Quote:
Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa
Act 25:8
"While he answered for himself, Neither against the law of the Jews, neither against the temple, nor yet against Caesar, have I offended any thing at all."
Rom 13:1-2
"Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation."
Tit 3:1-3
"Put them in mind to be subject to principalities and powers, to obey magistrates, to be ready to every good work, To speak evil of no man, to be no brawlers, but gentle, shewing all meekness unto all men."
1Pe 2:13-16
"Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme; Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well. For so is the will of God, that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men: As free, and not using your liberty for a cloke of maliciousness, but as the servants of God."
Sorry Dr. Voo, but since Paul was an exceptional Roman citizen he would of never taught good former Gentiles who had converted to Christianity to break Roman Law. Also the former Jews who had converted to Christianity had to respect Roman Law as well and set an example for their Gentile converts. There is absolutely no teaching or allowance in the NT for a man to have plural wives. You also failed to prove why Paul would admonish Elders in the church to set the example of having only ONE wife instead of having multiple wives.
Now, if Paul refused Bishops and Deacons to have plural wives, wouldn't that make his epistles confusing to those who were supposed to follow the examples of these elders?
Your doctrine is shot in the head, and harder to understand than the Trinity. 
In Jesus name
Brother Benincasa
www.OnTimeJournal.com
|
Bro. Benincasa,
I agree with you, Paul was an exceptional citizen and admonished all Christians to be the same. Paul would never have allowed polygamy because it would have been against Roman Law. However, please note....in would have been against "Roman Law". There's nothing condemning it "morally" in the New Testament. Paul was just admonishing bishops and deacons to obey the laws of the land so that they might have a good testimony to them that are without.
As I mentioned before, I find it interesting that a Pagan Empire like Rome legally mandated monogamous marriage (laws which Paul clearly expects the Christians he wrote to to obey) while God's Law to His nation, His people, Israel allowed for it and even mandated it in given circumstances.
My argument is simply this.....Polygamy isn't a sin because if it is....it always was. And if it always was, God is a sinner for allowing it and even commanding it on some occasions. And any Old Testament man of God who had more than one wife and died married to them without repenting and divorcing all but one died a sinner and is currently in Hell.
You can't have something suddenly "become" a sin when God commanded it at times.
Now...does that mean we should have polygamous marriages today. I wouldn't go that far. Like in Rome, America has laws against it. So Christians, as Paul commanded, should obey those laws. But if a global catastrophe took place tomorrow and the human race was decimated and loose clan systems arose...polygamy might be necessary... and it wouldn't be a "sin".