• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

Answering the critics

CecilW

CecilW

Member
Real Person
Male
May I suggest pointing out that Both Jesus and Paul referred to Gen 2:24, the 2 shall become one flesh verse. And in EVERY case, the topic was the DURABILITY of marriage, NOT an EXCLUSIVITY.

Also, the 12 gates of the Holy City are named after the 12 tribes created by a four-marriage family. But "bastards" are excluded from the assembly.

The wisest man who ever lived did not see wisdom in monogamy.

And finally, I do enjoy pointing out God's dilemma when the numbers of men and women got out of balance.

Add to your list of "after the fall", living in houses, eating meat, use of wheels in any way, rainbows, boats, money, knives and tools of every sort.

And, the claim that God specifies but one wife is itself easily challenged. Offer a reward if he can provide you with chapter and verse that specifically says so.

Oh, the Bride of Christ -- I do love pointing out that the word "church" is the grammatical equivalent of flock, gaggle, herd, swarm, and harem -- a GROUP of sentient beings related by one or more characteristics.
 
Cow fam said:
We should also add metal working and instruments, thanks to that terrible polygamist Lamech.

Was there SEX in the garden? I don't see Adam "knowing" his wife/woman until later when Cain was born... in sin.... with pain during childbirth if I understand things correctly.
Click to expand...

Uh, you better watch out on this one. I have heard teaching that sex did not occur until after the fall, therefore, it's bad.
 
Advice in the reply.

I am sure you know this already, but the best thing to do is to not argue with the gentleman, but rather point out that upon your study of the Scriptures, and the conviction of the Holy Spirit, you came to a different conclusion, and leave it at that. Don't even put up a defense. There are plenty of resources online if people really want to research and study it out.

I have observed in my own experience that every time I try to 'defend' PM, it seems to marginalize the parties. It doesn't need defending, because it's the truth! My strategy now is to simply respond with, "Yes, I believe that plural marriage is acceptable to God. I am convinced of this from the Bible, and the leading of the Holy Spirit." It forces the other person to re-examine his position as to whether or not he feels the same way. Since doing this, I have had several people come back and say, "I may not agree with you, but I see why you believe that."

I think that is a good first step, and it seems to keep me from losing any more friends.

Blessing

Doc
 
DocInKorea said:
it seems to keep me from losing any more friends.
Click to expand...
A worthy outcome indeed.
 
I gotta say, ChrisM, while I like what Doc said, the man DID ask a question.

Perhaps it might be fair to respond by saying, "I've got a $1,000 offer on the table for anyone who can find chapter and verse where God puts a specific mark of approval on EITHER viewpoint as the ideal. So far as I can tell, it doesn't exist.

However, God does seem to have placed his seal of approval on quite a number of MEN who had more than one simultaneous wife, among them Abraham, Jacob, Moses, Gideon, the parents of Samuel, David, Solomon and Joash whose 2 wives were selected and presented to him by the High Priest. It even appears that God describes Himself in polygamous terms in Jeremiah 3 and Ezekiel 23.

Au contraire, there are at least some presumably monogamous marriages that went awry: Sin entered through Adam and Eve, Ahab and Jezebel are still proverbial bad-guys, and Ananias and Saphira tried unsuccessfully to lie to the Holy Ghost.

All of which doesn't necessarily prove anything. It does, however, suggest that the topic might not be as cut-n-dried as standard church teaching suggests, in which case it deserves more careful study. I have done so of late, and so far conclude that plural marriage does indeed have God's blessing.

If you'd like to discuss it further or know more of what I've found, I'm quite willing. But I am more interested in our continued friendship than in proving points against a hearer's will."

How do y'all think that might go over? DocInKorea? Seems to include elements of your response without sidestepping the fact that a question was asked...
 
I really like Cecil's reply. If he genuinely does want to find out more after that, you've already answered his questions well in you original post.

I think one issue reading between the lines might be that he doesn't place much weight on the Old Testament. He only mentioned whether there were polygamous marriages sanctioned by Christ, NOT by God. There is a chance that he won't be very interested in any argument you can make from the Old Testament, and will only be interested in the New, which does not often mention polygamy. You may need to use 2 Timothy 3:16 to remind him that the Old testament is as relevant as the New - it may be also worth pointing out that in fact this verse only refers to the Old as profitable for teaching, as at the time of writing the New had not been formulated...

It is also well worth pointing out that the Genesis verses he refers to were written by a polygamist.
 
Well answered.

Yes, God has created church authority structures. But ultimately it is He whom we must serve. The husband is the head of the home, and his wives and children must obey him. However if he commands them to do something against God, then they must disobey him and obey God instead, as the higher authority. If my boss at work tells me to do something, but my boss's boss tells me to do something different, I also must obey the higher authority there.

Some email programs do have an "unsend" option, I use Gmail for personal stuff and it has this as an optional feature, which has saved me from embarrassment a few times. With this option activated it doesn't actually send the email until 10 seconds after you tell it to send, giving you a brief window in which you can cancel. However in this case there is nothing wrong with your email.

Sometimes accidentally sending a letter can be a good thing, you can say things that need to be said but you don't have the guts to say. I heard of a soldier once who, as a way of dealing with the stress of war (WWII) wrote a letter to the girl he fancied back home every day stating exactly how he was really feeling, but then destroyed it (any letters he actually sent her were much more tame). But one day he was wounded and sent off to hospital, and his mates when cleaning up his things found that days letter and sent it for him... He ended up with a wife out of it!

It will be interesting to see whether your friend gets back to you with his insights into polygamy, and whether he is actually willing to have a frank discussion on it.
 
Cow fam said:
I realize that elders are not perfect, and do not handle things the best at times (I have made many mistakes), but they are God's authority. There have been times that I have disagreed with my elders of my commending assembly, but each time I yielded to their authority there was a great blessing. There are only two authority structures God's and Satan's so a pertinent question for you to ask presently, is which system are you under.
Click to expand...
While I don't dispute that God may have blessed this brother's heart of obedience, I can't let his basic premise stand unchallenged.

As Christians, the BIBLE is God's authority. The Holy Spirit NEVER teaches contrary to it. Anyone who does is being activated in that moment by someone other than God. eg. Peter. Jesus whipped around and directly addressed the demon using Peter's mouth! If the devil could try it right there in Jesus' presence, why would we consider ourselves immune today? (And that WAS a NT story!)

One of our main problems with Catholicism is this very issue -- the idea that any human, rather than the written Word of God, holds divine authority to which we must submit our religious beliefs.

Interestingly enough, it was also the position of the Pharisees. They taught that if the Rabbis pronounced that black was white, it was the duty of the people to accept and believe it (or something like that). Basically that their pronouncements about the Word were binding on the people, rather than the Word itself.

This is what Jesus SPECIFICALLY condemned: teaching as commandments the traditions of men. Doesn't matter WHO says so. The traditions do NOT carry divine weight!

He is our Example. When pressured to choose sin, He appealed NOT to the instructions of elders or rabbis, but directly to Scripture. We must do likewise.

Btw, Paul specifically challenged Peter and rebuked him outright for continuing to follow a tradition (segregated eating). Peter was the Elder in the situation. So there is clear NT Biblical precedent.

I'm sure that your dear brother from Kansas would agree with all of this abstractly. I'd guess that we ALL do. But perhaps it may need to be articulated if he continues to slide off track with statements such as the above.
 
There is so much here that can be said....

I hope everyone that reads this notices that Mark does not practice polygamy at all, he merely BELIEVES it.

Brother, I am sorry you are going through this. It appears that this is having a rippling effect effect all through your ministry and authority network. I know that was not your intention, but it is what it is. I have been there, and I have done that. I lived.

I believe that in response to this gentleman's letter to you, that instead of taking the low road as he suggests, that you instead take THE HIGH ROAD. Submit to authority, yes, but GOD's AUTHORITY. Walk through the process; force them to search the Scriptures for themselves and decide if this issue is worthy of disfellowship.

They are going to ask you to leave, leave no doubt about that. It's now a question of HOW you leave. Let them see your submission to the authority of God. Perhaps the Lord will have mercy on their hearts and not hold it against them.

Blessings

Doc
 
CecilW said:
One of our main problems with Catholicism is this very issue -- the idea that any human, rather than the written Word of God, holds divine authority to which we must submit our religious beliefs.

Interestingly enough, it was also the position of the Pharisees. They taught that if the Rabbis pronounced that black was white, it was the duty of the people to accept and believe it (or something like that). Basically that their pronouncements about the Word were binding on the people, rather than the Word itself.
Click to expand...

Funny thing, the Mormon church does the same thing, only to a much stronger degree. I have a story about that, but some other time...
 
Cow fam said:
this is now going national,
Click to expand...

Wonderful! Suggest that they bring their national leaders together, at the time and place of their own choosing, to hash it out Bibles in hand. One condition only: That we all agree to let God's Word form our conclusion, rather than try to make it fit our preferred outcome. Oh, second condition: Abide by decent rules of logic. If it deteriorates to "That's just your opinion, and mine is as valid as yours, and rules of logic are irrelevant", there's really nowhere to go except home.

I'll just bet that you might even find a brother or two from this fellowship willing to come stand in support of you,(backstop you when the objections fly hot, thick, and fast) or even lead the discussion, thus taking a bit of the pressure / focus off of yourself. :lol:
 
Ghandi said:

"Many people, especially ignorant people, want to punish you for speaking the truth, for being correct, for being you. Never apologize for being correct, or for being years ahead of your time. If you're right and you know it, speak your mind. Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is still the truth."
 
I will be very interested to hear how you get on with this, as I am in a leadership position in a Brethren assembly myself so your success or otherwise could be very relevant, as we will inevitably end up going through something similar eventually. I will keep you in my prayers, and if there is any way I can help otherwise (through advice or anything else) just let me know.
 
(The following is said absolutely tongue-in-cheek!)

It occurs to me that holding onto the monogamist viewpoint in the face of Scripture to the contrary is sad proof of having been infected with HINDUISM. One not only allows the sacred cows of Tradition to wander around causing havoc, but venerates them.

The Berean methodology and resulting polygamist viewpoint, au contraire, is pure Texan. Slaughter the beast and hold a barbecue :eek: :roll: :lol: !
 
Cow fam said:
Many won't even admit that the picture of Christ as Head and many members of the body (part of a larger "bride") is exemplified in a man as head of his family and one or more wives, children, etc. They have said "But there is only one head, and one body, not one head and two bodies.
Click to expand...

When pressed to identify the One Bride, however, they tend to answer "The Church". Hoist on their own petard! There are 7 churches in Revelation.

Don't like that? It's one body, the universal church? Still fine. The Greek word for "church" is the grammatical equivalent of flock, herd, gaggle, or harem. The Church is nobut The Holy Harem! Which STILL leaves one smack dab in the midst of polygamy.

*sigh* Time to BBQ the sacred cow! ;)
 
Before looking into polygamy, I had always understood "the body" which is the church, to be a sum of spiritual gifts, much as different parts of a body, such as eyes, ears, arms, legs, feet, etc. And this can also be extended to the plural family as well. Each member of a family brings certain gifts to the home that help the family to function as one healthy unit.
 
He is making a whole load of assumptions that are not biblical. Have you asked him to simply provide a reference for his statement that polygamy was a sin back when God regulated it? That's a major presumption, but something he does not realise is a presumption.

The Brethren are very willing to follow biblical teachings and learn directly from the Bible, which is extremely good. However in practice individuals are willing to follow the Bible only if it does not contradict whatever understanding of theology they grew up with, and only teaches them a better understanding of what they already believe. The man you are having this correspondence with is no different to most other Christians in this respect.

The basic concept of the Brethren is brilliant, but individual Christians are still very fallible.
 
Cow fam said:
He says that God regulated polygamy even though it was sin. That is practically blasphemy!!!!
Click to expand...
Well, you know that God guy. Poor dear Man. He's just so SHY when it comes to calling sin SIN!

Can come right out and tell you not to shave the corners of your beard as a sign of mourning for the dead like the heathen do. That one is minor and easy!

But when it comes to REAL EVIL, like having more than one wife? He just can't seem to bring Himself to actually SAY so. So He names the twelve gates of His city after the 12 sons of one man by 4 concurrent wives, and calls a man with 20+ wives 'a man after His own heart', and gives the foundational books of the Bible through a man with 2, and describes His Ownself as having 2 or 5 or 7, depending on how and when and where you count.

Calling evil EVIL? It's a tough job, but someone has to do it. And if God isn't up to the task? Well, thankfully there's always a Religionist around to do it FOR Him! Thank goodness! Where WOULD we be without them? *dramatic Irish sigh* :ugeek:

(CowFam? FollowingHim? Did you REALLY expect different? :? )
 
Mr. Froggie and one of our sons and I went out to dinner at our favorite Chinese buffet this evening. My fortune cookie read: "Time is precious, but the truth is more precious than time."

I thought of you, ChrisM, when I read that, and your situation about how you will not renounce the truth, and how some people seem to be really sucking up your precious time trying to get you to do so.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top