Christian Marriage

[Doc]

About two years back (has it really been THAT long?) I came across a brother in the Lord named Don Milton, who has a web-site regarding plural marriage that you really should check out:

http://www.christianmarriage.com

He really is a wonderful person, and knows the Word. The site is full of useful information, though I have noticed that lately he hasn't been updating it as much.

He has actually written a novel (!) about plural marriage, and you can download it from his site as well.

Blessings,

Doc

 

[Anonymous]

Most of my ministry is tied up in correspondence with those I counsel with scripture and the books I am working on. If the topics we discuss are to ever make the mainstream they must be published in print in mass quantities.

I have, in fact been updating my site as I add to existing articles. When the books I am working on are published I can update it more. The lack of a new article does not mean there have been no changes or additions to the articles.

An update to an exisiting article that you might enjoy reading concerns 1 Timothy 3:2 and Titus 1:6 where I prove that those verses are not prohibiting anything, they are giving an exemption to men who do not fall under the definition of "husband of one wife" and that "husband of one wife" specifies a man with less than three children in Rome, less than five children in the province, and less than seven children in the remote areas of the empire. Repeat, 1 Timothy 3:2 and Titus 1:6 are exemptions, not prohibitions.

You can read the article here:

http://www.christianmarriage.com/home/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=50

Scroll down to the new section of that article which begins: "But finally, a discovery concerning the expression - Husband of One Wife" is new and completely unique to any explanation ever given.

Pastor Don Milton
Sorry, I do not respond to posts as I prefer email.
http://www.ChristianMarriage.com

 

[DaPastor]

Hello Brother Milton,

I perused the article and find it interesting. I will go back and read it more thoroughly when I get back home. My concern is that I can't recall any direct linkage from your proof to the passage in question (I may have missed it), which would place the thesis in the category of speculation. On a personal level, I am hoping you are right, but I need to be intellectually honest and study this issue out further.

Thanks for the link,