It appears to me the pharises were looking to justify there illegitimate marriages not the other way around.
Exhibit A would appear to reinforce my position.
1 Cor 7 says a spousse is not bound but there is no implication that remarriage is accepted. That is an argument from silence.
I want the wisdom of the book and I don't want to have more grace than God
First, let's look at the text again...
“8I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, it is good for them if they abide even as I. 9But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn. 10And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: 11But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife. 12But 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. 13And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him. 14For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy. 15But 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.” – I Corinthians 7:8-15
Here Paul illustrates that if believers divorce, they are to remain unmarried or be reconciled to their spouse. However, in the case of an "unbelieving" spouse departing, we are to allow them to go and are not under this bondage in such cases. The implication is obviously that the Christian divorced from an "unbelieving" spouse is free to marry again, in the Lord.
In Acts 13:22 and 36 David is mentioned favorably by Paul. He mentions God's commendation (not condemnation) of David as a man after God's own hear who "shall fulfill all my will." He also says "served his own generation."
As you mentioned, David committed adultery and then had the husband killed to try to cover up his sin. I'm sure he repented. Psalms 32 and 51 are considered his psalms of repentance. He did not divorce Bathsheba but kept her as a wife. Then, he passed the kingship on to one of her sons instead of to one of his other sons who was born before Bathsheba's son.
Every so often a preacher or singer who has been prominent falls. What do we do? Never listen to their music or never let them preach again? Some believe that they can be restored with God but never used publicly again. I don't believe it that way. Even though they may have caused great scandal and reproach to the name of Christ and to Christianity in general, I think that if God forgives them we should also. I also believe the gifts and callings of God are without repentance and God does not rescind the gift or calling. Even though it may give us a black eye in the sight of the world, I believe these "failures" need to be restored. How does this fit in with "having a good report or reputation from those outside the church"? I'm not sure.
I think most don't realize that such sin and scandal brings very deep shame and condemnation in it's own right. These are things wrestled with daily for the rest of one's life in most cases. Most don't see that. They feel that THEY have to stick it too the person to make them sorry. And one way of doing this is relegating the fallen individual to perpetual obscurity.
But under grace, we rejoice if a failed/broken marriage is restored.
I typically do unless one or both of the parties were remarried. Once remarried I typically hold that reconcilation with the first spouse doesn't please God because it destroys an innocent third party.
More like ramblings, If a man is to leave his father and mother and join with his wife and become one flesh. Can he then become one flesh with more than one woman? Is not the joining of a man and woman bringing back the unity of that which God took from man to make woman? By adding more than one wife the man would be adding to his flesh not completing his flesh.
Polygamy wasn't a sin. A man and woman who are married are one flesh. If a man had four wives, he's one flesh with each of them.
Restoration to me is only in regards to the soul not an entitlement to any self appointed position under the heading of a calling. Most often the restoration to position is like seeing Micky Rourke for a second go round in the movies.
Where not talking about a self appointed position or entitlement. We're talking about a situation wherein his elders feel led of the Spirit to restore him to full function in the body. Do we criticize or accuse the elders decision?
Good post.
As I have said several times just in this thread, why do people think they need to be restored to the exact position in which they sinned? If someone committed adultery why do they feel they need to be put in a place where it can happen again? If they committed financial crimes, why do they need to be in charge of money again? If the committed sins against young children...... Well, you know where I am going with this.
A person doesn't have to be back in an original position to commit adultery. I don't think one is "entitled" (I liked the word from a previous post) to be restored to the same position in the body. However, if the elders feel led to fully restore and the congregation are accepting... isn't the onus on the restored one to prove himself by not falling into sin again?
Where not talking about a self appointed position or entitlement. We're talking about a situation wherein his elders feel led of the Spirit to restore him to full function in the body. Do we criticize or accuse the elders decision?
Man do you place attention on the wrong details. Most often these men are begging for their return to the pulpit. Many of the so-called elders have dropped the spiritual leadership ball. It is not an accusation of elders but a calling out of poor and lack of leadership.
[QUOTE=Aquila;888829]Polygamy wasn't a sin. A man and woman who are married are one flesh. If a man had four wives, he's one flesh with each of them.[/QUOTE
The idea of multiple wives and midwives was not an institution devised and planned by God from the beginning. God our creator did not take more than one rib from Adam. It was the introduction of sin that brought about the cultural and perversions of God's intended plan. Stoning (was not a sin) of a man, woman or child for several different acts, but do we stone or kill today regardless of Old Testament guidelines? It is because of the act of Christ on the cross and his reconciliation of his natural plan for man.
I spent several years under a pastor who used the "judgment must begin at the house of God" provision as he understood it (ref 1 Peter 4:17). This is also used by others.
I heard that amoung the Apostolics also. But is it correct from the context? I ALWAYS used to hear it, amoung the Pentecostals, that when God judges a then, City-state, but now Nation, he will first "judge" the people of God. Seems to hold true in Sodom example...not enough righteous people, judgment for the nation. And in Noah's time, "the imagination was evil" ect.
Linear Mode
