Yet ANOTHER dead horse beating

[Dr. Ron]

I was wondering what in the name of the Almighty was going on here.
Since it said "members only", I knew it wasn't a jacket so I decided to
look at the posts to find out what in the world was going on.

You can't unscramble, scrambled eggs!

Get over all this stuff and let people find a relationship with Christ.....

The Holy Spirit doesn't need any of us to convict people of sin. Let him do his work!!!!

[JanB]

[quote="Dr. Ron"

Get over all this stuff and let people find a relationship with Christ.....

The Holy Spirit doesn't need any of us to convict people of sin. Let him do his work!!!!

Woo Hoo ...

[RamboPreacher]

[quote="Dr. Ron"

Get over all this stuff and let people find a relationship with Christ.....

The Holy Spirit doesn't need any of us to convict people of sin. Let him do his work!!!!

Woo Hoo ...

and add my ditto. However, whenever these issues come up, it is still infuriatingly frustrating to believe that there are folks that believe that folks like me are not saved (because we "continue in sin", and don't leave our spouse since our first one still lives - especially when they do not recognize repentance, because they assume that repentance MUST be accompanied by leaving the current spouse) or are somehow "lesser Christians" (or a paradigm that their Christianity is better/more perfected, because they don't have a previous spouse), based on a teaching that has more traditional backing than scriptural.

I think PG said it best, and is a great analogy and fits well.

If you bear false witness, and it causes someone to lose their life, you can repent of the lie and they are still dead. Are you, then, guilty of sinning every day they remain dead?

:)

[Paully_44]

Get over all this stuff and let people find a relationship with Christ.....

You mean we can live thru a relationship with Christ rather than than being bound by human interpretation?

The Holy Spirit doesn't need any of us to convict people of sin. Let him do his work!!!!

I wish I live a bit closer, would love to sit under your ministry.

[MacUser]

LOL.. Bravo!

[Poimen]

Being dismissive doesn't remove or change Romans 7:3.

Romans 7:3 says that as long as the (previous) spouse lives remarriage constitutes adultery. Whatever we like or don't like about it, the long and short of it is that is what the word of God says.

There is no tradition clouding a honest reading of the passage. There is no superior attitude or evaluation of one's Christian status over another. There is simply an affirmation of what "thus saith the Lord."

My only desire is to walk in, speak, defend, and be all the more conformed to the truth.

[RamboPreacher]

Being dismissive doesn't remove or change Romans 7:3.

nope, sure doesn't

Romans 7:3 says that as long as the (previous) spouse lives remarriage constitutes adultery. Whatever we like or don't like about it, the long and short of it is that is what the word of God says.

agreed.

There is no tradition clouding a honest reading of the passage. There is no superior attitude or evaluation of one's Christian status over another. There is simply an affirmation of what "thus saith the Lord."

not this passage specificaly, but the entire "unforgivable sin" paradigm.

My only desire is to walk in, speak, defend, and be all the more conformed to the truth.

ditto.
You just happen to have a more literalistic interpretation of the given scripture reference than I do - especially when takn in textual context and not just plucking the one reference out of the middle of what is being said and taught by Paul (as has been mentioned already).

I believe that Paul was castigating a form of religion that is that of trying to earn merit with God by keeping the Law.

He uses the analogy of marriage: A married woman is bound to her husband as long as he lives.

When her husband dies, however, she is free to get married again if she so chooses. (also 1 Cor 7:39).

Then by extension of this anological teaching, we can see that Paul is saying that Christians, having died to the Law, are now enabled/empowered and allowed to be joined to Christ (see Gal. 2:19- 20). The Christian can be delivered from slavery to the Law; and can now experience a life of freedom in Christ.

It is plain to be that this contextually is not a doctrinal statement on D&R. it is a continued teaching that Paul was conveying about the difference between the law and grace.

Do I dismiss the adultery issue that is brought up here? by no means. however, since it is clearly not a teaching about marriage and adultery, the information provided is limited as it is used in analogy for a completely different topic.

[Gerald Creasy]

Being dismissive doesn't remove or change Romans 7:3.

Romans 7:3 says that as long as the (previous) spouse lives remarriage constitutes adultery. Whatever we like or don't like about it, the long and short of it is that is what the word of God says.

There is no tradition clouding a honest reading of the passage. There is no superior attitude or evaluation of one's Christian status over another. There is simply an affirmation of what "thus saith the Lord."

My only desire is to walk in, speak, defend, and be all the more conformed to the truth.

If the whole Bible is the word of God an interpetation of a specific passage HAS to line up with the WHOLE Bible.

We can not hold to an interpretation in ONE part of the Bible that contradicts something in the OTHER part of the Bible.

Which is why I mentioned Davids multiple wives (which the Bible clearly states) and the fact that he the Bible ALSO states that he was faithful to all of Gods commandments except for the Bathsheba incident.

If your take on Romans 7:3 is absolute, then the Bible contradicts itself where it says David violated Gods commanments ONLY in the case of Bathsheba.

You can not dismiss David as being OT, because your scripture (Romans 7:3) refers to the law which David was under.

In addition, why is the "Once Married that's it" intepretation never mitigated by 1Cr 7:15? Insisting in contradiction that the believer is still bound?

[Pastor Gary]

Being dismissive doesn't remove or change Romans 7:3.

Romans 7:3 says that as long as the (previous) spouse lives remarriage constitutes adultery. Whatever we like or don't like about it, the long and short of it is that is what the word of God says.

There is no tradition clouding a honest reading of the passage. There is no superior attitude or evaluation of one's Christian status over another. There is simply an affirmation of what "thus saith the Lord."

My only desire is to walk in, speak, defend, and be all the more conformed to the truth.

Since I believe that is your desire, I will gently suggest that what you have fallen victim to is "nugget theology" -- more commonly, proof-texting. Is marriage the subject of the Book of Romans?

[Mat]

removed.

[pastorables]

Thank you, (Thread-necromancer-KelleyD and)

This is too funny! I had a nice chuckle. Thanks.

[Poimen]

Poimen wrote:

If (and I stress if) that is what the NT actually teaches then

Would you care to expound on why there is even a question in your mind about IF this is really what the NT teaches?

Sorry Sis,

I missed this earlier.

The short version for now -- based on the Greek construct of the Matthean exception clause, it's context, and the consensus of other NT scripture on divorce and remarriage, I have come to believe that the exception(s) of scripture are in regards to permitting divorce, but NOT remarriage (while one's spouse lives that is).

You will be pleased to know that is was the COGOP study on D&R that set me in this direction. It was rather clear to me, and I was surprised at the evident neglect of the content in the report that showed this to be a strong valid presentation of the subject, harmonizing all of the NT teaching on the matter.

[Poimen]

If the whole Bible is the word of God an interpetation of a specific passage HAS to line up with the WHOLE Bible.

We can not hold to an interpretation in ONE part of the Bible that contradicts something in the OTHER part of the Bible.

Which is why I mentioned Davids multiple wives (which the Bible clearly states) and the fact that he the Bible ALSO states that he was faithful to all of Gods commandments except for the Bathsheba incident.

If your take on Romans 7:3 is absolute, then the Bible contradicts itself where it says David violated Gods commanments ONLY in the case of Bathsheba.

You can not dismiss David as being OT, because your scripture (Romans 7:3) refers to the law which David was under.

In addition, why is the "Once Married that's it" intepretation never mitigated by 1Cr 7:15? Insisting in contradiction that the believer is still bound?

I understand your point. I have already said there are things I don't know the answer to. But I'm not willing to reject the clear statements of scripture in light of the yet obscure or not clearly understood. As Samuel Clemens is quoted saying "It's not what I don't know about the Bible that bothers me. It's what I do know."

Outside of that I have no desire to argue here the merit or validity of polygamy because it existed in the OT. The NT clearly teaches monogamy. That is my accepted rule of faith and practice. I will rest there.

[pastorables]

[
The short version for now -- based on the Greek construct of the Matthean exception clause, it's context, and the consensus of other NT scripture on divorce and remarriage, I have come to believe that the exception(s) of scripture are in regards to permitting divorce, but NOT remarriage (while one's spouse lives that is).

Poimen,

Entertaining this thought as the correct view, wouldn't this allow an unfaithful spouse to bring a faithful spouse into perpetual bondage? There are many examples that could be interjected here.

Thanks,
pa

[RamboPreacher]

Thank you, (Thread-necromancer-KelleyD and)

This is too funny! I had a nice chuckle. Thanks.

a couple images for just such an occasion...

or
I like this one too