Jump to content
Online Baptist

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 85
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

If ken Ham is evangelical, then of course he wouldn't call out Graham, because he would be in agreement with him.   It isn't that David Cloud is holding Ham to IFB standards, but to BIBLE standards.

I dearly love the creation message that Ken and his cohorts at the museum (one of my college mates works in the office, and her hubby is editor of their magazine) present.  It is a truth that creation

Billy Graham matters because he is the epitomy of new evangelical compromise, widely accepted by Christian leaders everywhere, and kind of the gold-standard for modern-day evangelists.   As for a do

  • Members

Now, Hovind is marrying Marry Tocco, who has been divorced over a decade. There was no clear statement his now former wife Jo was unfaithful. What a mess. As far as Cloud, though he is a valuable resource, his bias against sovran grace and stance on Christ's Mass is laughable. He haults between two opinions there... 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
2 hours ago, Particular Baptist said:

As far as Cloud, though he is a valuable resource, his bias against sovran grace and stance on Christ's Mass is laughable. He haults between two opinions there... 

Could you expound on these two items please?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Members

Very simply, if you have not seen his Calvinism Debate so bloated with hackneyed circular logic and assumption, such as all monergists believe in the double predestination error (see marchtozion.com, searching for "absoluters excommunicated"), do so. Also, on Christmas Cloud has no problem with the Pagan tree (Jer. 10), but yet condemns the pagan and papist roots thereof. Here is one such example exposing that bitter Marian persecutor Francis Assissi, http://www.wayoflife.org/reports/francis_o_assisi.html. Yet, knowing the Roman roots of the Xmas, Cloud justified them, but has removed his Have a Blessed Christmas article from the Way of Life website. It is possible he changed his beliefs, but in as far as I understand celebrates Christmas. 

Yea, verily, we could beat a fool a hundred strokes and he will be yet a fool. 

Edited by Particular Baptist
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I am not aware of any theologian, scholar, teacher, preacher or layman with perfect theology.  We can find issues with Bunyan, Spurgeon, our local pastor, neighbor or anyone else, with which to take umbrage.  I disagree with Brother Cloud on some of his beliefs (Christmas is a pet peeve of mine as well), but I try to keep the following points in mind.  1) He has made a wealth of knowledgeable, edifying and doctrinally sound information available in most areas.  2) He has more research and study time under his belt than I can possibly imagine. 3) I have had, what I thought to be, unshakably firm convictions about issues in the past that have turned out to be completely wrong.  Therefore, I choose to afford men like Brother Cloud the benefit of the doubt and the respect of being my elder in both years and Christian maturity.  His track record and his fruit have earned him such consideration, in my opinion.  

If I am having a difficult enough time with one of his views, I send him a carefully worded, private email, requesting clarification and he always responds with kindness.  I realize that I am still a neophyte in many matters and tend to focus on issues concerning salvation and outright heresies first.  While things like celebrating Christmas is a huge issue for me (I am opposed to it), I have to remember that I suffer from the disease of being a fallen, fallible sinner who is searching for truth and that others are suffering from the same disease as well.

Edited by Brother Stafford
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators

Well, the news on Kent Hovind is discouraging. The last I had heard from him was that when the divorce was final, he was going to ask Jo to remarry him. I wonder what happened since then? I know loneliness is a real thing, but I'd almost think he'd be so wrapped up in his work that he'd scarcely have time for finding another wife.

Still I praise God for the information he's provided in the past, and I will still use it, while continuing to build on it myself, and I pray that he gets things together. I love him but fortunately I have learned not to follow men, no matter how good they may be, or seem to be, because men are men and will let one down. But God is sure. So perhaps I will throw out the bathwater, because it's looking a bit dirty, but I'll keep the baby.

And going back to the OP,  one of the great resources that David Cloud has is that he has been able to pull together research that the average pastor, busy with job, church, family, who knows what, often cannot, so he makes available a lot of information that might otherwise be lost. Much as Hovind did, and others like that. I have looked into seeing about getting press credentials so I can go to events like Cloud does and report myself.

And really I don't see what Cloud does as being negative-if it is uplifting holy living and separation and godliness, it is never negative.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators
On ‎9‎/‎6‎/‎2016 at 10:55 AM, Brother Stafford said:

It is true that Paul tells us to marry if we cannot contain ourselves:

(1 Corinthians 7:7-9) "For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that. {8} I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I. {9} But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn."

However, I believe that he is speaking to the unmarried, who have never before been married.  I believe that the verses that immediately follow are telling married people not to divorce and that if either the husband or the wife disobeys and leaves/divorces, then we are told not to remarry.

(1 Corinthians 7:10-11) "And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: {11} But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife."

Jesus' own words on the subject are as follows:

(Matthew 5:31-32) "It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: {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."

(Mark 10:9-12) "What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. {10} And in the house his disciples asked him again of the same matter. {11} And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. {12} And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery."

Mr. Hovind is using 1 Corinthians 7:7-9 and Genesis 2:18 to justify what seems to be blatant disobedience to the words of Christ Himself.  Some might make the argument that it is only adultery if the person that initiated the divorce remarries, but that the "innocent" spouse is free to remarry.  If there is scriptural support for such an argument, please point me to the appropriate scriptures for my correction.

Mr. Hovind also creates straw man arguments to support his decision.  He says, "Many people go through a divorce and think that God can't use them anymore."  Mr. Hovind is correct in saying that God can still use people that have gone through divorce, but it does not follow that God wishes us to disobey Him and commit adultery by getting remarried because God can't use us if we're not married.  God can use a divorced person who remains obedient and unmarried just fine.

Satan transforms himself as an angel of light (2 Corinthians 11:14) and it is entirely possible that when Mr. Hovind prayed about the issue that it was Satan that suggested he call this woman.  I find it hard to believe that God would answer someone's prayers by suggesting that they commit adultery.

Any thoughts on this? 

Being divorced and remarried, I will speak on this somewhat.

  My divorce, and my (current) wife's divorce, were both under these circumstances: We were both saved people, married to unsaved people, and the unsaved left. According to scripture, if a unbeliving dpeart, let them depart, the believer is not under bondage to them. Also, both spouses committed fornication against us. That tells me, if I am not bound to an unbeliever who has willingly abandoned me, I am free to marry. So my wife and I remarried, like Kent Hovind, after a good amount of counselling. Also I do not subscribe to the idea that being the husband of one wife means only having been married once-the language would be more appropriate to one with multiple wives, which, depsite what some may insist, was still quite common in that day when it was written. It would have been much easier and clearer if Paul meant a pastor must never be divorced, if he had just written that. Clearly when Jesus spoke to the Samaritan woman at the well, He didn't believe she had five husbands, but HAD HAD five husbands, all past-tense, not currently with five husbands. So as a pastor, I believe that if the divorce falls within the correct boundaries, he can both divorce and remarry.

I think one big issue here is that, when dealing with the subject, many assume that being divorced makes one, ipso-facto, "pro-divorce," but I would say, not in the least. If anything I am more against divorce than I was before, because having endured the pain and suffering of being left, watching the one I love run to the arms of another man, I hate divorce. But I know it occurs and I know the Lord of course recognizes it and as such, gave reasons for it. Of course, marriage is very imprtant as well, because it represents the relationship between Christ and His church. I use the singular word here because Jesus has one wife, made up of all born-again believers, just as we should have one wife. But human marriage is a weak and beggarly picture of a perfect relationship, so as flawed humans we fail sometimes, and just as God gave sacrifices for those who broke His laws in the OT, so He gave us exceptions for those who are divorced and it isn't of their doing.

As for Kent Hovind's remarriage, I would say it falls outside of God's word on the subject, from what I underdstand, but I will leave that to be between himself and the Lord. God can forgive everything, it is all under the blood. If God can forgive and put away David's sin and bless the tainted marriage of David and Bathsheba and use that line to bring about the Messiah, God can surely forgive kent Hovind and bless their marriage and do mighty things through him. I will probably not endorse any new stuff he does, at least for now, but I will be keeping an eye on the ministry and continue to use his old work.   

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators

"And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife." 1Cor 7:10 & 11

These verses deal specifically with born again believers. Seems to me the onus here is on what the wife has done: Let not the WIFE depart from her husband (what Jo did). If she DOEs, SHE is to remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband. And let not the man put away his wife. Kent Hovind didn't out his wife away, and nowhere do we see a command that HE is to remain unparried.  SHE left HIM, SHE is to remain unmarried. No command to remain unmarried for Kent Hovind.  Pertty cut and dry to me-I believe Kent is free to remarry.

As for Mary Tocco, I don't know the facts behind her divorce-as far as as I am concerned, that is between them and the Lord.

Personally I'd have liked to see him remain unmarried so he could concentrate on the work, rathern than pleasing a new wife, but that isn't my call. I think the word speaks pretty clearly here. I know people don't like that the responsibility and judgment stands against the woman in this case, but again, it is clear-God does things HIS way, not according to how the world and culture wants it to be.

Of course, always willing to hear dissenting opinions and scripture. Maybe I am wrong.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
8 hours ago, Ukulelemike said:

According to scripture, if a unbeliving dpeart, let them depart, the believer is not under bondage to them. Also, both spouses committed fornication against us. That tells me, if I am not bound to an unbeliever who has willingly abandoned me, I am free to marry.

With genuine and humble respect to you, brother, I disagree. I am familiar with such arguments and they seem like "loophole" arguments to me.  To my ears, it sounds like when a brother is pestering his sister by poking her and their father says, "Jimmy, stop touching your sister."  Then Jimmy sticks his finger in his sister's face, about a half an inch away from her skin, and chants, "I'm not touching you, I'm not touching you." What were their father's words?  "Don't touch your sister."  Was Jimmy obeying the words of his father?  In a court of law, yes.  What did their father mean?  Stop bothering your sister. Did Jimmy know that this is really what his father meant?  Yes.  Was Jimmy obeying his father's intent?  No; rather he was, in a sense, mocking the instruction of his father.

What I notice, throughout Christendom, is that there seems to be a general attitude of, "How close to sin can I get and still be obedient?" instead of, "How close to sin must I get in order to be obedient?"  

The default seems to be that we will live as much like the world as possible until someone can show us, indisputably from Scripture, that we must abstain from certain worldly behaviors.  

(1 Thessalonians 5:21-22) "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. {22} Abstain from all appearance of evil." 

When Paul was talking about eating meat sacrificed to idols (1 Corinthians 8:7-13), he said that they could if they wanted to, but if they didn't want to, that was fine too; but neither decision was better than the other.  However, if eating the food would be a stumblingblock to others, then they must not eat it.  He said, "Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend."

I believe that the Scriptures are clear enough about the subject, but the attitude that Paul says that we must have toward each other, seems to close up any loopholes that might be ferreted out.

Edited by Brother Stafford
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
On 9/8/2016 at 1:18 AM, Particular Baptist said:

Very simply, if you have not seen his Calvinism Debate so bloated with hackneyed circular logic and assumption, such as all monergists believe in the double predestination error (see marchtozion.com, searching for "absoluters excommunicated"), do so. Also, on Christmas Cloud has no problem with the Pagan tree (Jer. 10), but yet condemns the pagan and papist roots thereof. Here is one such example exposing that bitter Marian persecutor Francis Assissi, http://www.wayoflife.org/reports/francis_o_assisi.html. Yet, knowing the Roman roots of the Xmas, Cloud justified them, but has removed his Have a Blessed Christmas article from the Way of Life website. It is possible he changed his beliefs, but in as far as I understand celebrates Christmas. 

Yea, verily, we could beat a fool a hundred strokes and he will be yet a fool. 

Well, I still don't get what you're saying at all.  Neither do I see any connection between Jeremiah 10 and a Christmas tree.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators
On ‎9‎/‎8‎/‎2016 at 4:45 PM, Brother Stafford said:

With genuine and humble respect to you, brother, I disagree. I am familiar with such arguments and they seem like "loophole" arguments to me.  To my ears, it sounds like when a brother is pestering his sister by poking her and their father says, "Jimmy, stop touching your sister."  Then Jimmy sticks his finger in his sister's face, about a half an inch away from her skin, and chants, "I'm not touching you, I'm not touching you." What were their father's words?  "Don't touch your sister."  Was Jimmy obeying the words of his father?  In a court of law, yes.  What did their father mean?  Stop bothering your sister. Did Jimmy know that this is really what his father meant?  Yes.  Was Jimmy obeying his father's intent?  No; rather he was, in a sense, mocking the instruction of his father.

What I notice, throughout Christendom, is that there seems to be a general attitude of, "How close to sin can I get and still be obedient?" instead of, "How close to sin must I get in order to be obedient?"  

The default seems to be that we will live as much like the world as possible until someone can show us, indisputably from Scripture, that we must abstain from certain worldly behaviors.  

(1 Thessalonians 5:21-22) "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. {22} Abstain from all appearance of evil." 

When Paul was talking about eating meat sacrificed to idols (1 Corinthians 8:7-13), he said that they could if they wanted to, but if they didn't want to, that was fine too; but neither decision was better than the other.  However, if eating the food would be a stumblingblock to others, then they must not eat it.  He said, "Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend."

I believe that the Scriptures are clear enough about the subject, but the attitude that Paul says that we must have toward each other, seems to close up any loopholes that might be ferreted out.

So simply, you just accept the Baptist tradition of 'All divorce and remarriage is wrong' and willingly reject what the word of God says. I get it.  

How exactly is it a loophole? Consider, in our case, which is what you seem to be disagreeing with, since it is what you quoted:

1: both of us were believers, (my current wife and I), while our spouses were unbelievers.

2: we were both happy to remain with them, but they, the unbelievers, both chose to leave us. Not our choice, not an issue of seeing how close we can get to sin-they left us, willingly, and in the case of my first wife, into the house and bed of another man.

3: We both sought resolution and reuniting, but both were rejected (like Hovind)

4: According to clear scripture, NOT a lophole, (are there loopholes in scripture?), neither of us are under bondage, ie, bound, to that unbelieving spouse, which would clearly indicate we are free to remarry. What part of "Not under bondage" do you not understand?

This so aggravates me, I have to admit: the Bible is so abundantly clear in this, yet we MUST tow the line on "Divorce is ALWAYS a sin and remarriage is just continual sin forever." I have visited churches where it was made clear that if one was divorced, they were not fit for any service in the church, they were to sit down, shut up and, oh, by the way, pay your tithe. This is the fruit of this tradition of men-from one unbiblical position to another.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
2 hours ago, Ukulelemike said:

So simply, you just accept the Baptist tradition of 'All divorce and remarriage is wrong' and willingly reject what the word of God says. I get it.  

How exactly is it a loophole? Consider, in our case, which is what you seem to be disagreeing with, since it is what you quoted:

1: both of us were believers, (my current wife and I), while our spouses were unbelievers.

2: we were both happy to remain with them, but they, the unbelievers, both chose to leave us. Not our choice, not an issue of seeing how close we can get to sin-they left us, willingly, and in the case of my first wife, into the house and bed of another man.

3: We both sought resolution and reuniting, but both were rejected (like Hovind)

4: According to clear scripture, NOT a lophole, (are there loopholes in scripture?), neither of us are under bondage, ie, bound, to that unbelieving spouse, which would clearly indicate we are free to remarry. What part of "Not under bondage" do you not understand?

This so aggravates me, I have to admit: the Bible is so abundantly clear in this, yet we MUST tow the line on "Divorce is ALWAYS a sin and remarriage is just continual sin forever." I have visited churches where it was made clear that if one was divorced, they were not fit for any service in the church, they were to sit down, shut up and, oh, by the way, pay your tithe. This is the fruit of this tradition of men-from one unbiblical position to another.

Your taking one phrase "is not under bondage" and redefining it to mean free to remarry...that interpretation contradicts the rest of scripture. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators
12 minutes ago, Jordan Kurecki said:

Your taking one phrase "is not under bondage" and redefining it to mean free to remarry...that interpretation contradicts the rest of scripture. 

Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife. But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned. Nevertheless such shall have trouble in the flesh: but I spare you. (1Cor 7:27-28)  Now, we can declare this is for ''virgins', except that it speaks to those who are 'loosed' from a wife, thus, NOT a virgin.. Would that not fall under those believers not under bondage to an unbelieving spouse who has left?  Being not 'under bondage' is the same word used in Galatians 4:3, "Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world:", speaking of our bondage to sin and to the law, but Christ freed us from that bondage-something we are completely and totally free from, now able to pursue another life. Clearly, then, if we are not under bondage, ie, the bond of marriage, then we are similarly free to pursue a new life. And while we had been in bondage to sin, so we are freed to live eternally with Christ, so if we are not under bondage to a spouse, then we are free to dwell with another. To assume that being NOT in bondage would not allow one to remarry, is really to keep that person in bondage. I cannot agree with you, my brother, and believe that this idea does violence to the word of God. it doesn't contradict the rest of scripture, by the way. Nowhere does Jesus say (speaking under the law, by the way, not to us) that one cannot remarry if their spouse has comitted adultery against them. Nowhere does Paul say we cannot remarry, save for the woman who has unbiblically departed from her husband. And thus far, I can't speak to Mary Tocco's divorce as I cannot find anything about it.

Somplease, show me all the scripture that declares someone divorced cannot remarry.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
39 minutes ago, Ukulelemike said:

Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife. But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned. Nevertheless such shall have trouble in the flesh: but I spare you. (1Cor 7:27-28)  Now, we can declare this is for ''virgins', except that it speaks to those who are 'loosed' from a wife, thus, NOT a virgin.. Would that not fall under those believers not under bondage to an unbelieving spouse who has left?  Being not 'under bondage' is the same word used in Galatians 4:3, "Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world:", speaking of our bondage to sin and to the law, but Christ freed us from that bondage-something we are completely and totally free from, now able to pursue another life. Clearly, then, if we are not under bondage, ie, the bond of marriage, then we are similarly free to pursue a new life. And while we had been in bondage to sin, so we are freed to live eternally with Christ, so if we are not under bondage to a spouse, then we are free to dwell with another. To assume that being NOT in bondage would not allow one to remarry, is really to keep that person in bondage. I cannot agree with you, my brother, and believe that this idea does violence to the word of God. it doesn't contradict the rest of scripture, by the way. Nowhere does Jesus say (speaking under the law, by the way, not to us) that one cannot remarry if their spouse has comitted adultery against them. Nowhere does Paul say we cannot remarry, save for the woman who has unbiblically departed from her husband. And thus far, I can't speak to Mary Tocco's divorce as I cannot find anything about it.

Somplease, show me all the scripture that declares someone divorced cannot remarry.

Romans 7:2-3 KJV
[2] For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband. [3] So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
5 minutes ago, Ukulelemike said:

Somplease, show me all the scripture that declares someone divorced cannot remarry.

Over the years I've done this with you Mike but you continue to confuse/confound what the Lord said in Matthew and 1st Corinthians.  For church age believers, the doctrine of marriage is given in 1st Corinthians only, as it was in the beginning (before the Law).  They way you've defined "not under bondage" or "bondage" is unscriptural because it then causes other verses to be seem contradictory.

In the book of Matthew, all Christ was doing was pointing back to the Law, he gave no new commandment.  It was the Apostle Paul that gave the doctrine of marriage in 1st Corinthians for the church age, one man, one woman till death do them part.  To say they both apply today is confusion because they are contradictory.

As I've admonished you before, you need to read all of that chapter in the Corinthians on marriage, not just the first verses.  Paul keeps providing examples on why it is one man, one woman for life.  And if they do depart, remain parted or be reconciled, that's it.  An unbelieving spouse is all the more reason to stay married as Paul says, not the excuse to separate/remarry as you've claimed.  Verse 27 again admonishes the couple to remain single or be reconciled and not to part to begin with.

And again, that's not to say that if a man or woman sins by engaging in a second marriage that God cannot forgive, for he will forgive.  And that's not to say that such a man or woman is not fit for service in the local church, for they can serve but the man is now disqualified from being a deacon or pastor. 

 

"Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife." - 1st Corinthians 7:27

 

"And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband:" - 1st Corinthians 7;10

"But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife." - 1st Corinthians 7:11

"But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away." - 1st Corinthians 7:12

"And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him." - 1st Corinthians 7:13

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
14 minutes ago, swathdiver said:

Over the years I've done this with you Mike but you continue to confuse/confound what the Lord said in Matthew and 1st Corinthians.  For church age believers, the doctrine of marriage is given in 1st Corinthians only, as it was in the beginning (before the Law).  They way you've defined "not under bondage" or "bondage" is unscriptural because it then causes other verses to be seem contradictory.

In the book of Matthew, all Christ was doing was pointing back to the Law, he gave no new commandment.  It was the Apostle Paul that gave the doctrine of marriage in 1st Corinthians for the church age, one man, one woman till death do them part.  To say they both apply today is confusion because they are contradictory.

As I've admonished you before, you need to read all of that chapter in the Corinthians on marriage, not just the first verses.  Paul keeps providing examples on why it is one man, one woman for life.  And if they do depart, remain parted or be reconciled, that's it.  An unbelieving spouse is all the more reason to stay married as Paul says, not the excuse to separate/remarry as you've claimed.  Verse 27 again admonishes the couple to remain single or be reconciled and not to part to begin with.

And again, that's not to say that if a man or woman sins by engaging in a second marriage that God cannot forgive, for he will forgive.  And that's not to say that such a man or woman is not fit for service in the local church, for they can serve but the man is now disqualified from being a deacon or pastor. 

 

"Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife." - 1st Corinthians 7:27

 

"And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband:" - 1st Corinthians 7;10

"But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife." - 1st Corinthians 7:11

"But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away." - 1st Corinthians 7:12

"And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him." - 1st Corinthians 7:13

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators
1 hour ago, Jordan Kurecki said:

Romans 7:2-3 KJV
[2] For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband. [3] So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.

 

 

Bound by the law-we are not under that law. If this was the case, it directly contradicts what Paul said that we are not bound to the unbelieving spouse. So, you are incorrect.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators
1 hour ago, swathdiver said:

Over the years I've done this with you Mike but you continue to confuse/confound what the Lord said in Matthew and 1st Corinthians.  For church age believers, the doctrine of marriage is given in 1st Corinthians only, as it was in the beginning (before the Law).  They way you've defined "not under bondage" or "bondage" is unscriptural because it then causes other verses to be seem contradictory.

In the book of Matthew, all Christ was doing was pointing back to the Law, he gave no new commandment.  It was the Apostle Paul that gave the doctrine of marriage in 1st Corinthians for the church age, one man, one woman till death do them part.  To say they both apply today is confusion because they are contradictory.

As I've admonished you before, you need to read all of that chapter in the Corinthians on marriage, not just the first verses.  Paul keeps providing examples on why it is one man, one woman for life.  And if they do depart, remain parted or be reconciled, that's it.  An unbelieving spouse is all the more reason to stay married as Paul says, not the excuse to separate/remarry as you've claimed.  Verse 27 again admonishes the couple to remain single or be reconciled and not to part to begin with.

And again, that's not to say that if a man or woman sins by engaging in a second marriage that God cannot forgive, for he will forgive.  And that's not to say that such a man or woman is not fit for service in the local church, for they can serve but the man is now disqualified from being a deacon or pastor. 

 

"Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife." - 1st Corinthians 7:27

But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned. Nevertheless such shall have trouble in the flesh: but I spare you. -1Cor 7:28 But you insist it IS a sin? Even though Paul says is ISN'T a sin? Who's running this show, anyways? 

 

"And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband:" - 1st Corinthians 7;10

"But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife." - 1st Corinthians 7:11

If her husband put her away in an unbiblical manner, then she should be free to marry. The Bible actually doesn't address that specific aspect of it, but if the husband did her wrong, and the Bible doesn't say in that case, that she must remain unmarried, (that only applies, in context, to a woman that left her husband), then we should assume and allow liberty.

"But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away." - 1st Corinthians 7:12

"And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him." - 1st Corinthians 7:13

And neither Kent Hovind, nor Mary Tocco left/put away their spouses, so far as we know, so they are not in bondage, and thus, are free to marry.

I agree that Jesus was pointing to the law, something we are no longer under, so what He said was for the jews under the law. We can disregard the specifics, though of course we must consider that, yes, from the beginning it was to be one man and one woman. But consider, even though God declared that kings were to have one wife, not only did He bless David in all his wives, he told David that He would have given him more, had he asked. What are we to take from that? Consider that Ezra the scribe demanded that the Jews returning from Babylon eject their wives and children and send them away, so as to please God?

All the verses above I have dealt with, but it seems we only want to consider part of them. It is as dangerous to take away from God's word as it is to add to it. I am not adding, but you are taking from. be very careful in removing scripture to make oit suit your views.  We so badly want to believe that it is always a sin to divorce and remarry, that we are willing to alter God's word to suit that view but it is just plain wrong, as wrong as the Pharisees who asked Jesus if it was alright for a man to put away his wife for any reason. There are boundaries, certainly, but there are acceptable reasons for divorce and remarriage, and when there is not something specified, we must allow for liberty.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
I Cor 7: 27 Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife. 28 But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned. Nevertheless such shall have trouble in the flesh: but I spare you.
 
It is simple English. As with every other seemingly contradictory issue, this one only seems contradictory when timing, audience and context are ignored.
 
 
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

We certainly are not bound to the law as that was what the Pharisees pointed to in order to validate divorce. However, Christ did not point to the law but to the heart of God in His creative acts. 

Mark 10:4-8 And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to puther away. 5 And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept. 6 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.

Paul did not say the believing were free from their spouse but rather the unbelieving. Kent's wife is a believer and so he is not free to marry another and be guiltless. "She left me first" is not a justifiable excuse to remarry. Obviously there is forgiveness from God in this but their will also be repercussions from God as well.

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.

Kent's wife did not divorce him for another man and is still single. Rather Kent chose his new ministry over her and has decided to go his own way without considering her needs. She stayed faithful all the while he was in prison and the thought was that when he got out that their son would continue to run the ministry and he would be retired for a while. That is why his son, Eric, salvaged what he could of the ministry property and transferred it all to the new company, God Quest, Inc., and kept the ministry running all these years.

The time leading up to the divorce (and even now) there was a very real possibility that the government would bring a new case against Mr. and Mrs. Hovind to imprison them and then seize the company's assets but Kent started/continued a separate ministry in their company owned home (created a link for the government back to Mrs. Hovind, their son, and the company). They repeatedly tried to get him to understand the need not to start this separate ministry but he would not listen. The legal divorce and eviction were to create a division between them in order to keep the government from building a case against them again. I doubt Kent understands this and took it as them betraying him (he was never good with legal regulations and financial accountability). So he decided to move on with his separate ministry rather then leaving it to work on their marriage.

Now he is trying to use God and His Word to justify a new marriage to a divorced woman. He has somewhat acknowledged (not directly) that what he is about to do is a sin but then he tries to justify that God will forgive him anyway because "we are all sinners" and shouldn't judge him in this area "because we all lust" and "its better to marry [by implication adding "again"] then to burn". I still like Kent  and pray for him and his future usefulness with God but I do think this is all very tragic.

Edited by John Young
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
On 9/12/2016 at 11:53 AM, Ukulelemike said:

All the verses above I have dealt with, but it seems we only want to consider part of them. It is as dangerous to take away from God's word as it is to add to it. I am not adding, but you are taking from. be very careful in removing scripture to make oit suit your views.  We so badly want to believe that it is always a sin to divorce and remarry, that we are willing to alter God's word to suit that view but it is just plain wrong, as wrong as the Pharisees who asked Jesus if it was alright for a man to put away his wife for any reason. There are boundaries, certainly, but there are acceptable reasons for divorce and remarriage, and when there is not something specified, we must allow for liberty.

   I will counter and say you're projecting, accusing me of what you yourself are doing.  The meanings you've attached to those verses in green to justify remarriage cause confusion, cause other words of the Lord to contradict yours.  God is not the author of confusion.  

   Have you ever wondered why your ministry struggles so?   “If I regard iniquity in my heart, the Lord will not hear me:” - Psalm 66:18

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
1 hour ago, swathdiver said:

 Have you ever wondered why your ministry struggles so?   “If I regard iniquity in my heart, the Lord will not hear me:” - Psalm 66:18

I think you should remove this.

There is no way that you can attribute the position of that church to this issue.

There are too many other factors.

Noah's ministry was small but it was not due to his sin.

Job faced many struggles but it was because he was upright.

I don't think you can speak for God in this way.

The verse is a true statement, but to link it in such a definitive way...........

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
1 hour ago, swathdiver said:

   I will counter and say you're projecting, accusing me of what you yourself are doing.  The meanings you've attached to those verses in green to justify remarriage cause confusion, cause other words of the Lord to contradict yours.  God is not the author of confusion.  

   Have you ever wondered why your ministry struggles so?   “If I regard iniquity in my heart, the Lord will not hear me:” - Psalm 66:18

 

36 minutes ago, DaveW said:

I think you should remove this.

There is no way that you can attribute the position of that church to this issue.

There are too many other factors.

Noah's ministry was small but it was not due to his sin.

Job faced many struggles but it was because he was upright.

I don't think you can speak for God in this way.

The verse is a true statement, but to link it in such a definitive way...........

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?

Edited by John Young
Link to post
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.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Who's Online   0 Members, 0 Anonymous, 44 Guests (See full list)

    There are no registered users currently online


  • Tell a friend

    Love Online Baptist? Tell a friend!
  • Members

    No members to show

  • Recent Status Updates

    • Alan

      Happy Birthday John Young! God Bless! 🍰
      · 1 reply
    • KJV ME!

      Now it is time for me to step out of my shell and let go... I AM STRICT KJV!... In scripture God said he would preserve his word... Well did he or didn't he?... If there is every translation under the sun, then he didn't but I KNOW HE DID!... The preserved word of God called the KJV is for the English people has been around for over 400 years and what is interesting to me, is the KJV was translated in 1611 and the Pilgrims landed on Plymouth Rock in 1620... Coincidence?... A new book the preserved KJV word of God for the New World... So take that you KJV naysayers... I have been reading, studying and digging through the KJV for over 50 years... My belief is 100% Christ and scripture says so... Glad to be here and its time to take these shackles off!   
      John 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.
      I am... Brother Ramsey
       
      · 1 reply
    • stan1964stanssb

      Praise God I found such a powerhouse of the outpouring of His Spirit and unapologetic in regards of the defense of the KJV Bible. When I became a Christian back in 1984, I was told to get & read the KJV. It's been my choice all these years.
      · 0 replies
    • 1Timothy115  »  Ukulelemike

      Mike,
      RE: This is why I am here, why are you?
      Also, the land in Egypt wasn't land God gave them it was land Joseph through Pharaoh gave them. God gave them Canaan.
      Dave 
      · 1 reply
    • Alan

      Praise the Lord! Sherry and I, safe, tired, and joyful,  are back in Taiwan.
      · 0 replies
  • Popular Now

  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      27,460
    • Total Posts
      279,243
  • Topics

  • Recent Status Updates

    • Alan

      Happy Birthday John Young! God Bless! 🍰
      · 1 reply
    • KJV ME!

      Now it is time for me to step out of my shell and let go... I AM STRICT KJV!... In scripture God said he would preserve his word... Well did he or didn't he?... If there is every translation under the sun, then he didn't but I KNOW HE DID!... The preserved word of God called the KJV is for the English people has been around for over 400 years and what is interesting to me, is the KJV was translated in 1611 and the Pilgrims landed on Plymouth Rock in 1620... Coincidence?... A new book the preserved KJV word of God for the New World... So take that you KJV naysayers... I have been reading, studying and digging through the KJV for over 50 years... My belief is 100% Christ and scripture says so... Glad to be here and its time to take these shackles off!   
      John 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.
      I am... Brother Ramsey
       
      · 1 reply
    • stan1964stanssb

      Praise God I found such a powerhouse of the outpouring of His Spirit and unapologetic in regards of the defense of the KJV Bible. When I became a Christian back in 1984, I was told to get & read the KJV. It's been my choice all these years.
      · 0 replies
    • 1Timothy115  »  Ukulelemike

      Mike,
      RE: This is why I am here, why are you?
      Also, the land in Egypt wasn't land God gave them it was land Joseph through Pharaoh gave them. God gave them Canaan.
      Dave 
      · 1 reply
    • Alan

      Praise the Lord! Sherry and I, safe, tired, and joyful,  are back in Taiwan.
      · 0 replies
×
×
  • Create New...