Overcoming Objections To Plural Marriage: Topic 1

[sweetlissa]

If celibacy is the best why were we told to "populate the earth?" And if everyone was celibate that couldn't happen. Therefore there must be different callings,not ranked.

Paul said that some were called to celibacy. He didn't say that everyone is called to celibacy.

SweetLissa

 

[Erskine Childers]

Dr. Allen - I hope that you had a pleasant holiday. Are you still interested in discussing this?

 

[DiscussingTheTopic]

When God created mankind, He did not create humanity en masse, rather, He created one male and one female, and from this He commanded they be fruitful and multiply. God solemnized this union (Genesis 1:27, 2:22). This union was monogamous. Since this was the first marriage, it was the measuring rod for all future marriages. Therefore, polygyny is a lower form of marriage than monogamy, and not the ideal.

Responses?

It is never said in Genesis 1-2 or any other passage quoting Genesis 1-2 to my knowledge that men are forbidden more than one wife,

so anyone who makes this argument based on Genesis 1-2, is imagining that Genesis 1-2 has extra text that is not there.

Making this argument is like drawing a missing link between humans and another type of primate from a pig's tooth.

 

[sicouple]

this thread had been fun to say the least! I want to thank everyone for putting so much time into trying to explain your position on the discussion. I know when the conversation is this deep not everyone will agree on everything but its refreshing to see people who actually have a reason for believing their point of view instead of just resiting something someone else said.

I understand what both sides are saying and both have good points.. I guess after reading the debate I realized I agree a lot with both and that does kind of create a contradiction, I am exited to work through that in finding the truth and I believe the point of view here from all of you will aid me in doing that.

One question I have for Erskine Childers is this.. I understand what your saying because I am of the belief Adam and Eve's fall from the Garden was a sexual act. This of course means I believe Adam was created at a different time then the men created on the 6th day. I know that is a debate all in itself and I don't want to derail the threat away from the OP so I will leave that for another thread. The very fact God created Adam alone at first suggests His original plan for Adam in the purest of state was for him to be celibate. God then seen Adam was alone and it was not Good, was that because of a fault in Adam? regardless, God said it wasn't good but if it wasn't good because of a weakness in Adam then it could be said God was reacting and adapting to in a sense make the best of the situation and it would simply mean Creating Eve was better then Adam feeling alone. It would not necessarily mean God felt It was a higher calling for Adam to have a helpmate just that because of Adams need it was better for Adam to have a helpmate then to feel alone and the creation of Eve solved the problem Adam had so it was good..

But that takes us to the very question at the heart of pretty much everything. Was it Gods plan for Adam to have that need? Was it Gods plan all along for Adam and Eve to fall as they did and create life as we know it in pre-fall?.. For him to be God he has to maintain control and be in control. He created Adam and put in him everything he wanted him to have so if that wasn't his plan then where did Adam get the fault that led to the creation of Eve and the eventual fall of man?

 

[tphoover]

and play video games well into their thirties?

Hey wait a minute. I'm 36 and still play video game. Oh, well. Atleast the other stuff doesn't apply to me. lol

 

[CecilW]

The very fact God created Adam alone at first suggests His original plan for Adam in the purest of state was for him to be celibate. God then seen Adam was alone and it was not Good, was that because of a fault in Adam?

Once again, my friend, this is the danger of drawing too many conclusions from the simple fact of a beginning. It is a valid POSSIBLE conclusion, but not the only one.

Philosophically, it remains equally valid to argue from the text to this point that you have to begin somewhere, with a first step; and that Adam's creation was simply that -- a first step.

Thankfully, God did not leave us with nothing more than that first step to go on. He gave us the whole of scripture by which to judge His thinking in the creation story. I respectfully suggest to both you and Erskine that, based solely upon Scripture, and not upon the traditions or opinions of man, the latter viewpoint prevails, along with the idea that the reason God created Adam alone at first was simply to instill within him, as one of his very first lessons in living, that he was NOT complete alone! (Which, btw, kinda diminishes the value of celibacy!)

 

[steve]

The very fact God created Adam alone at first suggests His original plan for Adam in the purest of state was for him to be celibate

what a great response to the "law of first mention" :!:

 

[DiscussingTheTopic]

The very fact God created Adam alone at first suggests His original plan for Adam in the purest of state was for him to be celibate

what a great response to the "law of first mention" :!:

I guess the deacons were supposed to be in a life of sin, by being married to one wife instead of zero. (this shows that using such logic results in the Bible being self-contradictory and that either that method of interpreting the Bible is self-contradictory or such methods should be abandoned. I suggest that the problem lies not in the Bible but in the method of interpretation.)

 

[sicouple]

The very fact God created Adam alone at first suggests His original plan for Adam in the purest of state was for him to be celibate. God then seen Adam was alone and it was not Good, was that because of a fault in Adam?

Once again, my friend, this is the danger of drawing too many conclusions from the simple fact of a beginning. It is a valid POSSIBLE conclusion, but not the only one.

Philosophically, it remains equally valid to argue from the text to this point that you have to begin somewhere, with a first step; and that Adam's creation was simply that -- a first step.

Thankfully, God did not leave us with nothing more than that first step to go on. He gave us the whole of scripture by which to judge His thinking in the creation story. I respectfully suggest to both you and Erskine that, based solely upon Scripture, and not upon the traditions or opinions of man, the latter viewpoint prevails, along with the idea that the reason God created Adam alone at first was simply to instill within him, as one of his very first lessons in living, that he was NOT complete alone! (Which, btw, kinda diminishes the value of celibacy!)

I don't disagree with anything you said.. I never said I thought it was by fault of Adam there was a need for Eve.. I think for the most part both sides of this debate is using the same logic to get their conclusions.. Both are going off a + = more and a - = less. I think we all agree Adam was created alone..that is 1. That either equals the highest mark that one can hit or the lowest.. Erskine seems to believe that was the highest. Beings that is the case then the addition of 1 more would actually be a -.. with that thinking then adding another would be - 2 and so one.. If we come from a stance that 1 is the low mark so to speak and the addition of 1 was a "blessing" then the addition of another would be another blessing and so on. That would mean that having 3 wives or receiving 3 blessing would be a higher calling then 2 and 2 higher then 1 and so on.

So my question was simply if the creation of Eve was because of a fault in Adam or a blessing from God to Adam?. If Eve was a gift from God then receiving 2 gifts from God would mean God has given you more because he felt for whatever reason that you deserved it and therefore that would suggest 2 is better then 1. It seems to me if we believe it was because Adam had a fault then that would make Eve the product of that fault and therefore her very existence would be because of a - in Adam..

I have a hard time believing that. My wife is a blessing to me and the 2 of us can serve in ways I couldn't alone.. Sure I could be good without her but I can be better with her so to me she is a plus (+) not a negative (-)

 

[sicouple]

Continuing that thought ...

However it could be pointed out.. If it truly was because of a fault in Adam, then me sharing the same fault, I would think I was better with her because I need her. And that being the case, my statement would still be correct because of my need for her I would in fact be better with her then without. So me feeling as if she is a blessing to me would not disprove the need we men have for a helpmate is a fault of ours.. just sayin'

 

[sicouple]

The very fact God created Adam alone at first suggests His original plan for Adam in the purest of state was for him to be celibate

what a great response to the "law of first mention" :!:

I guess the deacons were supposed to be in a life of sin, by being married to one wife instead of zero. (this shows that using such logic results in the Bible being self-contradictory and that either that method of interpreting the Bible is self-contradictory or such methods should be abandoned. I suggest that the problem lies not in the Bible but in the method of interpretation.)

regardless it would not be a sin for Adam to get with Eve lol.. So there would be no life of sin for a deacon being married, so no such contradictory would exist. If we stay in context of the OP I think there would be less confusion. This thread is about what you would respond to someone that believes having one wife is a higher calling then 2. Not rather it was a sin.. Erskine said plainly that he didn't believe it was a sin.

Paul did say he felt a man could better serve God if he wasn't married. but that was his calling so how could he possible see it any other way? The context in which you use that verse would suggest that you feel Paul was actually saying 1 wife is a higher calling then 2. I'm not denying Paul said it but it was more of a suggestion based on common sense and not something that was a commandment.. If it were to be taken as literally as the context you used it in then it would also have to be believed a Deacon "must" have a wife.

 

[sicouple]

The very fact God created Adam alone at first suggests His original plan for Adam in the purest of state was for him to be celibate

what a great response to the "law of first mention" :!:

did you not catch "suggests" when you first read my post?

 

[steve]

The very fact God created Adam alone at first suggests His original plan for Adam in the purest of state was for him to be celibate

what a great response to the "law of first mention" :!:

did you not catch "suggests" when you first read my post?

i am sorry if my comment was too cryptic to fully convey my meaning, i have a tendancy to be that way at times.
i took the statement out of your context and made the positive comment about how it could be used to counter one of the main arguments against polygeny.

i hope that my meaning has been a little bit better conveyed.

 

[sicouple]

i am sorry if my comment was too cryptic to fully convey my meaning, i have a tendancy to be that way at times.
i took the statement out of your context and made the positive comment about how it could be used to counter one of the main arguments against polygeny.

i hope that my meaning has been a little bit better conveyed.

I am sorry I was the one who misunderstood your comment. I took it for sarcasm aimed at me because of what I said.. The reason I said suggests is because that was the logic being used in support of PM being a lesser calling.

This is a great example of why the Sunday "Christians" are so easily led astray.. The truth is I don't know enough about you yet to truly understand what your saying. Nor do I fully understand your motives for saying what you do. Without knowing that its easy to misunderstand. When we hear something wrote or said by someone else that we have no history with, we compare it to what we know about the words used but not just that, we try to find understanding by how we personally use the words.

For instance, if you know for a fact I am pro PM then everything you read of what I write from here on out will be with that knowledge. When I say something that is not fully understood and it hinges on that subject, your knowledge of that fact will help you better understand my motives and that will bring greater understanding and communication between the two of us.

The greatest accomplishment of the faults teaches was in convincing people the first covenant/testament is "old" and not important. Without truly studding it, people lose out on all the knowledge of who the Father is. So when they read something Paul wrote about the Fathers laws their understanding of that is based on what they have been told or heard others say. In specific regards to PM, they have been told it was wrong and they hold that as fact. Therefore when Paul or anyone else wrote something that pertains to PM, they read it with the wrong understanding because their reading it thinking Paul is against PM. People don't even seem to care rather or not the Father was against PM. Shouldn't that be the bases of all belief in the Gospel? If God never once said it was wrong or unfair, how is it possible for his servants to be coming from a stance of it being wrong? They couldn't be unless they were no longer serving Gods will but instead serving their will. No longer giving Gods message but instead giving their message.

The most relevant question we should ask those who say PM is wrong is if they think God agrees with them that it is wrong. If the judge of us all is not going to judge someone negatively for doing something, then where does anyone get off judging it wrong? Do they really feel we can sin against them?

 

[CecilW]

I think for the most part both sides of this debate are using the same logic to get their conclusions. Both are going off a + = more and a - = less.

I think we all agree Adam was created alone -- that is 1. That either equals the highest mark that one can hit or the lowest.

Erskine seems to believe that was the highest. Since that is the case then the addition of 1 more would actually be a - (a negative). With that thinking then adding another would be - 2 and so on.

If we come from a stance that 1 is the low mark so to speak and the addition of 1 was a "blessing" then the addition of another would be another blessing and so on. That would mean that having 3 wives or receiving 3 blessing would be a higher calling then 2 and 2 higher then 1 and so on.

So my question is simply "Was the creation of Eve was because of a fault in Adam or a blessing from God to Adam?" If Eve was a gift from God then receiving 2 gifts from God would mean God has given you more (blessing) ... and therefore that would suggest 2 is better then 1. It seems to me if we believe it was because Adam had a fault then that would make Eve the product of that fault and therefore her very existence would be because of a - in Adam.

It occurs to me that we actually have a definitive answer to this question in Proverbs 18:22, "He who finds a wife finds a good thing, and obtains favor (a blessing, a +1) from the Lord."

It would follow that 1 was the low mark. A wife was a +1, and there is no Biblical justification to denying that a second (or any subsequent) wife would also be a +1.

 

[DiscussingTheTopic]

Their assumption we should only do like Adam and Eve.

Result of their assumption

No one is allowed to marry anyone other than Adam or Eve.

 

[captainjonathan]

Don't we have more proof. After David sinned with Bathsheba (ever ponder the humor that she was seen while bathing and her name start with BATH) 2 Samuel 12:11-12 God says that He gave David all of his wives and that if it wasn't enough He would have given him more. Um last time I checked "gifts" from God are a good thing and not sinful right?

 

[FollowingHim]

No, God said he gave David his master's wives, not all his wives.

 

[BobZupp]

There are some really thoughtful and witty comments here.

I like the one (elsewhere in the forum) that Adam and Eve were created naked and so, maybe, we should practice nude gardening. I can see that one taking off at Westminster Cathedral (in summer, at least).

Further to the comment above:

(by Shimon » 12:33pm - Sat, 15 May 2010
“I've always figured after the expulsion from the Garden of Eden God created other humans for Adam’s and Eve's sons to "breed" with”).

It seems quite logical to me, at least.

In Gen. 6 we read that ‘in those days, the sons of God loved the daughters of men’. The ‘those days’ is not specifically bracketed, so could be anywhere in the ancient past.

It is logical that Adam and Eve had a bunch of children, then, within their lifetime, the ‘sons of God’ (angels?) interbred with Adam and Eve's daughters. After the third generation of this defused genetics, humans could ‘legally’ breed with humans. Because they lived for centuries, Adam's and Eve's sons could breed with their great-grand nieces, all quite 'legally', in accordance with the later recorded specifics of what is an acceptable relationship.

God has worked it all out quite well, really.

Humans foul it up when we think we know better.

 

[NetWatchR]

In Gen. 6 we read that ‘in those days, the sons of God loved the daughters of men’. The ‘those days’ is not specifically bracketed, so could be anywhere in the ancient past.

It is logical that Adam and Eve had a bunch of children, then, within their lifetime, the ‘sons of God’ (angels?) interbred with Adam and Eve's daughters. After the third generation of this defused genetics, humans could ‘legally’ breed with humans. Because they lived for centuries, Adam's and Eve's sons could breed with their great-grand nieces, all quite 'legally', in accordance with the later recorded specifics of what is an acceptable relationship.

You're closer than you may realize. Someone who knows the details can expand on this but here it is in a nutshell. The original word(s) for Sons of God can refer to Angels, Specifically the Fallen Ones. These are the 1/3 that fell with Lucifer. So what you have here are superhuman spawns of Fallen Angels and humans where a lot of the Mythology of gods, goddesses and heroes originate.

Here is a link to Chuck Missler's piece on Genesis 6.