7} For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; {8} And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. {9} What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder."

I have been in conversations where people have asked me, honestly and non-confrontationally, if the above verses in Mark 10 are true, then do the verses in 1 Corinthians 6 mean that God considers us married if we are physically intimate with a member of the opposite sex?  I believe that those verses are saying precisely that.  However, if I am wrong, It can still confuse people and cause them to believe that I would be committing adultery by marrying.  It could cause people to think that I am being disobedient to God.  It could hurt my ability to witness to them. 

(1 Thessalonians 5:22) "Abstain from all appearance of evil."

I have a long beard, I keep my tattoos covered at all times (until I can get them removed), I dress as appropriately as possible, I quit drinking, using drugs and smoking cigarettes, I no longer listen to any music other than traditional Hymns and some classical, I no longer watch television or worldly films, I have remained celibate fourteen years, I have stopped looking at pornography, I eat a very healthy diet and have completely stopped using profanities.  I do not believe that any of this increases or decreases my salvation in Christ or makes me better than anyone else:

(Isaiah 64:6) "But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away."

However, changing those things about my life have helped my witness and testimony to others.  Most lost people see Christians as hypocrites and jump at every opportunity to point out examples of their hypocrisy:

(Matthew 7:3-5) "And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? {4} Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? {5} Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye."

(Romans 2:21-24) "Thou therefore which teachest another, teachest thou not thyself? thou that preachest a man should not steal, dost thou steal? {22} Thou that sayest a man should not commit adultery, dost thou commit adultery? thou that abhorrest idols, dost thou commit sacrilege? {23} Thou that makest thy boast of the law, through breaking the law dishonourest thou God? {24} For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you, as it is written."

No liberty is more important to me than someone else coming to Christ.  My greatest fear is for something that I have done or said to have caused a lost person to avoid coming to Christ.  There are limits, however.  I won't be disobedient in order to win someone to Christ.  I won't grow my hair long or go to a Sodomite wedding or go to a rock concert or tell dirty jokes if someone tells me that they won't trust me until I do.

Personally, I believe that arguing for the ability to indulge in questionable things, in the name of liberty, is selfish.  If there is any question at all about something, avoid it.  I really don't understand why it's that big of a deal to do without something that is contentious.  

"When in doubt, do without."

57 minutes ago, wretched said:

Unless you wear a tshirt that reads that, who or why would anyone know what you did 14 plus years ago?

Well, then how would a church know if their pastor has been divorced (once or an hundred times) unless he wears a shirt stating so?  People find things out; whether it's by admission or by gossip.  I would rather steer clear of the whole cesspool.

Additionally, I want God to know that He and His Kingdom are more important to me than creature comforts and desires of the flesh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
1 hour ago, Brother Stafford said:

Perhaps you didn't read the verses I included in the previous post:

(1 Corinthians 6:15-17) "Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot? God forbid. {16} What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh. {17} But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit."

and this one which I did not include previously:

(Mark 10:6-9) "But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. {7} For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; {8} And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. {9} What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder."

I have been in conversations where people have asked me, honestly and non-confrontationally, if the above verses in Mark 10 are true, then do the verses in 1 Corinthians 6 mean that God considers us married if we are physically intimate with a member of the opposite sex?  I believe that those verses are saying precisely that.  However, if I am wrong, It can still confuse people and cause them to believe that I would be committing adultery by marrying.  It could cause people to think that I am being disobedient to God.  It could hurt my ability to witness to them. 

(1 Thessalonians 5:22) "Abstain from all appearance of evil."

I have a long beard, I keep my tattoos covered at all times (until I can get them removed), I dress as appropriately as possible, I quit drinking, using drugs and smoking cigarettes, I no longer listen to any music other than traditional Hymns and some classical, I no longer watch television or worldly films, I have remained celibate fourteen years, I have stopped looking at pornography, I eat a very healthy diet and have completely stopped using profanities.  I do not believe that any of this increases or decreases my salvation in Christ or makes me better than anyone else:

(Isaiah 64:6) "But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away."

However, changing those things about my life have helped my witness and testimony to others.  Most lost people see Christians as hypocrites and jump at every opportunity to point out examples of their hypocrisy:

(Matthew 7:3-5) "And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? {4} Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? {5} Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye."

(Romans 2:21-24) "Thou therefore which teachest another, teachest thou not thyself? thou that preachest a man should not steal, dost thou steal? {22} Thou that sayest a man should not commit adultery, dost thou commit adultery? thou that abhorrest idols, dost thou commit sacrilege? {23} Thou that makest thy boast of the law, through breaking the law dishonourest thou God? {24} For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you, as it is written."

No liberty is more important to me than someone else coming to Christ.  My greatest fear is for something that I have done or said to have caused a lost person to avoid coming to Christ.  There are limits, however.  I won't be disobedient in order to win someone to Christ.  I won't grow my hair long or go to a Sodomite wedding or go to a rock concert or tell dirty jokes if someone tells me that they won't trust me until I do.

Personally, I believe that arguing for the ability to indulge in questionable things, in the name of liberty, is selfish.  If there is any question at all about something, avoid it.  I really don't understand why it's that big of a deal to do without something that is contentious.  

"When in doubt, do without."

Well, then how would a church know if their pastor has been divorced (once or an hundred times) unless he wears a shirt stating so?  People find things out; whether it's by admission or by gossip.  I would rather steer clear of the whole cesspool.

Additionally, I want God to know that He and His Kingdom are more important to me than creature comforts and desires of the flesh.

I think I am getting it, thanks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...