-
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.
CONTEXTile Mill-ing Around
- Thread starter Keith Martin
- Start date
More chicken-and-egg thoughts:
We know that sex is really important and shouldn't be experienced outside a lifelong commitment, therefore, we have to figure out whether we're really committed before we do it. So there's this process of getting to know each other, negotiating, and solemnizing the 'deal' before we start taking our clothes off, so when we do finally get to do the deed, we can do it with a clear conscience and some confidence that we are each really committed to each other, in the eyes of God and our community and everybody. But if the deed never gets done, something has gone wrong—hence laws regarding annulment.
In the same way, we could start with the sex and then work out the solemnities (the 'evidence of intent') after, but there's a risk there that someone's going to change their mind, or 'remember differently' what 'the deal' was, so generally, the solemnities come first (pun intended), then the deed. But it doesn't have to happen that way and both aspects are generally expected to be taken care of for everyone in the room to agree that a marriage has in fact taken place.
We know that sex is really important and shouldn't be experienced outside a lifelong commitment, therefore, we have to figure out whether we're really committed before we do it. So there's this process of getting to know each other, negotiating, and solemnizing the 'deal' before we start taking our clothes off, so when we do finally get to do the deed, we can do it with a clear conscience and some confidence that we are each really committed to each other, in the eyes of God and our community and everybody. But if the deed never gets done, something has gone wrong—hence laws regarding annulment.
In the same way, we could start with the sex and then work out the solemnities (the 'evidence of intent') after, but there's a risk there that someone's going to change their mind, or 'remember differently' what 'the deal' was, so generally, the solemnities come first (pun intended), then the deed. But it doesn't have to happen that way and both aspects are generally expected to be taken care of for everyone in the room to agree that a marriage has in fact taken place.
Last thought. Maybe.
My inner lawyer wants to contribute the following: The contract is evidence of the agreement; the actual agreement is the 'meeting of the minds' itself. The paper (or oral oath) is just a record to be sure the minds really met and to remind ourselves later what we agreed to when our memories get foggy (sometimes conveniently so).
In the Anglo tradition, at least, we have the 'handshake deal'. Two honorable guys 'shake on it', and they are willing to take each other's word of honor that the deal is done and the elements of the deal will be performed. Even then, though, if the other guy welches on the deal, and you're going to have to appeal to a judge for redress, you're going to wish you had a piece of paper signed by the other party, or at least some third-party witnesses—preferably both! The more formal the better when you need evidence, and the more important and valuable the deal, the more you are likely to need it later.
And what's more important and valuable than the foundation of society and civilization, the family? Same fashion: Sex is and should be a reliable indicator that two people intend to spend the rest of their lives together. Except when it's not. In an honorable culture, the fact of sexual congress (as with the handshake) would be taken as proof of general intent, but it wouldn't help with the particulars of the deal, and in a dishonorable culture, it's no help at all.
My inner lawyer wants to contribute the following: The contract is evidence of the agreement; the actual agreement is the 'meeting of the minds' itself. The paper (or oral oath) is just a record to be sure the minds really met and to remind ourselves later what we agreed to when our memories get foggy (sometimes conveniently so).
In the Anglo tradition, at least, we have the 'handshake deal'. Two honorable guys 'shake on it', and they are willing to take each other's word of honor that the deal is done and the elements of the deal will be performed. Even then, though, if the other guy welches on the deal, and you're going to have to appeal to a judge for redress, you're going to wish you had a piece of paper signed by the other party, or at least some third-party witnesses—preferably both! The more formal the better when you need evidence, and the more important and valuable the deal, the more you are likely to need it later.
And what's more important and valuable than the foundation of society and civilization, the family? Same fashion: Sex is and should be a reliable indicator that two people intend to spend the rest of their lives together. Except when it's not. In an honorable culture, the fact of sexual congress (as with the handshake) would be taken as proof of general intent, but it wouldn't help with the particulars of the deal, and in a dishonorable culture, it's no help at all.
How do you square this with the letters to the seven churches in Revelation?
I mean how do you square it with any time God tells someone they've sinned?
I never said the Holy Spirit does not convict of sin...I'm talking about the WAY He does so. It's not through condemnation but gentle guidance (peace, if you will). It's the "ah, I probably shouldn't have done that", not "you're a horrible person and you SINNED you jerk!".
Worth pointing out also that God was speaking to the assemblies as a whole, not individuals there (although certainly individuals were guilty of the things mentioned). But if you compare the way Jesus spoke to those who sought to follow Him and the way Paul instructs us to approach a brother 'caught in sin' and so on, I think it's a rather different picture.
@EternalDreamer are we supposed to judge prophecy based on how it makes us feel, or do we judge it based on accuracy?
That’s a great question.
Does the fact that they were written to the assemblies as a whole make any difference? Imagine being the dude in the group that holds to the “doctrine of the Nicolaitans”, probably not the most feel good moment for that guy, and quite terrifying.
What about when Jesus rebuked Peter with get thee behind me Satan?
Matthew 16:23 KJV
[23] But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.
Mark 8:33 KJV
[33] But when he had turned about and looked on his disciples, he rebuked Peter, saying, Get thee behind me, Satan: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but the things that be of men.
Or what about Ananias?
Acts 5:3,5 KJV
[3] But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land?
[4] Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God.
[5] And Ananias hearing these words fell down, and gave up the ghost: and great fear came on all them that heard these things.
That sounds like some serious criticism and condemnation to me, and it brought fear.
1 Timothy 5:20 KJV
[20] Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear.
That’s a great question.
Does the fact that they were written to the assemblies as a whole make any difference? Imagine being the dude in the group that holds to the “doctrine of the Nicolaitans”, probably not the most feel good moment for that guy, and quite terrifying.
What about when Jesus rebuked Peter with get thee behind me Satan?
Matthew 16:23 KJV
[23] But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.
Mark 8:33 KJV
[33] But when he had turned about and looked on his disciples, he rebuked Peter, saying, Get thee behind me, Satan: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but the things that be of men.
Or what about Ananias?
Acts 5:3,5 KJV
[3] But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land?
[4] Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God.
[5] And Ananias hearing these words fell down, and gave up the ghost: and great fear came on all them that heard these things.
That sounds like some serious criticism and condemnation to me, and it brought fear.
1 Timothy 5:20 KJV
[20] Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear.
You seem to be speaking from a Reformed theological background (if not, apologies, this is meant as a neutral observation not critique
). In which case I disagree with the premise, which is that prophecy is judged based on something other than the Holy Spirit. Of course the Bible and such should inform how we interpret what we get, but I believe sin is subjective, largely (that is, different things are sins per different individual, hence conscience and meat and so on). To your specific verses, Jesus was talking to Satan, obviously. He was not calling Peter = Satan or condemning Peter, He was speaking to the temptation Satan was laying on him through an ignorant/foolish Peter. Ananias was an example of Peter still operating under the Old Covenant, in which there is this condemning punishment for sin. But we know there is no longer punishment in that sense of some angry God for we who are in Christ. The fact that the fruit of their action was fear shows us they made a mistake. The apostles were not perfect. We judge actions by their fruit, and we know fear is not a fruit of the Holy Spirit.
Timothy I'm not quite sure about, gotta read it in context, but it strikes me that Jesus did not operate that way. With the exception of the Pharisees, whom He contradicted when they attacked Him, He didn't actually go around rebuking people for sin in general, much less in public, and in fact specifically told the disciples NOT to do that. So... hence why it seems you are approaching this from the theological position that we are to, for instance, go critique our 'brother' on his sin and if he won't listen to cast him out of the Church: I don't believe that is something we are supposed to do, but was rather a specific teaching tool used while the Old Covenant was still around before the New Covenant took full effect. So, this is why I think our theological suppositions may be at odds, and hence why we likely won't agree on this
All good! I just ask that you see the way I spoke to the OP as I meant it, which was, to be encouraging
C
Cap
Guest
Fear comes from guilt. Doing what we know we are not suppose to do, that's the fear that we create that is supposed to keep us from sinning. But, from God's point of view, He is just stating facts. If you sin you will die. It's not a curse, it's a fact.
If you tell your children to not play in the street or else you will get run over. Is that fear or is it a fact? Is it a curse if they do and get run over? Or is it the result of not following a command? Following the commands of God should create love not fear.
God told Adam and Eve to not eat from the tree or else you will die. He wasn't saying He was going to curse them if they did, He was saying that if you do what I told you not to do, you will create quilt and therefore sin and death. Please don't do it.
Faith in God's ability to save does away with fear even when we do wrong.
I have always wondered, what would have happened if Adam had just said, I'm sorry, please forgive me.
Man did I waste a lot of words. I should have just let you post this to begin with. I could have walked away with a clear conscience and the case made as simply and eloquently as I've seen it done. Nice.
Keith has it right. If there were any statements of mine that didn't agree with his most recent one then I amend them. I may have been letting the emotion of the moment cloud my arguments. His language here is much more precise than I allowed mine to degrade down into. And even this recap of yours is inaccurate. No one says that all nonvirgins are ineligible for marriage.
I think Keith has said it all now though. We could probably add back in some of Samuel's statement and let's call this one over. We both think the other is blind and obstinately so. Good luck. I would never allow my children to be taught this foolishness and I certainly would be mortified if they lived it.
You seem to be speaking from a Reformed theological background (if not, apologies, this is meant as a neutral observation not critique
To your specific verses, Jesus was talking to Satan, obviously. He was not calling Peter = Satan or condemning Peter, He was speaking to the temptation Satan was laying on him through an ignorant/foolish Peter. Ananias was an example of Peter still operating under the Old Covenant, in which there is this condemning punishment for sin. But we know there is no longer punishment in that sense of some angry God for we who are in Christ. The fact that the fruit of their action was fear shows us they made a mistake. The apostles were not perfect. We judge actions by their fruit, and we know fear is not a fruit of the Holy Spirit.
Timothy I'm not quite sure about, gotta read it in context, but it strikes me that Jesus did not operate that way. With the exception of the Pharisees, whom He contradicted when they attacked Him, He didn't actually go around rebuking people for sin in general, much less in public, and in fact specifically told the disciples NOT to do that. So... hence why it seems you are approaching this from the theological position that we are to, for instance, go critique our 'brother' on his sin and if he won't listen to cast him out of the Church: I don't believe that is something we are supposed to do, but was rather a specific teaching tool used while the Old Covenant was still around before the New Covenant took full effect. So, this is why I think our theological suppositions may be at odds, and hence why we likely won't agree on this
Interesting concept, but I have some reservations about it:
- I will address the "sex is supposed to exist within the context of a committed relationship" phrase further below.
- I believe you agree with me that no one is actually intending to assert either that "sex equals marriage" or "sex alone seals the deal," much less that "the rest of the stuff is superfluous." Everyone knows a marriage is far more complex than that. The original thread of which this is an off-shoot was solely concerned with uncovering what it is that is the most likely indication of the beginning of a marriage -- not what is the most likely indication of the beginning of the prelude to a marriage.
- "[T]he rest of the stuff" certainly plays major roles in preparation for or sustaining marriage.
- [You know I revere you, @andrew, so that is why I have deleted point #4 due to your having effectively convinced me that I was substantively mis-reading what you wrote. Please forgive my denseness.]
5. A general rhetorical question to which I'm not requesting a response, just an encouragement to anyone reading this to contemplate it: We know that sex is really important and that it is best experienced only within a lifelong commitment, but how do we know this? Is it possible that we know these things because (in combination with ongoing reminders during the sex acts themselves that they supernaturally bond us) Scripture has made it clear what its context should be and that it's really important?
6. I could be wrong about this, but, when we who rely on Divine Writ as our primary guiding light argue about or contemplate what it is that is the most significant indication that a marriage has ensued, we are not so much speaking about the realm of what should happen as we are speaking about the realm of what we can glean about what God purposefully designed to initiate the marriage state, what nature of relationship He intended us to consider ourselves as having initiated when we begin having sex with someone and/or what kind of relationship he wanted us to perpetuate after we have partaken of the activities he intended for the purposes of bonding, procreation and ongoing protection, nurturing and teaching of offspring that arise from those activities. When we focus on should we place the focus on ourselves, our world and whether or not we or others are following the rules; furthermore, when we critique an argument for recognizing the paramount nature of sex-initiating-marriage with even casual mention of examples of how people do not respect the divinely-endowed connection between sex and marriage, we allow worldly brokenness to be our guiding light. When we focus on God's purposes, intentions and desires, we shift from worrying about getting into trouble to very simply living in awe of the majesty of what our Creator created and the magnificent brilliance of the aspects of that Creation we are blessed to experience.
6. I could be wrong about this, but, when we who rely on Divine Writ as our primary guiding light argue about or contemplate what it is that is the most significant indication that a marriage has ensued, we are not so much speaking about the realm of what should happen as we are speaking about the realm of what we can glean about what God purposefully designed to initiate the marriage state, what nature of relationship He intended us to consider ourselves as having initiated when we begin having sex with someone and/or what kind of relationship he wanted us to perpetuate after we have partaken of the activities he intended for the purposes of bonding, procreation and ongoing protection, nurturing and teaching of offspring that arise from those activities. When we focus on should we place the focus on ourselves, our world and whether or not we or others are following the rules; furthermore, when we critique an argument for recognizing the paramount nature of sex-initiating-marriage with even casual mention of examples of how people do not respect the divinely-endowed connection between sex and marriage, we allow worldly brokenness to be our guiding light. When we focus on God's purposes, intentions and desires, we shift from worrying about getting into trouble to very simply living in awe of the majesty of what our Creator created and the magnificent brilliance of the aspects of that Creation we are blessed to experience.
7. [Please allow me a prideful diversion here, but it highlights what will follow in this point.] In 1992, partially out of boredom after catching up on a 7-year backlog of paperwork in a mental hospital behavior specialist position I'd recently assumed, I designed a group therapy framework for schizophrenics, addicts, and people with bipolar or impulse-control disorders. In the context of being taught how to decrease their dependence on psychotropic medicines by learning how to recognize antecedents of (and antecedents of antecedents of, and antecedents of antecedents of antecedents of, etc.) initial stages of psychotic episodes and falling-off -the-wagon events, we collectively demonstrated that every behavior we exhibit as human beings is preceded by a decision. Some decisions have been so repeatedly and consistently made that they become habits or second nature, but the decision is there before the behavior no matter how much of a split-second one it is. How does this relate?: yes, as you note, contracts are worldly tangible evidence that agreements have been made, but, again, an agreement's existence is not in any way negated by the fact that people sometimes disrespect the rules and lie about having made an agreement. That people will sometimes lie about having made an agreement doesn't diminish the value or nature of agreements in general -- and neither does any individual's or any individual couple's attempt to wriggle out of a marriage diminish the value or nature of marriage in general. This, I believe, is a crucial distinction to keep in the forefront of our minds when we're contemplating God's Design. And I promise you that, aside from situations in which one person forces hirself sexually on another person (which lives in the realm of the original broad definition of adultery), each and every time two people have sex there is a definitive agreement between them to do so that takes place in the context of each participant recognizing at the heart level that this is an activity designed to initiate and sustain marriage. Every time you hear one or more participants claim after the fact that "it just happened," or "it didn't mean anything to me; it was just penis-and-vagina friction," don't give such silliness a moment's validity. Even in inebriated states, the intention to have sex involves a decision. When someone is unwittingly provided a substance (alcohol or otherwise) that removes mental choice, then we're back to talking about rape. But in the case of a person who, by choice, gets so drunk s/he's unconscious to the decision-making process at the moment of consummation, at the very least one can recognize that sometime earlier in the getting-wasted process the person made the decision either to imbibe in a substance that would risk the making unconscious choices or decided to continue when approaching that point of irresponsibility. Every behavior involves an antecedent decision, and every joint behavior involves an antecedent agreement or set of coordinated antecedent agreements.
8. Again, exceptions only prove the rule.
9. Wouldn't you agree that only dishonorable cultures are available to us, so the rest is hypothetical? We are broken individuals living in a broken world -- all of us.
10. I do not in any way deny the value of contracts, any more than I would deny the value of clean water, literary or chemical opportunities for mind-expansion, ice cream cones on a hot summer day, or putting on socks before shoes. However, and, again, I'm only asserting what I'm asserting in the context of a discussion of what is most likely to indicate the initiation of something as monumental as marriage. I believe we have to almost extinguish our focus on man-made innovations in service of focusing like a laser beam on any evidence we can find for what structures for fulfillment our Father devised to initiate and sustain marriage. Where do we go for such evidence? We can pay close attention over the decades of our lives to take note of the obvious, and we can also go straight to Scriptures, the Divine Word of God. In the discussions on this site in which I've been involved over the past 2 months, we've mentioned a number of scriptural passages that make no bones about God creating sexual intercourse for the purpose of making a man and a woman "one flesh." We can also find almost countless numbers of verses, phrases and chapters that certainly point toward the conclusion -- no matter how many people attempt to operate as if it's not the case, and no matter how many highly-technical arguments we can devise that argue with it -- that God intended for sex to create and sustain the marriage bond (I suspect as well, given my belief in a Sovereign God, that He also intended to create idiots -- not only permanent but also temporary idiots, including myself -- who would behave as if He hadn't created sex for that purpose). I very purposefully ask this next question, though: where can we go to find the evidence for contracts -- or dowry -- or parental permission -- or obtaining a license -- or having a preacher present -- or writing down one's vows -- or stating one's vows in front of an audience -- being an essential component of initiating a marriage? One or more of the things in this last list may be beneficial or preferred, and some of them are excellent ideas on the road leading up to marriage, but I challenge anyone here to find me in-context Bible verses that assert a role in marriage-initiating that comes anywhere near close to the significance of the "one-flesh" imperative.
The question is not, does everyone behave in accordance with God's stated intention for sexual bonding, but, instead, what is it He most frequently and significantly mentions in His Holy Word in reference to when marriage begins?9. Wouldn't you agree that only dishonorable cultures are available to us, so the rest is hypothetical? We are broken individuals living in a broken world -- all of us.
10. I do not in any way deny the value of contracts, any more than I would deny the value of clean water, literary or chemical opportunities for mind-expansion, ice cream cones on a hot summer day, or putting on socks before shoes. However, and, again, I'm only asserting what I'm asserting in the context of a discussion of what is most likely to indicate the initiation of something as monumental as marriage. I believe we have to almost extinguish our focus on man-made innovations in service of focusing like a laser beam on any evidence we can find for what structures for fulfillment our Father devised to initiate and sustain marriage. Where do we go for such evidence? We can pay close attention over the decades of our lives to take note of the obvious, and we can also go straight to Scriptures, the Divine Word of God. In the discussions on this site in which I've been involved over the past 2 months, we've mentioned a number of scriptural passages that make no bones about God creating sexual intercourse for the purpose of making a man and a woman "one flesh." We can also find almost countless numbers of verses, phrases and chapters that certainly point toward the conclusion -- no matter how many people attempt to operate as if it's not the case, and no matter how many highly-technical arguments we can devise that argue with it -- that God intended for sex to create and sustain the marriage bond (I suspect as well, given my belief in a Sovereign God, that He also intended to create idiots -- not only permanent but also temporary idiots, including myself -- who would behave as if He hadn't created sex for that purpose). I very purposefully ask this next question, though: where can we go to find the evidence for contracts -- or dowry -- or parental permission -- or obtaining a license -- or having a preacher present -- or writing down one's vows -- or stating one's vows in front of an audience -- being an essential component of initiating a marriage? One or more of the things in this last list may be beneficial or preferred, and some of them are excellent ideas on the road leading up to marriage, but I challenge anyone here to find me in-context Bible verses that assert a role in marriage-initiating that comes anywhere near close to the significance of the "one-flesh" imperative.
Last edited:
All good! I just ask that you see the way I spoke to the OP as I meant it, which was, to be encouraging
And I can guarantee that I fully received the way you spoke as encouraging. Very thoughtful, which I experienced as a useful gift that will bear beneficial and surprising fruit in the days to come.
I understand that you meant to be encouraging. However, we are called to speak the truth in love. Yes we are supposed to go to our brothers when we see them in error. So, I’m going to point it out. This is not meant as a personal attack on either of you @EternalDreamer or @Cap
1. Sin is not subjective.
2. You confuse the fear of God with the fear of man, and because of that you are completely missunderstanding the situation of Ananias.
3. Jesus didn’t go around rebuking people for sin???? Have you read the Gospels? Do a word search on the word repent and look in the Gospels. Jesus is constantly telling people to repent of their sins.
Here is what scripture says on the following:
Prophecy:
Scripture tells us how to spot false prophets/prophecy
Deuteronomy 18:20-22 KJV
“[20] But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die. [21] And if thou say in thine heart, How shall we know the word which the Lord hath not spoken? [22] When a prophet speaketh in the name of the Lord , if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.”
This method of judging prophecy is not changed in the New Testament, anymore than plural marriage is changed in the New Testament.
Sin:
Sin is not subjective. The law tells us what sin is.
Romans 3:20 KJV
[20] Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.
Romans 7:7 KJV
[7] What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.
1 John 3:4 KJV
[4] Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.
Original sin:
We are not sinners merely because of our own sin, we are born in sin.
1 Corinthians 15:22 KJV
[22] For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
The curse of sin is upon us from birth, we are steeped in sin.
Psalm 51:5 KJV
[5] Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.
Romans 3:10-20 KJV
[10] As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: [11] There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. [12] They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one. [13] Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips: [14] Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness: [15] Their feet are swift to shed blood: [16] Destruction and misery are in their ways: [17] And the way of peace have they not known: [18] There is no fear of God before their eyes. [19] Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. [20] Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.
Christ’s death burial and resurrection was rquired for atonement for sin
It would not have changed the need for a savior for Adam to have said “I’m sorry”. To say that it would have changed anything would be to deny that Christ needed to die on the cross for the sins of the whole world. In the Garden on the night of his crucifixion, Jesus prayed, in Matthew 26:39 KJV
[39] And he went a little further, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.
Blood is required for the remission of sins, not saying sorry.
Hebrews 9:11-12 KJV
[11] But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building; [12] Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.
Hebrews 9:22 KJV
[22] And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.
The curse:
Galatians 3:10 KJV
[10] For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.
This means we are all under the curse because we have all broken His law. But, Christ redeemed us from the curse with his own blood by hanging on the tree.
Galatians 3:13 KJV
[13] Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:
What must we do to be saved?
Acts 16:31 KJV
[31] And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.
1. Sin is not subjective.
2. You confuse the fear of God with the fear of man, and because of that you are completely missunderstanding the situation of Ananias.
3. Jesus didn’t go around rebuking people for sin???? Have you read the Gospels? Do a word search on the word repent and look in the Gospels. Jesus is constantly telling people to repent of their sins.
Here is what scripture says on the following:
Prophecy:
Scripture tells us how to spot false prophets/prophecy
Deuteronomy 18:20-22 KJV
“[20] But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die. [21] And if thou say in thine heart, How shall we know the word which the Lord hath not spoken? [22] When a prophet speaketh in the name of the Lord , if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.”
This method of judging prophecy is not changed in the New Testament, anymore than plural marriage is changed in the New Testament.
Sin:
Sin is not subjective. The law tells us what sin is.
Romans 3:20 KJV
[20] Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.
Romans 7:7 KJV
[7] What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.
1 John 3:4 KJV
[4] Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.
Original sin:
We are not sinners merely because of our own sin, we are born in sin.
1 Corinthians 15:22 KJV
[22] For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
The curse of sin is upon us from birth, we are steeped in sin.
Psalm 51:5 KJV
[5] Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.
Romans 3:10-20 KJV
[10] As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: [11] There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. [12] They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one. [13] Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips: [14] Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness: [15] Their feet are swift to shed blood: [16] Destruction and misery are in their ways: [17] And the way of peace have they not known: [18] There is no fear of God before their eyes. [19] Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. [20] Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.
Christ’s death burial and resurrection was rquired for atonement for sin
It would not have changed the need for a savior for Adam to have said “I’m sorry”. To say that it would have changed anything would be to deny that Christ needed to die on the cross for the sins of the whole world. In the Garden on the night of his crucifixion, Jesus prayed, in Matthew 26:39 KJV
[39] And he went a little further, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.
Blood is required for the remission of sins, not saying sorry.
Hebrews 9:11-12 KJV
[11] But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building; [12] Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.
Hebrews 9:22 KJV
[22] And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.
The curse:
Galatians 3:10 KJV
[10] For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.
This means we are all under the curse because we have all broken His law. But, Christ redeemed us from the curse with his own blood by hanging on the tree.
Galatians 3:13 KJV
[13] Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:
What must we do to be saved?
Acts 16:31 KJV
[31] And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.
I read your entire message very carefully, @Asforme&myhouse. I agree with you that we're exhorted to correct our brothers in love, but the manner in which we do it, unlike the method of judging prophecy, is substantively changed in the New Testament. A great many cautions are added to when we are qualified to rebuke another. For one thing, we're to refrain from doing it in the manner of the Pharisees. We're to rebuke ourselves far more harshly than we rebuke others. We're to do it in love; in fact, we're to ensure that all of our dealings with everyone with whom we associate demonstrate our love for them. We are not to judge one another. Correction is expected to be edifying, not just identifying. And we're also required to begin the process of correcting a brother or sister in private. I know from reading your message that you know how to find support for everything I write in this message, and part of being edifying is being extremely cautious about which scriptures we choose to use in service of correcting others, because our own biases may be more responsible for making those choices than is the love from which we're exhorted to come.
We have to be very careful not to condemn each other. That level of correction is God's purview alone.
In addition, it is imperative when quoting and applying Scripture that we are "rightly dividing the word of Truth" [II Timothy 2:15], which means that, when we reference any aspect of Scripture we are exhorted to first determine to whom it was written, when it was written, for what purpose it was written, even who the general audience was, and most especially the context in which it occurs. Everything in Scripture is potentially useful for us, but everything in Scripture is not intended for us specifically. Such distinctions are very frequently ignored when quoting the Bible, but they matter, and they matter very significantly. For example, it's important to remember that Jesus only ministered to his fellow Jews. Peter's epistles, and James's epistle, were written to fellow Jews. Paul initially ministered to Jews, then Jews and Gentiles alike, and ultimately only to Gentiles; therefore, what Paul wrote must be read with that context in mind. If we fail to recognize theses distinctions because we fail to rightly divide the Word of Truth, then we risk contradicting ourselves when juxtaposing multiple Scriptures. An example that demonstrates a double failure to rightly divide?: categorically applying (a) Jesus's pre-Passion exhortations to his fellow Jews to (b) post-Passion Gentiles, a category, by the way, which includes most of us on Biblical Families. Post-Passion, the Law itself has been fulfilled, and subsequent to that in Galatians Paul warned us Gentiles to be careful not to place ourselves under the Law. Which includes being careful not to believe we have the right to place our fellow members of the Body of Christ under the Law. Christ Himself pointed toward this as well when he asserted that one should remove the log from one's own eye before trying to remove the speck from the eye of another.
As you mentioned, Galatians 3:13 asserts that Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law. In fact, He did this before any of us alive were around to commit our first transgression. We who are alive today were born saved. You mentioned I Cor. 15:22: "For even as, in Adam, all are dying, thus also, in Christ, shall all be vivified." [CLNT] Paul wrote even earlier, beginning in Romans 5:18, "Consequently, then, as it was through one offense for all mankind for condemnation, thus also it is through one just award for all mankind for life's justifying. For even as, through the disobedience of the one man, the many were constituted sinners, thus also, through the obedience of the One, the many shall be constituted just. Yet law came in by the way, that the offense should be increasing. Yet where sin increases, grace superexceeds, that, even as Sin reigns in death, thus Grace also should be reigning through righteousness, for life eonian, through Jesus Christ, our Lord." [CLNT] Note that the same 'all' is referred to in I Cor. 15:22 in reference to those who are dying in Adam as are referenced to being vivified in Christ, as are the same 'many' in Rom. 5:18. Through the Grace of God, Christ has already paid the price for our sin, and He did so before we were even conceived. Neither He nor our Father need any help from us to fix our fellow human beings. Sure, there is none righteous, and all are deserving of death, but sin has already been conquered, not by me or any action on my part but, respectively, by the sacrifice and grace of our Lord and LORD. That's why, when I read each exhortation from Paul to refrain from seeking or obtaining approval from the world, I recognize that, in my own personal sphere, I am chief among those from whom no one should be seeking approval.
@Keith Martin It seems as if you are mixing what scripture says concerning the restoration of a brother who has sinned with the believer’s calling to earnestly contend for the faith.
We are not born saved. If we were, there would be no need to preach the gospel to every creature. The good news must be mixed with faith.
I Cor. 15:22: "For even as, in Adam, all are dying, thus also, in Christ, shall all be vivified." [CLNT]
Notice in 1 cor. 15:22 that “in Adam, all ARE dying”, present tense, we are not saved unless we hear the Gospel and believe by faith. Then through Christ we shall be “vivified”
Hebrews 3:17-19 KJV
[17] But with whom was he grieved forty years? was it not with them that had sinned, whose carcases fell in the wilderness? [18] And to whom sware he that they should not enter into his rest, but to them that believed not? [19] So we see that they could not enter in because of unbelief.
Hebrews 4:1-3 KJV
[1] Let us therefore fear, lest, a promise being left us of entering into his rest, any of you should seem to come short of it. [2] For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it .
Those who are saved are saved by grace through faith. This is true in the Old Testament and the New Testament. Abraham believed and it was counted to him as righteousness. In the Old Testament they looked forward to the cross and we look back to the cross.
Revelation 13:8 KJV
[8] And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.
Concerning the law, what does the scripture say? As believers we are not under law we are under grace. However, the unbeliever is under the curse of the law. That is why we use the law to reveal to the sinner his need for the Gospel.
Romans 2:11-12 KJV
[11] For there is no respect of persons with God. [12] For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;
[13] (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified. [14] For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: [15] Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another)
The law is good and useful if we use it correctly. Who is the law for?
1 Timothy 1:4-10 KJV
[4] Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do . [5] Now the end of the commandment is charity out of a pure heart, and of a good conscience, and of faith unfeigned: [6] From which some having swerved have turned aside unto vain jangling; [7] Desiring to be teachers of the law; understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm. [8] But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully; [9] Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, [10] For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;
The law is for sinners, to show us how exceedingly sinful our sin is so we will realize that we need the Gospel.
Galatians 3:24-29 KJV
[24] Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. [25] But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster. [26] For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. [27] For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. [28] There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. [29] And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
We are not born saved. If we were, there would be no need to preach the gospel to every creature. The good news must be mixed with faith.
I Cor. 15:22: "For even as, in Adam, all are dying, thus also, in Christ, shall all be vivified." [CLNT]
Notice in 1 cor. 15:22 that “in Adam, all ARE dying”, present tense, we are not saved unless we hear the Gospel and believe by faith. Then through Christ we shall be “vivified”
Hebrews 3:17-19 KJV
[17] But with whom was he grieved forty years? was it not with them that had sinned, whose carcases fell in the wilderness? [18] And to whom sware he that they should not enter into his rest, but to them that believed not? [19] So we see that they could not enter in because of unbelief.
Hebrews 4:1-3 KJV
[1] Let us therefore fear, lest, a promise being left us of entering into his rest, any of you should seem to come short of it. [2] For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it .
Those who are saved are saved by grace through faith. This is true in the Old Testament and the New Testament. Abraham believed and it was counted to him as righteousness. In the Old Testament they looked forward to the cross and we look back to the cross.
Revelation 13:8 KJV
[8] And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.
Concerning the law, what does the scripture say? As believers we are not under law we are under grace. However, the unbeliever is under the curse of the law. That is why we use the law to reveal to the sinner his need for the Gospel.
Romans 2:11-12 KJV
[11] For there is no respect of persons with God. [12] For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;
[13] (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified. [14] For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: [15] Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another)
The law is good and useful if we use it correctly. Who is the law for?
1 Timothy 1:4-10 KJV
[4] Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do . [5] Now the end of the commandment is charity out of a pure heart, and of a good conscience, and of faith unfeigned: [6] From which some having swerved have turned aside unto vain jangling; [7] Desiring to be teachers of the law; understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm. [8] But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully; [9] Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, [10] For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;
The law is for sinners, to show us how exceedingly sinful our sin is so we will realize that we need the Gospel.
Galatians 3:24-29 KJV
[24] Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. [25] But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster. [26] For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. [27] For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. [28] There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. [29] And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
I’d be interested in studying these passages.
Well, so much for Keith's dream thread....
AFM&MH, I notice you're carefully ignoring Paul's specific instructions re prophecy in all your proof texting. What does that verse I cited mean to you? While you're at it, let me know what you think about this one:
Keith, you believe what you believe, and I believe what I believe; are we cool? It appears to me in the conversation above that you are springboarding from my posts to make points you have made before, without particularly responding to the substance of my observations, and I'm just not up for a point-by-point analysis of where the differences lie. I'm going to limit myself to responding to your point #4 above, re "getting away with it".
Note: Keith, I greatly respect your intellectual and verbal abilities, but am having ever increasing doubts about the utility of discussion forums and ever increasing concerns about the amount of time spent on these kinds of 'discussions'. So while I would relish the opportunity to continue a conversation such as this with you in person (along the lines of our highly enjoyable conversations at retreat), I'm just not feeling the motivation to respond here to your entire argument (though I appreciate your taking the time to produce it). It's not you, it's the medium that I'm growing tired of.
That said, apropos your point 4 above, I'm not talking about getting away with marriage, and I'm not sure why you're arguing that. What I said was, "To the extent we argue that sex alone seals the deal and the rest of the stuff is superfluous, we are actually undercutting the seriousness of the act, because we are making it easier to 'get away with it' without actual commitment." How I read that (and how I thought it would be read) is, "To the extent we argue that sex alone seals the deal and the rest of the stuff is superfluous, we are actually undercutting the seriousness of the act [of sex], because we are making it easier to 'get away with it [the act of sex]' without [the] actual commitment [of marriage]."
And I stand by that. Marriage is important to God (on that I think we all agree), and there is evidence in scripture of formalities that go along with sex in completing the full transaction, and evidence in scripture of sex not creating a marriage without subsequent validation by other means. Even if there weren't such scripture evidence, it wouldn't be a bad idea to require individuals contemplating sex and/or marriage to think that through first and pony up some other evidence that they're drop-dead serious about their commitment before shaking their clothes off.
Meanwhile, where is the practical application of this discussion? There is nobody in my sphere of influence that I'm going to counsel to go back to the first person they had sex with and sort out that 'marriage'—are you? IRL, don't we tend to focus on the present situation? Aren't our sins covered by the blood of Christ, whether promiscuous sex resulted in a busted putative marriage and some kind of putative adultery or whether it resulted in 'mere' fornication? Can you give me a hypothetical situation in which you and I would reach different end results from a counseling POV based on our different descriptions of how we think sex and marriage work? Are our descriptions really that different, or are we just looking at the same thing and using different words to describe it? And was a rehash of the sex-and-marriage discussion your original point in your original post, or should most of this drilling down (pun intended) on sex and marriage be split off into yet another thread on that specific topic?
In this thread maybe we could return to a consideration of what the dream means?...
AFM&MH, I notice you're carefully ignoring Paul's specific instructions re prophecy in all your proof texting. What does that verse I cited mean to you? While you're at it, let me know what you think about this one:
Paul said:
Keith, you believe what you believe, and I believe what I believe; are we cool? It appears to me in the conversation above that you are springboarding from my posts to make points you have made before, without particularly responding to the substance of my observations, and I'm just not up for a point-by-point analysis of where the differences lie. I'm going to limit myself to responding to your point #4 above, re "getting away with it".
Note: Keith, I greatly respect your intellectual and verbal abilities, but am having ever increasing doubts about the utility of discussion forums and ever increasing concerns about the amount of time spent on these kinds of 'discussions'. So while I would relish the opportunity to continue a conversation such as this with you in person (along the lines of our highly enjoyable conversations at retreat), I'm just not feeling the motivation to respond here to your entire argument (though I appreciate your taking the time to produce it). It's not you, it's the medium that I'm growing tired of.
That said, apropos your point 4 above, I'm not talking about getting away with marriage, and I'm not sure why you're arguing that. What I said was, "To the extent we argue that sex alone seals the deal and the rest of the stuff is superfluous, we are actually undercutting the seriousness of the act, because we are making it easier to 'get away with it' without actual commitment." How I read that (and how I thought it would be read) is, "To the extent we argue that sex alone seals the deal and the rest of the stuff is superfluous, we are actually undercutting the seriousness of the act [of sex], because we are making it easier to 'get away with it [the act of sex]' without [the] actual commitment [of marriage]."
And I stand by that. Marriage is important to God (on that I think we all agree), and there is evidence in scripture of formalities that go along with sex in completing the full transaction, and evidence in scripture of sex not creating a marriage without subsequent validation by other means. Even if there weren't such scripture evidence, it wouldn't be a bad idea to require individuals contemplating sex and/or marriage to think that through first and pony up some other evidence that they're drop-dead serious about their commitment before shaking their clothes off.
Meanwhile, where is the practical application of this discussion? There is nobody in my sphere of influence that I'm going to counsel to go back to the first person they had sex with and sort out that 'marriage'—are you? IRL, don't we tend to focus on the present situation? Aren't our sins covered by the blood of Christ, whether promiscuous sex resulted in a busted putative marriage and some kind of putative adultery or whether it resulted in 'mere' fornication? Can you give me a hypothetical situation in which you and I would reach different end results from a counseling POV based on our different descriptions of how we think sex and marriage work? Are our descriptions really that different, or are we just looking at the same thing and using different words to describe it? And was a rehash of the sex-and-marriage discussion your original point in your original post, or should most of this drilling down (pun intended) on sex and marriage be split off into yet another thread on that specific topic?
In this thread maybe we could return to a consideration of what the dream means?...
@Asforme&myhouse, I will briefly reply to a couple of your statements, and I will reply to your responses to my comments if they interest me, but otherwise I'm going to let this particular discussion die between us, if only because it is a tangent from the original intention of this thread. Clearly, you and I have quite distinct interpretations of Scripture. I honor your faith, and I hope you will honor mine. Of course, that's easier for me to say, because I believe in the salvation of all, so, given that "every eye shall see Christ" (Unveiling 1:7), and given that then "very knee shall bow" (Isaiah 45:23; Romans 14:11; Philippians 2:10; Unveiling 5:13), not to mention that the I Corinthians 15:22 verse you quoted ("For even as, in Adam, all are dying, thus also, in Christ, shall all be vivified.") in combination with a Sovereign God who neither makes mistakes nor can fail in His intentions, which indicates to me that our Father meant what he said when stating that all shall be vivified, I automatically assume that I will see you in Heaven, whereas you may continue to feel compelled to fix me due to not feeling assured about my salvation. But I still request that you honor my desire to resist experiencing being fixed!
a. I suppose the only difference between us here is that I have even more faith that God's Plan through His Son, Christ Jesus, will reach fruition than I have in the fact that Adam's poor judgment led to all of us dying. Why, when insisting that all are dying not also insist that all shall be vivified? Same Greek word in each instance, and I choose to believe that God's Divine Word wouldn't cavalierly intend two different meanings in the same sentence for the same word. He's got to be a better writer than the reset of us, right?
b. Despite my belief in the eventual salvation of all, that doesn't mean there is no reason to have faith, because our experience of oneness with Christ cannot begin until we recognize our need for salvation and what was done to accomplish it, not to mention our need to properly recognize Christ as the Head of the Body of which we are each just one individual part. Therefore, it cannot be said that there is no point in spreading the gospel, because shouldn't we want to share with every other human being the added joy of knowing God and His Son that results from our faith, not to mention any other benefits to being among the firstfruits in between now and when God becomes All in All?
b. Despite my belief in the eventual salvation of all, that doesn't mean there is no reason to have faith, because our experience of oneness with Christ cannot begin until we recognize our need for salvation and what was done to accomplish it, not to mention our need to properly recognize Christ as the Head of the Body of which we are each just one individual part. Therefore, it cannot be said that there is no point in spreading the gospel, because shouldn't we want to share with every other human being the added joy of knowing God and His Son that results from our faith, not to mention any other benefits to being among the firstfruits in between now and when God becomes All in All?
Last edited:
Oh, my bad, Andrew! I equated 'act' with 'marrying', which I now see was way off base. Not only are we cool (which isn't at ALL dependent on whether we agree on anything), but I incorrectly interpreted what you wrote, and I don't see any daylight between what you've written and what I was trying to explain. So we're in agreement about that. Please know two things:
1. My intention was not to criticize you. You are correct when you state that I was using your statements as springboards, and much of what I was articulating was in response to a great many different assertions from many other people as well.
2. Given that I botched my understanding of what you originally wrote, I'm going to edit my earlier post for the purpose of removing that particular train of thought.
Thank you for your edifying correction, my esteemed friend.