Jump to content
Online Baptist Community

  • Newest Sermon Entry

    • Jim_Alaska
      Closed Communion
      By Jim_Alaska in Jim_Alaska's Sermons & Devotionals
         33
      Closed Communion
      James Foley
       
      I Corinthians 11:17-34: "Now in this that I declare unto you I praise you not, that ye come together not for the better, but for the worse. For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it. For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you. When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's Supper. For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken. What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not. For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till he come. Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep. For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged. But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world. Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another. And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come."

      INTRODUCTION

      Historic Baptists, true Baptists, have believed in and still believe in closed communion. Baptists impose upon themselves the same restrictions that they impose on others concerning the Lord’s Supper. Baptists have always insisted that it is the Lord’s Table, not theirs; and He alone has the right to say who shall sit at His table. No amount of so called brotherly love, or ecumenical spirit, should cause us to invite to His table those who have not complied with the requirements laid down plainly in His inspired Word. With respect to Bible doctrines we must always use the scripture as our guide and practice. For Baptists, two of the most important doctrines are Baptism and The Lord’s Supper. These are the only two doctrines we recognize as Church Ordinances. The Bible is very clear in teaching how these doctrines are to be practiced and by whom.

      We only have two ordinances that we must never compromise or we risk our very existence, they are Baptism and The Lord’s Supper.

      The moment we deviate from the precise method God has prescribed we have started down the slippery slope of error. True Baptists have held fast to the original doctrine of The Lord’s Supper from the time of Christ and the Apostles.

      Unfortunately, in this day of what the Bible describes as the age of luke warmness, Baptists are becoming careless in regard to strictly following the pattern laid out for us in Scripture. Many of our Bible colleges are graduating otherwise sincere, Godly and dedicated pastors and teachers who have not been taught the very strict, biblical requirements that surround the Lord’s Supper. Any Bible college that neglects to teach its students the differences surrounding Closed Communion, Close Communion and Open Communion is not simply short changing its students; it is also not equipping their students to carry on sound Bible traditions. The result is men of God and churches that fall into error. And as we will see, this is serious error.

      Should we as Baptists ignore the restrictions made by our Lord and Master? NO! When we hold to the restrictions placed upon the Lord’s Supper by our Master, we are defending the "faith which was once delivered to the saints" Jude 3.

      The Lord’s Supper is rigidly restricted and I will show this in the following facts:

      IT IS RESTRICTED AS TO PLACE

      A. I Corinthians 11:18 says, "When ye come together in the church." This does not mean the church building; they had none. In other words, when the church assembles. The supper is to be observed by the church, in church capacity. Again this does not mean the church house. Ekklesia, the Greek word for church, means assembly. "When ye come together in the church," is when the church assembles.

      B. When we say church we mean an assembly of properly baptized believers. Acts 2:41-42: "Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls. And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers."

      The church is made up of saved people who are baptized by immersion. In the Bible, belief precedes baptism. That’s the Bible way.

      Acts 8:12-13, "But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done."

      When we say properly baptized, we mean immersed. No unbeliever should take the Lord’s supper, and no non-immersed believer should take the supper. Those who are sprinkled are not baptized and cannot receive the supper. The Greek word for baptize is baptizo, and it always means to immerse.

      "In every case where communion is referred to, or where it may possibly have been administered, the believers had been baptized Acts 2:42; 8:12; 8:38; 10:47; 6:14-15; 18:8; 20:7. Baptism comes before communion, just as repentance and faith precede baptism".

      C. The Lord’s Supper is for baptized believers in church capacity: "When ye come together in the church," again not a building, but the assembly of the properly baptized believers.

      D. The fact that the Lord’s Supper is a church ordinance, to be observed in church capacity, is pointed out by the fact that it is for those who have been immersed and added to the fellowship of the church.

      E. The Lord’s Supper is never spoken of in connection with individuals. When it is referred to, it is only referred to in reference to baptized believers in local church capacity I Cor. 11:20-26).

      I want to quote Dr. W.W. Hamilton,

      "The individual administration of the ordinance has no Bible warrant and is a relic of Romanism. The Lord’s Supper is a church ordinance, and anything which goes beyond or comes short of this fails for want of scriptural example or command".

      “The practice of taking a little communion kit to hospitals, nursing homes, etc. is unscriptural and does not follow the scriptural example.”

      IT IS RESTRICTED TO A UNITED CHURCH

      A. The Bible in I Cor. 11:18 is very strong in condemning divisions around the Lord’s table. For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it.
      19 For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.
      20 When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper.

      There were no less than four divisions in the Corinthian church.
      I Cor. 1:12: "Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ."

      Because of these divisions, it was impossible for them to scripturally eat the Lord’s Supper. Division in the local church is reason to hold off observing the Lord’s Supper. But there are also other reasons to forego taking the Lord’s Supper. If there is gross sin in the membership we do not take it. Here is scriptural evidence for this: 1Co 5:7 Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us:
      8 Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. 9 I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:
      10 Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world. 11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.

      B. At this point, I want to ask these questions: Are there not doctrinal divisions among the many denominations? Is it not our doctrinal differences that cause us to be separate religious bodies?

      IT IS RESTRICTED BY DOCTRINE

      A. Those in the early church at Jerusalem who partook "continued stedfastly in the apostles’ doctrine" Acts 2:42. And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.

      B. Those that do not hold to apostolic truth are not to partake. This means there is to be discipline in the local body. How can you discipline those who do not belong to the local body? You can’t. The clear command of scripture is to withdraw fellowship from those who are not doctrinally sound.

      II Thes 3:6: "Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us."
      Rom. 16:17: "Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them."
      To commune together means to have the same doctrine.
      II Thes. 2:15: "Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle."
      II John 10-11: "If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds."

      C. Some Baptists in our day have watered down this doctrine by practicing what they call “Close Communion.” By this they mean that they believe that members of another Baptist church may take communion with us because they are of the same beliefs. Once again, this is unscriptural.

      The welcome to the Lord's Table should not be extended beyond the discipline of the local church. When we take the Lord’s Supper there is supposed to be no gross sin among us and no divisions among us. We have no idea of the spiritual condition of another church’s members. If there is sin or division in the case of this other church’s members, we have no way of knowing it. We cannot discipline them because they are not members of our church. This is why we practice “Closed” communion, meaning it is restricted solely to our church membership. 
      So then, in closing I would like to reiterate the three different ideas concerning the Lord’s Supper and who is to take it. 
      Closed Communion = Only members of a single local church. 
      Close Communion = Members of like faith and order may partake. 
      Open Communion = If you claim to be a Christian, or simply attending the service, you may partake. 
      It is no small thing to attempt to change that which was implemented by our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. 
      Mt. 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen. 
      Many of our Baptist churches have a real need to consider the gravity of the act of observing The Lord’s Supper. It is not a light thing that is to be taken casually or without regard to the spiritual condition of ourselves or our church.
      1Co. 11:27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.

       28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.

       29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.

       30 For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.

Divorce and Remarriage (The Exception Clause)

Jordan Kurecki
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
Jordan Kurecki Experienced

Jordan Kurecki

Posted
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
Posted

Many point to this passage to teach divorce and marriage in the case of adultery:

 

Matthew 19:9  And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

similar wording is also found in Matthew 5

I believe the exception clause refers to

1. Incestuous marriages (See Leviticus 18) (I also believe all sodomite "marriages" and sad that I have to say in our time and age but beastiality "marriages" would also be invalid as well, though I realize our passage in question relates to husband putting away a wife)
2. Betrothal unfaithfulness

Matthew 1:19 Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily.

Deuteronomoy 22:13-21

If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her,
And give occasions of speech against her, and bring up an evil name upon her, and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid:
Then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel's virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate:
And the damsel's father shall say unto the elders, I gave my daughter unto this man to wife, and he hateth her;
And, lo, he hath given occasions of speech against her,saying, I found not thy daughter a maid; and yet these are the tokens of my daughter's virginity. And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city.
And the elders of that city shall take that man and chastise him;
And they shall amerce him in an hundred shekels of silver, and give them unto the father of the damsel, because he hath brought up an evil name upon a virgin of Israel: and she shall be his wife; he may not put her away all his days.
But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel:
Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil

Some other things to consider:

1. The NT teaching for Husbands
Eph 5:25-28
Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;
That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,
That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.

If Husbands are to love their wives as Christ loved the church, how can we justify someone putting his wife away for adultery? Does Jesus divorce us and end his relationship with us when we are unfaithful to him?

2. Suffering for righteousness

1 Peter 2:20-21 For what glory is it, if, when ye be buffeted for your faults, ye shall take it patiently? but if, when ye do well, and suffer for it, ye take it patiently, this is acceptable with God.
For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps:

3. God hates divorce

2:14-16 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.
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.
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.

Matthew 19:4-8 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?
He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.

4. Other NT Passages

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: But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.

Romans 7:2-3

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.
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.

5. When you make a vow that "Till death do us part" I do not believe adultery gives you the right to break that covenant and promise you made to your spouse to love them and care for them "Till death do us part". 

6. If you were committing adultery, would you want your spouse to divorce you? or would you want her to love you and pray for you until you came to a place of repentance? We are to do to others as we would have done unto ourselves.

Just some final notes, I do not see how the verse in Corinthians that says "is not under bondage" can mean they are free to remarry, in my opinion that is something read into the passage. Also I realize that under the Law of Moses God allowed remarriage, however, it is said that was for the hardness of their hearts, I do not think God ever was happy with any kind of divorce, God clearly hates divorce, and New Testament Christians should go far beyond the letter of the law of the Moses because we have the Spirit of God indwelling us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 46
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Jordan Kurecki
Jordan Kurecki

Well, your statements sure do appeal to emotion. But what about God's word? I am sorry you had to go through that, and I am glad by the grace and mercy of God he has allowed you to be married to

Jordan Kurecki
Jordan Kurecki

Many point to this passage to teach divorce and marriage in the case of adultery:   Matthew 19:9  And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and sha

Saved41199
Saved41199

I was married to a man who thought it was funny to beat my children, turn off the telephone, take my car keys, refuse to give me money for food. He finally snapped and threw me and the kids out of the

  • 2 months later...
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
DaveW Grand Master

DaveW

Posted
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
Posted

I am surprised that no one has chimed in with a further response to this.

I think Jordan has done a good job of outlining the various passages involved

On ‎4‎/‎22‎/‎2018 at 12:32 AM, Jordan Kurecki said:

If Husbands are to love their wives as Christ loved the church, how can we justify someone putting his wife away for adultery? Does Jesus divorce us and end his relationship with us when we are unfaithful to him?

This statement is a particularly good one, and one that anyone who promotes divorce MUST answer.

 

One thing I would like to add to point 3 is that people often state that God commanded divorce, but if you note this passage, you find that the Pharisees are the ones who use the term "command" but in response, the Lord uses the term "suffered you" or allowed them - very different to "commanded". And Jordan also pointed out very rightly that Matthew 19 where this conversation is found, also says that Moses suffered it because of the hardness of their hearts.

Personally, I think the only "terms" for divorce from a Christian, is where they have a heart that is so hard as to no longer want to honour God.

 

In relation to the idea that God has commanded divorce, I had someone bring up the situation of Ezra chapters 9 and 10, and state that God not only commanded their divorce from "strange wives" but was also pleased with it.

When I studied that passage out I found that God neither commanded it nor stated his pleasure over it.

When the people were confronted with the command of God regarding marrying strange wives, THEY decided to put away those wives - they were not commanded to.

They were commanded to repent of the sin of taking strange wives, and told to do His pleasure, but it was their idea.

In this instance God allowed it, but again, he did not command it.

I am basically in agreement with Jordan on this matter, and commend him on his research and presentation.

And my reference previously to Hosea was basically in support of the idea that God does not divorce us, as his commands to Hosea with regard to his unfaithful wife show.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
Pastor Scott Markle Grand Master

Pastor Scott Markle

Posted
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
Posted
9 hours ago, DaveW said:

I am surprised that no one has chimed in with a further response to this.

Oh, I definitely have thoughts on the matter; but there is simply no way that I can add yet another heavy doctrinal discussion to my schedule.  I am already a bit overloaded with that in which I am involved at present.  

One thought for consideration -

Does "hardness of heart" refer to an unforgiving heart (that is -- the refusal of the one against whom the fornication was committed to forgive)?
Or does "hardness of heart" refer to an unrepentant heart (that is -- the refusal of the one who has committed the fornication to repent thereof)?

If the first is the case, then Joseph's consideration to put away Mary (when he thought that she had committed fornication against him) would indicate a "hardness of heart" in Joseph's case.  Yet to me such an accusation against Joseph seems completely contrary to that which is revealed in Matthew 1 about his character and consideration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
Saved41199 Enthusiast

Saved41199

Posted
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
Posted

I was married to a man who thought it was funny to beat my children, turn off the telephone, take my car keys, refuse to give me money for food. He finally snapped and threw me and the kids out of the house at the business end of his shotgun. He filed for divorce. I didn't want to even THINK about trying to reconcile with him. 

Now I'm married (and have been for about 20 years) to a Jesus loving, praying, loving his wife man.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
Jordan Kurecki Experienced

Jordan Kurecki

Posted
  • Author
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
Posted
22 hours ago, Saved41199 said:

I was married to a man who thought it was funny to beat my children, turn off the telephone, take my car keys, refuse to give me money for food. He finally snapped and threw me and the kids out of the house at the business end of his shotgun. He filed for divorce. I didn't want to even THINK about trying to reconcile with him. 

Now I'm married (and have been for about 20 years) to a Jesus loving, praying, loving his wife man.

Well, your statements sure do appeal to emotion. But what about God's word?

I am sorry you had to go through that, and I am glad by the grace and mercy of God he has allowed you to be married to a man who loves the Lord. 

However, just because God has been merciful and gracious to you does not mean he endorses remarriage or divorce. 

I got saved because a guy did drugs with me and witnessed to me, God was gracious and merciful, but the fact that I got saved does not mean God approved of my friends behavior and the way he was living.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
Saved41199 Enthusiast

Saved41199

Posted
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
Posted
On 8/24/2018 at 4:25 PM, Jordan Kurecki said:

Well, your statements sure do appeal to emotion. But what about God's word?

I am sorry you had to go through that, and I am glad by the grace and mercy of God he has allowed you to be married to a man who loves the Lord. 

However, just because God has been merciful and gracious to you does not mean he endorses remarriage or divorce. 

I got saved because a guy did drugs with me and witnessed to me, God was gracious and merciful, but the fact that I got saved does not mean God approved of my friends behavior and the way he was living.

Now...for a few questions...the marriage covenant is defined in Ephesians 5, correct? There's quite a few verses that define the husband's duty to the wife, right? Jesus also said "except for fornication", right? 

So...husband is abusive...violates the marriage covenant in Ephesians 5, correct? Especially the part about loving his wife as he loves his own body, right? 

Then there's the fornication aspect...someone who watched hard core porn while his wife and children were 800 miles away taking care of her parents. 

Last, but not least, he was NOT a Christian and it is written that if the non-believing spouse wishes to leave, let them leave, right? 

So...don't expend energy jumping to conclusions when you don't know the full story. 

Have a great weekend. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
Jordan Kurecki Experienced

Jordan Kurecki

Posted
  • Author
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
Posted (edited)
17 minutes ago, Saved41199 said:

Now...for a few questions...the marriage covenant is defined in Ephesians 5, correct? There's quite a few verses that define the husband's duty to the wife, right? Jesus also said "except for fornication", right? 

So...husband is abusive...violates the marriage covenant in Ephesians 5, correct? Especially the part about loving his wife as he loves his own body, right? 

Then there's the fornication aspect...someone who watched hard core porn while his wife and children were 800 miles away taking care of her parents. 

Last, but not least, he was NOT a Christian and it is written that if the non-believing spouse wishes to leave, let them leave, right? 

So...don't expend energy jumping to conclusions when you don't know the full story. 

Have a great weekend. 

Where does it say that if someone violates the marriage covenant in Ephesians 5 that you are free to divorce?

 And if it did, does that mean your husband can divorce you for not submitting to him even once? (Ephesians 5:24 says wives are to be subject to their husbands in "everything")

Can you explain to me how many times those commands in Ephesians 5 have to be broken before you can divorce?

Where does Ephesians 5 say "if your spouse does not do this, they have broken the marriage covenant and you can now divorce them"?

According to the same reasoning can children can dissolve their relationship with their parents if their father provokes them to wrath based on Ephesians 6:3?

I gave clear possibilities in my original post of what the "except for fornication" clause means, and I then listed several passages that make it clear that God hates divorce and I showed passages that refute the idea of divorce and remarriage. it says GOD HATES IT!

Do you believe me God makes approves for someone to do something that he HATES? 

If fornication is grounds for divorce, can any woman leave her husband based on the fact that Jesus said if you look at a woman to lust after her you have committed adultery with her already in your heart? so basically any woman can divorce her husband then?

The bible says to allow an unbeliever to leave, but where does it clearly say the believer is free to remarry after the unbelieving leaves.

It says they are not under bondage to the spouse, how do you know that means "Free to remarry"

Don't we need to interpret passages in the bible that are not as clear with ones that are clear? where is the Bible clear that God allows for remarriage while the previous spouse is living? Isn't it based on reading one's own ideas into phrases like "except it be for fornication" or "is not under bondage"?

 

Edited by Jordan Kurecki
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
Jordan Kurecki Experienced

Jordan Kurecki

Posted
  • Author
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
Posted (edited)
16 minutes ago, Saved41199 said:

@Jordan Kurecki how about you just don't worry about it. Your interpretations are YOUR interpretations. 

Thank you I'll take the word of my pastor over yours any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

Have a great weekend.

 

It's not my word, it's the words of God, and when you stand before God you won't be judged by the words of your Pastor or me, but the words of God. 

Edited by Jordan Kurecki
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
Saved41199 Enthusiast

Saved41199

Posted
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
Posted
2 hours ago, Jordan Kurecki said:

It's not my word, it's the words of God, and when you stand before God you won't be judged by the words of your Pastor or me, but the words of God. 

and you have the audacity to speak for God? It's your word. 

spend some time researching the historical and cultural context of what was written. It's a whole lot deeper than your interpretation. Spend some time doing it. Consult reference works. This is the sort of thing that will take you months to research. Trust me, I've done it. I think I spent upwards of 100 hours researching it. I wrote a paper on it in college (Liberty University class of 2013, Bachelor's of Biblical Studies). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
Jordan Kurecki Experienced

Jordan Kurecki

Posted
  • Author
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
Posted
8 hours ago, Saved41199 said:

and you have the audacity to speak for God? It's your word. 

spend some time researching the historical and cultural context of what was written. It's a whole lot deeper than your interpretation. Spend some time doing it. Consult reference works. This is the sort of thing that will take you months to research. Trust me, I've done it. I think I spent upwards of 100 hours researching it. I wrote a paper on it in college (Liberty University class of 2013, Bachelor's of Biblical Studies). 

 

Why should your claim to having spent 100 hours on researching this topic convince me? You are using a logical fallacy of appealing to your self as an authority, simply because you spent 100 hours researching something and have a bachelors degree does not mean you are right. 

Now, I included a ton of scriptures references about this topic in the original post, and I dealt with a lot of things, and while I am not nearly as detailed as someone like Pastor Markle, I believe I have included far more evidence about the topic than you.

I would encourage any readers to take note that you replied to this thread with 

1. An emotional appeal based on the pain and suffering from your first marriage

2. unsubstantiated assumptions based on passages in Ephesians 5 and 1 Corinthians 7, you also avoided my clear questions when I asked where in those passages they teach what you claim

3. an appeal to the authority of your Pastor 

4. an subtle ad hominem attack on me "

Your interpretations are YOUR interpretations:

"Thank you I'll take the word of my pastor over yours any day of the week and twice on Sunday."

5. an appeal to your own experience/expertise

 

Again, since you have spent so much time studying on this topic, than surely you should be able to answer the following questions for me:

 

Where does it say that if someone violates the marriage covenant in Ephesians 5 that you are free to divorce?

 And if it did, does that mean your husband can divorce you for not submitting to him even once? (Ephesians 5:24 says wives are to be subject to their husbands in "everything")

Can you explain to me how many times those commands in Ephesians 5 have to be broken before you can divorce?

Where does Ephesians 5 say "if your spouse does not do this, they have broken the marriage covenant and you can now divorce them"?

According to the same reasoning can children can dissolve their relationship with their parents if their father provokes them to wrath based on Ephesians 6:3?

I gave clear possibilities in my original post of what the "except for fornication" clause means, and I then listed several passages that make it clear that God hates divorce and I showed passages that refute the idea of divorce and remarriage. it says GOD HATES IT!

Do you believe God makes approval for someone to do something that he HATES? 

If fornication is grounds for divorce, can any woman leave her husband based on the fact that Jesus said if you look at a woman to lust after her you have committed adultery with her already in your heart? so basically any woman can divorce her husband then?

The bible says to allow an unbeliever to leave, but where does it clearly say the believer is free to remarry after the unbelieving leaves?

It says they are not under bondage to the spouse, how do you know that means "Free to remarry"?

Don't we need to interpret passages in the bible that are not as clear with ones that are clear? where is the Bible clear that God allows for remarriage while the previous spouse is living? Isn't it based on reading one's own ideas into phrases like "except it be for fornication" or "is not under bondage"?

 

I would appreciate you responding to these questions of substance, rather than resorting to ad hominem attacks on me, or appeals to authority such as your Pastor or yourself. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
Saved41199 Enthusiast

Saved41199

Posted
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
Posted

Look Jordan, I don't have to justify anything to you. You can continue on your merry way and do your thing. I'm not under authority to you and have no reason to answer your interrogations. 

Have a great day

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
Jordan Kurecki Experienced

Jordan Kurecki

Posted
  • Author
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
Posted
1 hour ago, Saved41199 said:

Look Jordan, I don't have to justify anything to you. You can continue on your merry way and do your thing. I'm not under authority to you and have no reason to answer your interrogations. 

Have a great day

Well, Maam, you are the one who made the decision to join this thread to make your point. If you aren't willing to address the arguments that I make then you should probably refrain from coming in here and basically saying that I am wrong without giving any substance or reasons why.

If you don't want to actually engage the subject but just want to spout off your opinions without giving any biblical evidence, then in my opinion, you should refrain from posting.

What was your purpose in posting here in the first place?

I am not so much interested in giving you a chance to "justify yourself" as much as I am in making it evident to anyone who reads this thread that you are arguing in favor of divorce and remarriage without any arguments of substance, I desire for readers to see that you are making claims that you are not backing up and that you seem to be speaking on your own authority rather than the authority of the word of God. While you did reference a few scriptures, I gave you ample opportunity with my clear-cut questions to explain and prove your claim but you have not done so. 

I believe if you aren't willing to defend your position, then you stop coming in here and making posts to try and contradict what I have said.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
Saved41199 Enthusiast

Saved41199

Posted
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
Posted
1 hour ago, Jordan Kurecki said:

If you don't want to actually engage the subject but just want to spout off your opinions without giving any biblical evidence, then in my opinion, you should refrain from posting.

i did give you biblical evidence. You chose to ignore it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
Jordan Kurecki Experienced

Jordan Kurecki

Posted
  • Author
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Saved41199 said:

i did give you biblical evidence. You chose to ignore it. 

No you did not.

You made a vague reference to Ephesians 5 and you implied that if a man fails to obey the commands of God in Ephesians 5 that it allows for divorce. that is not biblical evidence that is you adding something and reading something into the text that it doesn't say.

You also reference "except it be for fornication", which I dealt with and addressed in the first post. I gave examples of how this phrase does not have to mean if a man commits sexual sin during the marriage union. You ASSUME that it refers to adultery and you actually are the one ignoring the cultural customs of that day, fornication before marriage was legitimate grounds to end the betrothal period in the Jewish culture and context and would be considered as such. Even if MOSES wrote and allowed for divorce, it doesn't even say GOD did allow it, we are not under the law, and NT Christians should not have hardness of heart. I can hardly see God approving a decision made out of hardness of heart.  Let me remind you what Jesus said: 

6  Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

The NT is clear, a woman is to remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband. 

for you to say that the references in Matthew allow an NT Christian to divorce for sexual sin, would be to violate the character of God and several plain passages in the scriptures. 

My questions give you ample opportunity to explain your position and they are great opportunities to defend your position. 

Making two vague references to passages and forcing them to say what they do not say, is not "biblical evidence".

You did not deal with a single one of the points I made in the original post. 

Your replies have little to no substantial argumentation. 

 

 

 

Edited by Jordan Kurecki
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
Jordan Kurecki Experienced

Jordan Kurecki

Posted
  • Author
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
Posted

Does “Not Under Bondage” Mean Divorce Is Permitted?

The word rendered “bondage” (1 Cor. 7:15) is the Greek term douloo, which means “to make a slave of.” Observe how the word is translated in Titus 2:3 — “enslaved to much wine.”

Biblically speaking, marriage is never viewed as slavery! The “bondage,” i.e., enslavement, does not refer to the marriage union. If the unbeliever departs, that is not the Christian’s responsibility. The brother or sister is not enslaved to maintain a togetherness (note the allusion of 1 Cor. 7:5) at the expense of fidelity to the Lord.

Interestingly, douloo (under bondage) in verse 15 is, in the Greek Testament, a perfect tense form, dedoulotai. The perfect tense denotes a present state resulting from past action. Its force here is this: “was not bound [past action] and is not bound [present state].” The sense of the verse thus is:

Yet if (assuming such should occur) the unbeliever separates himself, let him separate himself: the brother or sister was not [before the departure] and is not [now that the departure has occurred] enslaved ....

Whatever the “bondage” is, therefore, the Christian was not in it even before the disgruntled spouse left. But the saint was married (and is) to him, hence, the bondage is not the marriage!

Let the reader substitute the word “marriage” for “bondage,” giving the full force to the perfect tense (i.e., “has not been married, and is not married”) and the fallacy of viewing the bondage as the marriage itself will be apparent.

First Corinthians 7:15 does not expand upon the Savior’s teaching with reference to divorce and remarriage, as much as some wish that it were so.

https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/683-what-is-the-meaning-of-not-under-bondage-1-cor-7-15

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
swathdiver Veteran

swathdiver

Posted
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
Posted

"But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace." - 1 Corinthians 7:15

 

This teaches that the Christian is not obligated to share their bed with the departed if they're not reconciled.  No popping in for a quick visit to satisfy one's need and then leaving.  You might ask me where I got that but do not remember.  Either from the pulpit or Way of Life or the old Baptist Challenge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
  • Members
Rab Newbie

Rab

Posted
  • Members
Posted (edited)

Hi, looks like all of you have studied the topic more than I have, so I won't say too much.

My first thought when reading the OP and a few of the responses was, Jesus won't devorce us, but God DID devorce Israel.

Secondly, wasn't Joseph engaged to Mary, not Married?

Thirdly on Hosea, The LORD overlooked all sorts of imorality of the wives beause it wasn't as important as spiritual imorality.

Ho 4:12 My people ask counsel at their stocks, and their staff declareth unto them: for the spirit of whoredoms hath caused [them] to err, and they have gone a whoring from under their God.
Ho 4:13 They sacrifice upon the tops of the mountains, and burn incense upon the hills, under oaks and poplars and elms, because the shadow thereof [is] good: THEREFORE your daughters shall commit whoredom, and your spouses shall commit adultery.
Ho 4:14 I will not punish your daughters when they commit whoredom, nor your spouses when they commit adultery:

Fourth, Any man who as much as looks at another woman the wrong way is an adulterer, so it isnt an uncommon sin, and all have sinned, and isn't that the point of the discourse in Matt, which is summed up as 'be ye perfect as your Father in heaven is perfect', if you want to keep the Law that is, but until you reach that lofty hight, you will need to learn to recieve and walk as a sinner in Grace.

Fifth, If God suffred Divorce under Law, would Christ not suffer it even more so under Grace?

 

Edited by Rab
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.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recent Achievements

    • First Post
      Mark C
      Mark C earned a badge
      First Post
    • Collaborator
      Razor
      Razor went up a rank
      Collaborator
    • Conversation Starter
      Mark C
      Mark C earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • First Post
      KJV1611BELIEVER
      KJV1611BELIEVER earned a badge
      First Post
    • One Month Later
      KJV1611BELIEVER
      KJV1611BELIEVER earned a badge
      One Month Later

  • Tell a friend

    Love Online Baptist Community? Tell a friend!

  • Members

    No members to show

  • Popular Now

  • Recent Status Updates

    • Razor

      Razor

      “Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to reform (or pause and reflect).”
      ― Mark Twain
      · 0 replies
    • Razor

      Razor

      “Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to reform (or pause and reflect).”
      ― Mark Twain
      · 1 reply
    • Razor

      Razor

      Psalms 139 Psalm 139:9-10
      9. If I take the wings of the morning, and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea; 10. even there shall thy hand lead me, and thy righthand shall hold me. 
       
      · 0 replies
    • Bro. West

      Bro. West  »  Pastor Scott Markle

      Advanced revelation, then...prophecy IS advanced revelation in the context of the apostles.
      I really do not know where you are going with this. The Bible itself has revelations and prophecies and not all revelations are prophecies.
      Paul had things revealed to him that were hid and unknown that the Gentiles would be fellow heirs.
      How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words, Eph 3:3-9
      And I do not mean this as a Hyper-dispensationalist would, for there were people in Christ before Paul (Rom. 16:7). This is not prophecy for there are none concerning the Church age in the O.T..
      Israel rejected the New Wine (Jesus Christ) and said the Old Wine (law) was better, had they tasted the New Wine there would be no church age or mystery as spoken above. to be revealed.
      It was a revealed mystery. Sure there are things concerning the Gentiles after the this age. And we can now see types in the Old Testament (Boaz and Ruth) concerning a Gentile bride, but this is hindsight.
      Peter could have had a ham sandwich in Acts 2, but he did not know it till later, by revelation. But this has nothing to do with 1John 2;23 and those 10 added words in italics. Where did they get them? Did the violate Pro. 30:6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar. Where did they get this advance revelation? Was it from man, God or the devil?
        I just read your comment and you bypassed what I wrote concerning book arrangement, chapters being added and verse numberings and such. There is no scripture support for these either, should we reject these?
      Happy New Year
      · 0 replies
    • Bro. West

      Bro. West

      Seeing it is Christ----mas time and I was answering question on Luke 2:33 concerning Jesus, Mary and Joseph . I thought it would be fitting to display a poem i wrote concerning the matter.
      SCRIPTURAL MARY

      I WALK NOT ON WATER NOR CHANGE IT TO WINE
      SO HEARKEN O’ SINNER TO THIS STORY OF MINE
      I, AM A DAUGHTER OF ABRAHAM SINNER BY BIRTH
      A HAND MAID OF LOW ESTATE USED HERE ON EARTH
      MY HAIR IS NOT GENTILE BLOND, I HAVE NOT EYES OF BLUE
      A MOTHER OF MANY CHILDREN A DAUGHTER OF A JEW
      FOR JOSEPH MY HUSBAND DID HONOUR OUR BED
      TO FATHER OUR CHILDREN WHO NOW ARE ALL DEAD
      BUT I SPEAK NOT OF THESE WHO I LOVED SO WELL
      BUT OF THE FIRST BORN WHICH SAVED ME FROM HELL
      MY FLESH SAW CORRUPTION MY BONES THEY DID ROT
      MY PAPS ARE NOT HOLY SO TRUST ME NOT
                                               2
      WHEN I WAS A VIRGIN UNKNOWN BY MAN
      THE ANGEL OF GOD SPOKE OF GOD’S PLAN
      FOR I HAD BEEN CHOSEN A FAVOUR VESSEL OF CLAY
      TO BARE THE SON OF THE HIGHEST BY AN UNUSUAL WAY
      FOR THE SCRIPTURE FORETOLD OF WHAT WAS TO BE
      SO MY WOMB GOD FILLED WHEN HE OVER SHADOW ME
      BUT THE LAW OF MOSES DID DEMAND MY LIFE
      WOULD JOSEPH MY BETROTHED MAKE ME HIS WIFE
      I THOUGHT ON THESE THINGS WITH SO NEEDLESS FEARS
      BUT A DREAM HE RECEIVED ENDED ALL FEARS
      MY FLESH SAW CORRUPTION MY BONES THEY DID ROT
      MY PAPS ARE NOT HOLY SO TRUST ME NOT
                                              3
      THEN MY SOUL DID REJOICE IN GOD MY SAVIOR
      HE SCATTERED THE PROUD AND BLESS ME WITH FAVOR
      O’ THE RICH ARE EMPTY, THE HUNGRY HAVE GOOD THINGS
      FOR THE THRONE OF DAVID WOULD HAVE JESUS THE KING
      BUT BEFORE I DELIVERED THE MAN CHILD OF OLD
      CAESAR WITH TAXES DEMANDED OUR GOLD
      TO THE CITY OF DAVID JOSEPH AND I WENT
      ON A BEAST OF BURDEN OUR STRENGTH NEAR SPEND
      NO ROOM AT An INN, BUT A STABLE WAS FOUND
      WITH STRAW AND DUNG LAID ON THE GROUND
      MY FLESH SAW CORRUPTION MY BONES THEY DID ROT
      MY PAPS ARE NOT HOLY, SO TRUST ME NOT
                                                  4
      MY MATRIX WAS OPEN IN A PLACE SO PROFANE
      FROM THE GLORY OF GLORIES TO A BEGGAR’S DOMAIN
      SO WE WRAPPED THE CHILD GIVEN TO THE HEATHEN A STRANGER
      NO REPUTATION IS SOUGHT TO BE BORN IN A MANGER
      HIS STAR WAS ABOVE US THE HOST OF HEAVEN DID SING
      FOR SHEPHERDS AND WISE MEN WORSHIP ONLY THE KING
      BUT HEROD THAT DEVIL SOUGHT FOR HIS SOUL
      AND MURDER RACHEL’S CHILDREN UNDER TWO YEARS OLD
      BUT JOSEPH MY HUSBAND WAS WARNED IN A DREAM
      SO WE FLED INTO EGYPT BECAUSE OF HIS SCHEME
      MY FLESH SAW CORRUPTION MY BONES THEY DID ROT
      MY PAPS ARE NOT HOLY SO TRUST ME NOT
                                               5
      SO THE GIVER OF LIFE, THE ROCK OF ALL AGES
      GREW UP TO FULFILL THE HOLY PAGES
      HE PREACH WITH AUTHORITY LIKE NONE BEFORE
      PLEASE TRUST HIS WORDS AND NOT THE GREAT WHORE
      HER BLACK ROBE PRIEST FILL THEIR LIPS WITH MY NAME
      WITH BLASPHEMOUS PRAISE, DAMMATION AND SHAME
      THERE ARE NO NAIL PRINTS IN MY HANDS, MY BODY DID NOT ARISE
      NOR, AM A DEMON OF FATIMA FLOATING IN THE SKY
      THERE IS NO DEITY IN MY VEINS FOR ADAM CAME FROM SOD
      FOR I, AM, MOTHER OF THE SON OF MAN NOT THE MOTHER OF GOD
      MY FLESH SAW CORRUPTION MY BONES THEY DID ROT
      MY PAPS ARE NOT HOLY, SO TRUST ME NOT
      6
      FOR MY SOUL WAS PURCHASED BY GOD UPON THE CROSS
      FOR MY SINS HE DID SUFFER AN UNMEASURABLE COST
      I WILL NOT STEAL HIS GLORY WHO ROSE FROM THE DEAD
      ENDURING SPIT AND THORNS PLACED ON HIS HEAD
      YET, IF YOU WISH TO HONOR ME THEN GIVE ME NONE AT ALL
      BUT TRUST THE LAMB WHO STOOL IN PILATE’S HALL
      CALL NOT ON THIS REDEEMED WOMAN IN YOUR TIME OF FEAR
      FOR I WILL NOT GIVE ANSWER NEITHER WILL I HEAR
      AND WHEN THE BOOKS ARE OPEN AT THE GREAT WHITE THRONE
      I AMEN YOUR DAMNATION THAT TRUST NOT HIM ALONE
      MY FLESH SAW CORRUPTION MY BONES THEY DID ROT
      MY PAPS ARE NOT HOLY, O’ SINNER TRUST ME NOT

                       WRITTEN BY BRO. WEST
       
      · 0 replies

  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...