Christian Forums

Terry, great post, totally agree with you on that.

[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--][!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]Quote (terry @ May 28 2002,4:49)
I know of a man who was married less than one year to a woman who decided that moving across the country and fulfilling career dreams was more important than her marriage. Neither one were Christians at the time of this marriage. Years later he remarries and has three children with the new wife. After the birth of the third baby he and his wife get saved while participating in VBS at a church in their neighborhood. The former wife never comes to know Christ. Here you have two committed Christian parents and a non-Christian former wife. I just don't see how this man leaving his family to go across the country to return to the non-believing first wife would fullfill Jesus perfect law of love. In fact, this family is now led by a very Godly man who raises his family with the help of prayer. Never has he received guidance from the Holy Spirit to leave his family to fullfill some technical requirement.
terry[/quote]

terry,

I would put forth that the scriptures show that he must at least leave the marital relationship he is in.  It does not necisitate him hunting down the first wife.  According to 1Cor 7:11 he has an option to remain unmarried.  In this manner, he can teach his children that his love for God motivates him to obey even at the cost of his own "happiness".  He can still lead his children through prayer and obedience. If his wife is also a christian, she can also teach the children the same thing by choosing to not be in a adulterous relationship.  The complexities should not be what determines our actions, but the truth of the scriptures.  Jesus said that he who marries someone who is divorced commits adultery.  Our emotions complicate things.  And Jesus said he came to divide, and that households may be divided Matt 10:34-36.  
[/quote]

Paul tells us in I Cor 7:

20 Each one should remain in the situation which he was in when God called him.

26b I think that it is good for you to remain as you are. 27 Are you married? Do not seek a divorce. Are you unmarried? Do not look for a wife. 28a But if you do marry, you have not sinned;

Remain in that marital situation. This is God's plan, not some undoing to make things right.  We are new creatures, old things have passed, all things have become new.

In Him,

Jonesy

Very well said Terry. We think we're supposed to figure everything out when God is living within us and teaching us IN relationship to Him.

seekr

[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote (Arkstfan @ May 31 2002,5:26)[/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--][!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]As to Rubel Shelly's link, I have read many of his sermons and articles on MDR (and instrumental music).  I believe he is speaking to itching ears, because he condones the very things he believes to be sinful (IM for one).  [/quote]
No he does NOT say IM is sinful and then condones it. He says it is a matter of preference and prefers acapella.[/quote]
Quoting from his sermon What Makes Us Who We Are (5 of 7)
A cappella Music   July 11,1999


"The family of God at Woodmont Hills is committed to preserving an exclusively a cappella musical style in our corportate worship.  It has been and will continue to be our policy to have unaccompanied psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs for our regular Sunday and Wednesday assemblies, revivals, and the like.  We seek nothing more nor less than to follow this biblical exhortation: 'Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly as you teach and admonish one another with all wisdom, and as you sing psalms, hymns and spiritual songs withs gratitude in your hearts to God.' (Col. 3:16; cf. Eph 5:19)."

Earlier in the same sermon.  "How strong is my personal preference for a cappella over instrumental music? I am deeply committed to it.  I do my best to make a strong, reasonable, biblical case for it. I would oppose anyone's effort to introduce it into our congregational worship.  In my view, it would be divisive and therefore wrong for anyone to attempt to do so."

" I am an unabashed defender of our a cappella legacy. But when someone wants me to go further and to condemn to hell someone who doesn't agree with my view, I have no interest in pursuing the discussion. Instrumental music and the atonement are not of the same status or consequence to the human soul and its eternal welfare."

"Likely there should be a non-instrumental tradition within modern Christendom.  I believe the Church of Christ is the best candidate for it. While I would happily be known for helping preserve that tradition, I refuse to be identified as one who makes this issue a criterion for who should be considered my sister or brother in Christ."

The paragraph I typed first comes close after the last one I typed. I just didn't move them around, cause I'm lazy :).

He says he believes a cappella music to be what the scriptures teaches.  He says he would oppose anyone introducing it into the congregation where he attends.  But he will not condemn someone for believing the practice ok.  That is talking out of both sides of  his mouth to me.  It's wrong for him, and he goes to the bible to teach that, but he won't tell anyone that the bible doesn't teach the other.  

How does he (or anyone) determine that instrumental music is not of the same status as the atonement?  If the manner in which we worship is a work we ought to do, and we do it differently than scripture defines (and he defines) then that is not a work of faith, it is a work of unrighteousness.

I know you guys don't want to get into the IM discussion again here. I know you all have a thread already going on it elsewhere on the site.  I just put this here to clarify the statements I made.

Terry,

I did not read the link you mentioned.  I read sermons of his before, I do not know if they were the same one you mentioned.  As I said, when it really gets down to it, I don't want to discuss what Mr Shelly thinks.  But what the scriptures say.

Angi

[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote (terry @ June 02 2002,7:33)[/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--][!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]Terry,

In the top right hand corner of each post there is a "quote" button.  If you click on that it takes you a screen where you can type your response in the top box and edit the quote as needed in the bottom box.


I do remember the comment by Jonesy.  And I have considered what he said.  I considered the possibility of my misunderstanding enough to look the word up again so I could read what he had read and shown.  I posted after that the full definition of the word for "unmarried" or loosed in that verse.  It can mean any of those possibilities.  And for scripture to meet scripture (Matt 5:32 for instance) it must mean someone who hasn't been married before.   But I will continue to study it.  

As to the 1Tim thing,  as I've said I have to study the polygamus idea.  I never even thought of polygamy in that context.  I do have some ideas about it (of course) but I need to meditate on them some first.

Angi[/quote]
Angi,
I think I've got the quote thing down. Thanks for pointing that out. I also appreciate your willingness to discuss this topic. I am planning to study the polygamy thing further as well. I've already looked into the secular history of this but the information is really biased either in favor of polygamy or the Catholic church denying that it existed in any place they have ever been. Yikes :0 One researcher talked about the difficulty with all the mystique around this issue. I did find out that polygamy was banned in the Roman Empire.  However, it was practiced by some Jews and Asian countries at the time the Church was established. Some say that it was considered a sin to ask a man to break a covenant to anyone of these wives but that polygamy quickly died out as the church became established. 1Tim is requiring that only monogomous men aspire to the eldership. I just want to know who else there would be? I can't believe that remarried widowers would be placed in the same "need not apply" category as those who were greedy, boastful etc...Also, if the death of a spouse releases one from the law of marriage, than why upon remarriage would he be considered to be the husband to more than one wife. Why not just call him married? I will agree that it is possible that this is referring to divorced and remarried men. But if this is the case than we have to consider the fact that God must forgive adultery because these people were not cast out of the church for such. It is alot to think about. I really don't have the answers. Just alot of questions. I know I'm rambling now. Look forward to your response.
terry[/quote]
Terry,

Glad you found the quote button!  It took me awhile to figure out.  I hadn't seen your last post when I wrote my last one, so I'll respond real quick.  I want you to know that I do not believe being an adulterous relationship automatically means you must be withdrawn from.  There is a lot of attitude involved, and I believe that if someone never even thought about it before, then they don't fall into the sinning willfully category.  But I do believe that study would need to be done.  With brethren, on their own, a true desire by all to determine what to do.  If they have an attitude of I don't care one way or the other, then withdrawing from them may be something to act upon.  I don't believe that people in this situation are not added to the Lord's church by God.  That's His job, I do believe it would be wise of elders to study with a couple first before considering them members of a local group. But that's circumstances.  Obviously the churches in the NT had many members who had many problems. Look at the churches in Revelation 2 and 3. One of them was in danger of having their lampstand removed by Christ if they did not repent of their sin.  But these were still His church.  The only thing I have ever put forth in my belief on MDR is that there is sin to be repented of.  Not that the having of this sin at the time of your conversion keeps you from being in the fold.  Everyone grows at different rates, is accountable for the milk first, then when they have grown accustomed to the meat, they will be held accountable for the deeper things.  Please do not misunderstand me to say that someone can never be a christian because they may be an adulterer.  Then none of us could be because you may be a liar, I may insubmissive, he may be contentious, etc etc.  I apologize if I ever gave the impression that you could not be in the flock while dealing with sins as you realize them.  And I hope I made sense.  My allergies are giving me a blazing headache.  I'm off to put my family to bed. And I will continue to study on the polygamy thing - one thing I did notice tonight though, Hagar is never referred to as Abram's wife.  It says that Sarai gave Hagar to her husband to be his wife, and she conceived.  But Abram refers to Hagar as Sarai's handmaiden after that, when God talks to Hagar He calls her Sarai's maid, and the NT refers to Hagar as a bondwoman.  I don't know if it makes a difference.  That's as far as I got.

In Him,
Angi

Marc,
Thanks for your response. I've had time to think on my own question and the old law vs. new covenant concept is making more sense to me on the issue of remarriage. I think the problem that many have in all churches is that we have a tendency to mix old law (or at least part of it) with grace. We see atonement and sacrifice being made in the OT and think we must do the same while forgetting that Jesus is the final sacrifice (sin offering). I do think that the answer to this is to look at the situation within the two commandments that Jesus gave. Love God and love your neighbor. Adultery is breaking both of these commandments, but so would be the breaking up of another family to try to make atonement for the sin. Also, breaking up families just isn't consistent with the examples that Jesus set.
Thanks for your reply,
terry

MG,
One other thing. You might want to read a little further in James about mercy. Mercy triumphs over judgement. Also, God forgives those who seek his forgiveness.
k

the bible says concerning divorce... The proper word used in Rom 7:2 could be translated "bound of law