• 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.

Just read an article by TGC

Matthew posts here as jacobhaivri.
 
Update:
The link now has over 30 comments. I won't paste the rest of mine, but encourage you to check it out.

There is one guy trying to put up a fight. He seems to be pulling out all the typical arguments, and is easily refuted.

I'm trying to be deferential to him as he is being overwhelmed by having to own up to his insufficient arguments. I'm answering his points, but then giving him more to think about. He seems to be a congenial chap. I think he is really thinking this through, and may be in a bit of self-doubt mode.

I'm not trying to "win". I just want to show the bias he doesn't realize he has.

Feedback is appreciated.
 
Mojo,
I liked the "Blessings my brother.". I think it helps defuse any overt hostility that might spring up in a lively debate, among those who should be fighting shoulder to shoulder not face to face.
 
I received this response from one of the posters.

I truly appeciate your arguments here for their interesting content, but even more for the Berean attitude you have conveyed throughout. I have learned from you.
Regarding Eden as a standard, I think more than Eve would be expected to be given to Adam had polygyny been the Lord's plan. All the other examples you used to discount my line of reasoning are subjects that other didactic passages speak directly about to give us our current understanding, but nowhere is polygyny affirmed, it is merely noted in the relevant narratives. Thus the Edenic state of monogamous heterosexual marriage is not revised by any didactic passage.
Further I think your interpretations of the above passages that in my opinion are decisively against polygyny are based not on what the terms do mean interpreted in their immediate and broader Biblical contexts, but on whether they could possibly mean what you suggest they mean. You have opened my understanding of this line of reasoning however and I thank you for that.
Lastly, if the scriptures mean what I think they do, then clearly my view is not eisegesis based on a Roman Catholic import. My perception is that your position requires you to regard what to me is clearly scriptural as alien to the Bible and so a convenient scapegoat is the Catholics. I think the Roman church was generally applying the clear teaching of scripture in this case, though the peculiarities of their priesthood standards are a distortion.
 
andrew said:
Engagement is a win! And kudos for earning this guy's respect.
Click to expand...
Thanks!:)

Here was my reply:

It was my pleasure. I don't expect one set of comments from an article on the Internet to change your viewpoints. I can merely hope to broaden your perspective. There are serious, committed, sola scriptura type believers who believe as I do. In fact, the majority of us tend to be even more "conservative" biblically than the average evangelical. We hold to an old school mentality of patriarchy that is fast becoming extinct in modern churches.

In regards to the Edenic narrative, we may be misunderstanding each other. The fact that nudism, vegetarianism, etc. are not biblical mandates is that the unfolding of scripture proves them to be realities prior to the Fall. Your viewpoint of monogamy holds true only in a perfect state. The Fall initiated changes to these "ideals". Just because things happened first, doesn't make them the ideal.

Even if polygyny is not affirmed ( I believe it is) in scripture, as you say it isn't, can you find specific, unambiguous language where it is deemed sin? It may not be ideal, but can you point your finger in righteous condemnation of a fellow brother in Christ who is a polygynists and rebuke him? You say the evidence is decisive. Thou shalt not take more than one wife is found where?

I will leave you with one last thought:
If there is no law against it, does Grace become more restrictive than The Law?

Peace my Brother
 
Well, let's look at the supposed "Edenic ideal" for just a moment. Imagine the opposite were true: imagine Adam had been given 14 wives. Would it then be argued that a man with only one wife weren't living up to God's ideal? Even suppose you had as many as 13, you were still falling short of His glory.

On the other hand: What about those whom Paul talks about being called to celibacy? Are they to be cast in the same boat as Polygamists as not living up to the supppsed Edenic pattern of marriage in the Bible? Or, if they do not sin for taking less wives, could it be that others do not sin by taking up the slack, as it were, by taking more wives?
 
jacobhaivri said:
Well, let's look at the supposed "Edenic ideal" for just a moment. Imagine the opposite were true: imagine Adam had been given 14 wives. Would it then be argued that a man with only one wife weren't living up to God's ideal? Even suppose you had as many as 13, you were still falling short of His glory.

On the other hand: What about those whom Paul talks about being called to celibacy? Are they to be cast in the same boat as Polygamists as not living up to the supppsed Edenic pattern of marriage in the Bible? Or, if they do not sin for taking less wives, could it be that others do not sin by taking up the slack, as it were, by taking more wives?
Click to expand...
I pointed that out in the post he was responding to. I showed the logical fallacy by showing that Adam and Eve were married, so the ideal must be that all must be married...obviously not biblical.

At least he admitted to having his mind opened.
 
Other comparisons beyond just nudism and possible vegetarianism, is that Eve was all but certainly of the same race as Adam (having been taken from him), and only a day or so younger. One could therefore observe something about inter-racial marriage and also age gap relationships ("age gap" being something greater than, what, maybe 2 days (younger))? I mention these things just for the sake of argumentation. I see nothing in the bible addressing (forbidding) inter-racial marriage, or "age gap" relationships, and therefore I have no problem with these either. The inter-racial marriage point might be another argument with just the right shock value to get the gears turning to question the Edenic Ideal argument.
 
The thing about the "Edenic pattern" is not that you can find a pattern. Just because you see something as a pattern does not make it binding. It could just as well be confirmational bias due to culture. It is only a binding pattern if God says it is a binding pattern and nowhere does God say monogamy is a binding pattern.

Presumably, the patriarchs were familiar with the story and did not see any kind of monogamy binding pattern. Even the author of Genesis Moses himself did not see it as a binding pattern when he took a second wife. In fact the Jews as a whole did not see it as a binding pattern and only gave up polygamy due to the edict of Rabbi Gershom in 1000AD.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gershom_ben_Judah

Having said the above, there IS a pattern in the Eden story. It is not monogamy. It is patriarchy. You do not have to guess. It is evident in the story where Adam is created first, Adam names the animals, Eve is created from Adam, etc. Sin came to the world through Adam, not Eve, although clearly Eve was first to sin (Romans 5:12).

Both monogamy and polygamy can fit the "Edenic pattern" of patriarchy. Marriages, even by Christians, who do not subscribe to patriarchy, but rather are "equal partners" or something similar, do not fit the "Edenic pattern". In godly marriage, man has the responsibility and the authority, whether one wife, or several wives.
 
cnystrom said:
The thing about the "Edenic pattern" is not that you can find a pattern. Just because you see something as a pattern does not make it binding. It could just as well be confirmational bias due to culture. It is only a binding pattern if God says it is a binding pattern and nowhere does God say monogamy is a binding pattern.

Presumably, the patriarchs were familiar with the story and did not see any kind of monogamy binding pattern. Even the author of Genesis Moses himself did not see it as a binding pattern when he took a second wife. In fact the Jews as a whole did not see it as a binding pattern and only gave up polygamy due to the edict of Rabbi Gershom in 1000AD.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gershom_ben_Judah

Having said the above, there IS a pattern in the Eden story. It is not monogamy. It is patriarchy. You do not have to guess. It is evident in the story where Adam is created first, Adam names the animals, Eve is created from Adam, etc. Sin came to the world through Adam, not Eve, although clearly Eve was first to sin (Romans 5:12).

Both monogamy and polygamy can fit the "Edenic pattern" of patriarchy. Marriages, even by Christians, who do not subscribe to patriarchy, but rather are "equal partners" or something similar, do not fit the "Edenic pattern". In godly marriage, man has the responsibility and the authority, whether one wife, or several wives.
Click to expand...
Here here! Nice!
 
cnystrom said:
Having said the above, there IS a pattern in the Eden story. It is not monogamy. It is patriarchy. You do not have to guess. It is evident in the story where Adam is created first, Adam names the animals, Eve is created from Adam, etc. Sin came to the world through Adam, not Eve, although clearly Eve was first to sin (Romans 5:12).
Click to expand...

This is really a pretty powerful way to diffuse the whole “monogamy pattern” or “rule of first mention” argument on this. It’s common sense, and a statement I think most of us are familiar with, but I never thought of it in the same way as I did when I read your post. Thanks for bringing it up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top