Jon: Oh, well there is no point to this... Do you mean that, Jon? Are you quitting? Are you already admitting defeat so soon? The Puritan woman called the "pastor's wife" put up a better fight than you did but in the end, she said pretty much the same thing: Yup, no point in trying to refute the Word of God, Jon. The Full Bible Truth is just not so easily refuted. In fact, if it is indeed the Full Bible Truth, and not the perverted ASV NKJV NWO (pick your per-version) modern twisting of the truth, you will be able to prove scripturally that a man can LAWFULLY have what GOD calls "TWO WIVES". You cast a blind eye to many of the more solid points being made here by Robert and myself as though these facts were never even stated, and then nit-pick on the technicalities and semantics that are open to indefinite debate only because they are subject to opinion. Jesus called this straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel. I have done the same thing myself from time-to-time. Gnat straining is easy to spot and it is also easy enough to forgive. We are all human. Now I will be among the first here to agree that everyone is entitled to their opinions and personal biases even though they may not be based on fact. Yes, they have a right to be voluntarily ignorant, bigoted, and biased... And yes, they have every right to be wrong too �?but this still does not make them right. If you simply admitted that you want to keep your personal bias and dogma despite the facts, and despite what is written in the Holy Bible about marriage, you would be honest at least. Why not just be honest and admit that you love your prejudice and want to keep it? Now I don't believe that just because a person has a "right" to be wrong that others should be FORCED to embrace that bigoted person's choice of delusion, do you? I think that this is immoral, that it is oppressive, and that it is antichrist. However this is not opinion based on fact: My opinion, in this case, is completely BASED on SCRIPTURE, SOLA SCRIPTURA, and this fact is irrefutable; so the opinions that I present (and the ones that you challenge) will not change the fact that they are based on scriptural FACTS that you keep ignoring; even if my opinions may not be completely accurate. Lest anyone accuse me of FORCING my choice of marriage on others please be advised that I do NOT AT ALL insist that anyone ever take a second spouse unless they are called of God to do so. (You need the Holy Ghost before you can say with any certainty what you are called to in the Lord.) Not all are called to marriage. Not all are called to be the husband of one wife either. Some men actually DO HAVE the gift of celibacy. lol I try not to envy them �?some days it isn't so easy. God knows best.
I still maintain that my opinions do have more basis in fact than the opinions and the conjecture that you have offered here so far. You challenge my opinions but you ignore the facts. This is easier for you, I will agree. Still, you fail to address the facts on which I base my opinions. Most of what Robert and I have been stating here is based on irrefutable scriptural facts: Such as the fact that GOD called the wives (plural)of men in the scripture "wives". Now God didn't call these women whores, or prostitutes, or adultresses, or harlots, or any of those things that would show them to be in dishonor; rather HE HONORS them by calling them "WIVES". That is only one fact. Here is another: In every case where GOD called them "wives" (plural) in the scripture (i.e./ "two wives") not once does He ever speak against these marriages to call them "Adultery", "Putting away", "Divorcement", "Fornication", or... SIN!!! < No, not once does God call it that.
Fact: God did indeed bless Abraham's union with Hagar and not once did He call it "adultery" or "fornication". Do you refute this fact? Does the scripture say that Abraham disobeyed God by joining to Hagar? Please don't say that "it is interpreted". All kinds of things are interpreted �?where is it written? Twelve times God calls them "TWO WIVES" and honors them as such. (Marriage is honorable in all, right?). Yet not once does God say, "I condemn this marriage" or, "I will only tolerate this evil practice of keeping wives without putting any of them away for a short while, before I change my moral position on marriage"; or, "This is adultery and I'm just winking at it right now because I want to keep my people guessing as to whether I approve of it or not." That is ridiculous. Never ONCE does GOD say this directly against what HE repeatedly calls "TWO WIVES" IN ALL of theTWELVE EXAMPLES LISTING "TWO WIVES" ! Please don't tell me that GOD wouldn't have said anything about it if He didn't like it. Is GOD luke warm??? Does He condemn adultery and fornication only to say that He tolerates it in marriage? Of course not! He would be contradicting Himself if He said that! Jon, you cannot have it both ways... either God acknowledges and honors "TWO WIVES" or He does not. Your arguments become increasingly familiar (almost verbatim) to those robotic replies steeped in the repititious mediocrity of rote memorization and pat answers of a popular cult leader. Come out of her.
Jon: You know the main verse! Matt 19:8 He saith unto them, Moses for your hardness of heart suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it hath not been so. ASV from the start it was one on one, later on the word says some started to take more than more, God allowed this, but he did not start it himself.
This is what I mean about the robotics of rote memorization. The Puritan did the same. The scripture is true enough in and of itself. Unfortunately it does not address your target. It misses it as far as the east is from the west. Robert and I are debating if godly marriage is still lawful in the eyes of God today or not. I know this sounds like a ridiculous debate and in many ways it is. What God calls "wives" are wives indeed. We should just all agree that GOD is the CHANGLELESS ONE and that He has never changed His mind about what marriage is. Why are you debating putting away? Putting away is not the topic of this debate. The topic of this debate is precisely the opposite of what you have just presented above. The topic of this debate is whether or not it is LAWFUL IN THE SIGHT OF GOD to KEEP ONE'S WIVES �?NOT PUT AWAY WIVES. Robert and I likely don't agree that it is right to put away a wife without cause; alas, when a wife PUTS AWAY her husband she isn't exactly leaving him much choice now, is she? That is why God PUT AWAY His Spiritual Wives. (Jeremiah 3:8 AKJV) REMEMBER: They put Him away first. One might think that this alone should be His cause but it is not. JESUS follows His own law to the letter. Now Jesus did have cause even to resort to divorcement. I have told you this before: Jesus addressed the matter on this wise concerning the question of the Pharisees: He spake on this wise of divorcement. There was no divorcement in the beginning. Evenso, HIS spiritual wives were unclean.
When that happens it's usually time to start thinking about DIVORCEMENT just as JESUS did. Christ could not CONTRADICT JESUS (the FATHER). He HAD to allow for the EXCEPTION in Deuteronomy 24:1-3 AKJV. There is in FACT an exception because that is what JESUS called it. Let's not confuse godly marriage for adultery and STAYING TOGETHER for putting away! GOD "started" ONE FLESH and this is what is honorable in all if it is indeed godly. Abraham became ONE FLESH with Hagar (the mother of his FIRST BORN SON) and Abraham became ONE FLESH with Sarah (the mother of the second son). In BOTH cases he married (became one flesh) with each woman: the BONDWOMAN (SLAVE) who was in bondage to Abraham and the FREEWOMAN (WIFE OF HIS YOUTH).
Jon: So do you like this better? they all say the same thing.
Rom 13:1 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. 2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: KJV
Much better Jon, thankyou for using the original authorized translation in the English tongue. I am grateful. No, they are not "the same" and I already proved that. If they were indeed the same, they would both say the exact same thing, verbatim. That is why I am not big on multiple translations and versions: it is too much play room for the devil. An ordinance from God is a very powerful thing. Now the key to those verses you just mentioned is this: " For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God."
Now surely we know that not all things holding power are directly ordained of God or there could not possibly be any sin in the world today. In the end, however, it all plays into the hands of God; this much I will surely agree to. However Paul is not referring to all the powers that exist when he mentions the "powers that be". No, he is referring to those "powers" which are powers indeed; and God suffers rulers over men who are rulers indeed. Notice: "... For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil". Jon, is Sodomy evil? Is "same-sex" marriage evil? Is the endorsing of rape and murder and the slaughter of innocent little children evil? Jon, do you believe these to be the "powers that be" ordained of God? Is satan also ordained of God to be a terror of good works? God forbid! Does Satan have power? Where are the GOOD RULERS of God found? Who are these rulers Paul speaks of? Constantine? The Pope? You appear to have ignored much of what I stated in my previous post. Perhaps you should scroll up and read it again if you don't have a clue as to WHOM the "powers that be" are. I am a passionate man, but I can be patient too.
Jon: Unless you can find a command from God, you must follow his command to obey Government authority.
Jesus: No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.
Exactly which "Government" authority do you refer to Jon? Are you suggesting that God ordained the powers of Sodomy and Mammon to rule over the Lord's people also? Not everyone in secular government is in GOD'S GOVERNMENT. Only those who are in GOD'S GOVERNMENT are to be obeyed, Jon. Anything that they might command that is not found in the Government of God need not be obeyed if it runs contrary to God's law. Do you know what runs contrary to God's law? A: Adding new laws. If you perceive these as your "rulers" then they are your rulers indeed; but If GOD calls them rulers, then we can be rest assured that they are rulers. It is essential that we call things as God calls them. This is what I mean about the GENUINE, ACTUAL, POWERS THAT BE. Satan is not genuine or actual. He is the Great Pretender. He is the deceiver. He has no genuine power that he can call his own. Do you not agree, or do you regard satan as one of the "powers that be" ? JESUS grants His annointed sufficient discernment to determine just who His ministers are, so we are without excuse to blame our politicians on the sad state of affairs existing in our world. The LORD also grants us the ability to affect change. "Resist the devil and he will flee from you." but also, "Resist not evil." See Jon, there REALLY is a difference. Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you. (James 4:7 AKJV)
Jon: " What God only allows can be forbidden by Government."
JT: Where is this written?
Jon, are you even aware of how deplorably ignorant this statement is? God allows for honesty. Has God ordained secular government to forbid honesty? God allows for charity and chastity. Does the "Government" deem the right to forbid it? God allows worship. Does the Government have our Lord's blessing to forbid worship also? God also allows murder, vandalism, rape, and theft. So my point here, is that your point is moot. It doesn't prove a thing but merely states that anything that happens is allowed, by God, to happen. Well, I don't argue with that. The sun shines on the living and the sun shines on the dead.
Hence we read such Puritanical logic:
'Just because God allowed it doesn't mean that He APPROVED of it.'
WHAT RUBBISH! Judge in yourselves: What is God more likely to allow? What He disapproves of? ...Or something that He honors. Would He not be more inclined to DISALLOW the things He hates? (This is not a trick question.) Yet we never read one example in scripture where our LORD condemns the practice of having more than one wife on the merit of bigamy - ever. The burden of proof is not on me, but on my criticizers to produce the law against it and I am telling you that against such there is no law. Allow me to expound a little on this LEGALIST doctrine of permissions: God allows for a great deal in this dispensation of grace. Now that does not mean that we will not be answerable for the consequences of our choices. Evenso, it is what GOD... RECOGNIZES... what GOD... HONORS... what GOD... BLESSES... what GOD... BUILDS... SANCTIFIES... (need I go on?) Are you getting the idea?
This is what GOD approves!
Please allow for the fact that GOD also ALLOWS for GOOD THINGS. Does God disapprove of GOOD THINGS? THIS ARGUMENT HOLDS NO WATER. IT IS A RE-BAPTISING DOCTRINE BECAUSE IT LEAKS. It is without foundation. OBSERVE:
'Just because God allowed it doesn't mean that He DID NOT APPROVE of it EITHER.' (continued)
Free Forum Hosting
Important Announcement
Prev Message
