• 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.

God's "Permissable" Will ???

  • Thread starter Thread starter Anonymous
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

Anonymous

Guest
Hello B.F. :)
Please forgive me if this has been covered before; although, I haven't seen anything on this.
I just came from a private meeting with my pastor, where I told him of my belief in polygyny. He told me that polygyny is morally wrong. He also told me polygyny was actually a result of God's "permissable will" not his "perfect will" and that polygyny was never what he intended. My question is where are these two "wills" mentioned in the Bible or is it just inferred ? Or perhaps it's not in there at all ?

Blessings,
Fairlight
 
Normally this idea surfaces in circles where either an Arminian or Calvinist ideology is the persuasion of thought. And in most theological circles one of those is the ideology being espoused in some degree or another.

Almost all of us agree in some type of two will system in God. The Calvinists and Arminians debate this often and usually the Arminian says he does not embrace a two will theory but in reality all do but at times they place in different places.

For example, the Calvinist says God has a general will for all to be saved but decrees in specific that only the chosen ones from before the foundation of the world will be saved. One is his express or general will and the other is his active or particular will. In regard to sin holiness is his active will and sin is due to his passive or permissive will.

In regard to Arminians, they will often say that God also has a desired or revealed will and also a secret or permissive will. They will often place the contingency factor on man's choice. For example, God has all knowledge. He knew that he would create both people (John and Joe) and that Joe would accept Christ as Savior but that John would not. Yet he goes ahead and creates both and calls both to salvation. His general will and open or revealed will is for both to be saved. His hidden or permissive will is that one will certainly be damned but he still goes ahead and creates both.

In short, basically all theologies that affirm the absolute inspiration of Scripture find two concurrent attributes of God running through Scripture: His sovereignty dispensing either grace or justice. His will of grace and his will of justice is however defined differently by both groups.

In short then, some people will accept things like polygyny but will then have to choose where they will place it in their theological package, i.e. their system. Some will place it in their grace will and other will place it in their justice will view of God's sovereignty.

People do this even in the issue of divorce and remarriage. Some say divorce is always God's negative will in that he is always opposed to it. Yet at the same time some will say, though divorce is not God's primary or revealed will he will permit it and at times even permit another union though this is not his desired or general or primary will.

It is a common theme in theology. But the key is finding which side to place it. Even James Campbell's book, the History and Philosophy of Marriage discusses this. He does take the position that polygyny is the secondary or permissive will since sin entered the world. He does not go so far to say it is sin or anything like that but he says it is God's secondary actions to accommodate a fallen world after the primary or perfect will was lost due to man's sin in Eden.

I do not think all cases of polygyny or even any union at all can always be placed into one category or the other at all times. In some cases it might be a permissive will and at other times it might be his active will. I tend to think that is the parties are all believers it falls under his will of grace in the desired and general or primary will. However, if one party is an unbeliever God's desired will or general will or revealed will is for these people not to join. But God does permit the union if it does join and once joined or if one becomes a believer later in the union then his permissive will stands in the matter. He permits it though it was not his primary or revealed will.
 
Hi Fairlight,
I have dealt with this issue in other venues and I will try to explain it here. I like to use the example of the table of shew bread, that was part of the Tabernacle furniture, Exodus 25:25. It was placed in the Holy Place, to one side of the room. The Tabernacle was a mobile Temple until Solomon's time. The table of shew bread was where the 12 loaves of unleavened bread were placed fresh every day. One loaf representing each of the twelve tribes of Israel. They were laid there in a specific order. However, when the table was moved, it was inevitable that the loaves would shift around on the table. God provided for this and for keeping the bread on the table in His design. A border or side frame of a hand's breadth was built all around the table, so that when the table was carried from place to place the bread would remain on the table. I believe this illustrates the idea God's perfect will (X marks the spot) and God's permissive will (you are within His parameters). God's design is that the bread be on the table, in a prescribed order. God's perfect will is that the bread be on the table, each loaf in it's proper location (initially), but His permissive will is that as long as the bread is on the table, inside the border, that is still acceptable and within His design function.

Many Christians live their life in a foggy search for God's perfect will, often checking the ground under foot, looking for that big X. This is tragic, because our Lord wants to lift the fog and let the "Sonshine" in. Many times in scripture we see where God directs a man or a woman to go to a specific place and do a specific work, an X marks the spot type of experience. But more often we see where the Lord directs His people to operate at liberty with in the frame work of His Word. He allows us to choose between good, better or best. It is all good, because it is in the parameters of His Word and general will for His people. When the Lord has a particular task at hand, He chooses a specific person and gives him/her specific instructions (X marks the spot), but the rest of the time and the rest of us, He says, "This is the way, walk in it."

How does this relate to plural marriage? God's design is that marriage is a one flesh relationship between one man and one woman, PERIOD, no deviation is allowed from His design. Marriage is not one man and two or more women in a three flesh arrangement, or one woman and two men arrangement. God's perfect will is that a spousal relationship be a covenant and commitment between one man and one woman, regardless of culture, ethnicity, age, religion, etc. One man, one woman for life. God's permissive will is that as long as the requirements for that covenant and commitment are agreed upon and followed, a man may with God's blessing of design and grace enter into as many of those relationships as he is able to perform the covenant and commitments. No deviation from the design, but the design replicated with integrity and godly love. God's blessing upon marriage, whether monogamous or polygamous (both meet the same criteria of honoring God and people), by God's approval of the marriages of Old Testament patriarchs, both those with one wife as well as those with multiples. God even takes credit for giving David Saul's wives to be his own.

One thing I feel we must caution against is the idea that some may develop, that which says "everyone should be polygynists". This was not the norm in Bible times and should not be the norm today. Many, many men today do not qualify to be the husband of one wife, much less marry more, as many women have not yet learned how to be a wife. For the great majority of God's people, one wife fits the will of God, perfect and permissive. For those God would involve in the responsibility of loving and caring for more than one lady, I would caution, be sure the mind of God is your mind in the matter and do not take lightly the awesome responsibility involved in such a commitment.
 
Correct me if i'm wrong, but isn't the idea of God's perfect will vs His permissible will, along the same line as monogamy before the fall and polygamy after? Just trying to simplify it.
 
Correct me if i'm wrong, but isn't the idea of God's perfect will vs His permissible will, along the same line as monogamy before the fall and polygamy after? Just trying to simplify it.
Not really, Jim. Polygyny is not the result of the fall into sin, nor is it an alteration of God's design. The marriage of Adam and Eve is not God's example of His perfect will of monogamy, but rather an example of His will of marriage, sans numeric quantity. Perhaps we can look at the first couple as a prototype to be replicated at will as means are available. Some will point out that God provided only one woman for Adam, we could also just as accurately say that Adam married every available woman. I don't think anyone would want to apply that logic. God's perfect will for most people is MARRIAGE, mono or poly is optional.
 
One thing I have heard several times is that polygyny is not a sin, but it is not God's best.

I disagree with that. When did God ever give anything less than His best to His most favored servants? As Pastor John pointed out, God took credit for giving David "wives," not "wife."

But, as Pastor John also pointed out, there are men for whom one wife is too many...but that is not because plural wives is not God's best, it is because those men fall far short of what God intends for them to be.

Also, I tend to agree with Tom Shipley, when he says that probably, about 10% of men should have more than one wife. His reasoning, which I agree with, is because that is a tithe. (Read his book...you can pay me later, Tom. :D )

How many men who are members of this forum actually have more than one wife? Were I a gambling man, I'd bet about 10%.

We should definitely not try to say that all men need to be polygynous. Monogamy and celibacy are both Scripturally acceptable options, but I'd also say that celibacy is not God's best - did He not say, "it is not good for man to be alone?" And Adam was married before He pronounced His creation to be "very good." (To all available women, or to just one woman? Take your pick, based on your preconceptions. :lol: )
 
I think some pastors (not referencing anyone on this board!) use the phrase "God's permissible will" as a catch-all phrase to answer sticky questions. If something is too hard (especially culturally) to make a clear case for sinfulness or righteousness, such as sodomy or polygyny, then it's a safe place to put that touchy subject.

Also, it may have to do with nomenclature. Some people call God's permissive will the things he doesn't like but will put up with. But if you push that to it's logical end, as with polygyny, you eventually have to decide that it's either sinful or righteous.

I think Pastor Whitten's example of the shewbread was a beautiful example. God had a specific desire for where the shewbread was to be, yet if it was within certain parameters, he was still pleased. So while we could call the placement of the shewbread as his perfect will and the movement of the shewbread as his permissive will, it was all still pleasing to him.

If we make this analogy to polygyny, then polygyny, even by your pastor's standard, should not be considered sinful. If it's not sinful, then it's righteous!

I'm afraid, however, that your pastor has another definition of permissive will. Like I wrote above, some people think of it as the things God doesn't like but will put up with. In my humble opinion, this flies in the face of the holiness of God.

Katie
 
sola scriptura wrote,
I'm afraid, however, that your pastor has another definition of permissive will. Like I wrote above, some people think of it as the things God doesn't like but will put up with. In my humble opinion, this flies in the face of the holiness of God.
I fear you are correct on what her pastor believes regarding the permissive will of God and I agree on your assessment of how it relates to the holiness of God. This type of thought makes me really wonder about what they think of the character of God. As I read the Word, our Lord has no trouble letting us know exactly where He stands on issues of morality and righteousness. God has purposely left the issue of mono vs poly in the realm of choice, either His or ours. Too many preachers and teachers have yet to develop the awareness of our genuine liberty in Christ.
 
sola scriptura said:
I think some pastors (not referencing anyone on this board!) use the phrase "God's permissible will" as a catch-all phrase to answer sticky questions. If something is too hard (especially culturally) to make a clear case for sinfulness or righteousness, such as sodomy or polygyny, then it's a safe place to put that touchy subject.

Also, it may have to do with nomenclature. Some people call God's permissive will the things he doesn't like but will put up with. But if you push that to it's logical end, as with polygyny, you eventually have to decide that it's either sinful or righteous.

I think Pastor Whitten's example of the shewbread was a beautiful example. God had a specific desire for where the shewbread was to be, yet if it was within certain parameters, he was still pleased. So while we could call the placement of the shewbread as his perfect will and the movement of the shewbread as his permissive will, it was all still pleasing to him.

If we make this analogy to polygyny, then polygyny, even by your pastor's standard, should not be considered sinful. If it's not sinful, then it's righteous!

I'm afraid, however, that your pastor has another definition of permissive will. Like I wrote above, some people think of it as the things God doesn't like but will put up with. In my humble opinion, this flies in the face of the holiness of God.

Katie
I agree! They have their scapegoats.
 
http://www.biblicalpolygamy.com/exegesi ... gave-wives
this website is great......
see this from the page.
The following is from that website.


God said He GAVE Wives
Sometimes, people are indeed honest enough to admit that the Bible really does not prohibit polygamy (polygyny). However, as a hedge against that admission, such ones may then resort to saying one of the following assertions:

"Yes, but God never condoned polygamy."
"Yes, God allowed it, but He was against polygamy."
"Polygamy was only man's idea, not God's".
"Yes, but God never approved of polygamy."

The passage involving 2 Samuel 12:8 rather clearly reveals otherwise.

"And I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things."
2 Samuel 12:8.

The context of the verse is that of God, speaking through a prophet (Nathan), calling out David for David's sin of taking another man's wife (Bathsheba, wife of Uriah the Hittite), which is adultery indeed, and for setting up the death of Uriah the Hittite to try to hide David's sin.

Also, at the point in time of this situation, David had already been married to at least seven known-named wives. (1_Samuel 18:27, 25:42-43, 2_Samuel 3:2-5.)

But, in this verse 12 (above), God was not condemning David for all his wives! In fact, this verse 12 shows God Himself actually saying that HE was the One Who had GIVEN David His wives.

If God was against David's polygamy, He certainly would not have said that He had GIVEN David his wives.

But the LORD did not stop there. That verse 12 shows that the Lord took it even one step further than that! The LORD God even went on further to say that if David had wanted more wives, the Lord Himself said that He would have given David even more!

It was only because David had sinned, in committing adultery by taking another man's wife, and then causing that man's death to try to hide David's sin, that the Lord was calling him out through the prophet Nathan. There was no sin in the polygamy at all.

This is later confirmed that this was the only matter by 1 Kings 15:5, which says the following:

"Because David did that which was right in the eyes of the LORD, and turned not aside from any thing that he commanded him all the days of his life, save only in the matter of Uriah the Hittite. "
1 Kings 15:5.

Two verses before that, in 1 Kings 15:3, the Bible says that David's heart was perfect with the LORD God.

Very clearly, therefore, what all this shows is that God is the One Who gives wives, even when more than one wife.

This is, of course, confirmed by 1_Corinthians 7:17.

"But as God hath distributed to every man,
as the Lord hath called every one,
so let him walk.
And so ordain I in all churches."
1 Corinthians 7:17.

Be it
NO wife,
ONE wife, or
MORE THAN ONE wife,
it is only has God calls and gives.

As such, it is clear that the Bible does, in fact, explicitly show

"Yes, God did condone polygamy."
"Yes, God allowed it, and He was not against polygamy."
"Polygamy is not a man's idea, but God's".
"Yes, God did approve of polygamy."

In 2 Samuel 12:8, He Himself said so!
 
Jim wrote:
I think Pastor Whitten's example of the shewbread was a beautiful example. God had a specific desire for where the shewbread was to be, yet if it was within certain parameters, he was still pleased. So while we could call the placement of the shewbread as his perfect will and the movement of the shewbread as his permissive will, it was all still pleasing to him.
I agree, to a point. Where it was OK for the shewbread to be depended on the circumstances. During travel, anywhere within the prescribed parameters was OK. But when the Tabernacle was set up and ready for service, do you think God would have been pleased if the shewbread was just anywhere on the top of the table? The important principle is that God prescribed when the shewbread had to be in a specific location and when it could be somewhere else, but still within certain parameters. We, as humans, have no right to make up our own parameters and say that it is God's will, "permissive" or "perfect."

When talking about monogamy v. polygyny, one is not God's perfect will for us with the other only being within His parameters. That's like saying that God's perfect will is for all missionaries to go to Africa but being a missionary to South America or India or China is within His permissive will. It is His perfect will that certain missionaries go to Africa, and it is His perfect will that others go to other places.

In like manner, it is His perfect will that some men have one woman, and a few have more than one. IMHO, few, if any, are called to a life of celibacy:
Genesis 2:18 NKJV And the LORD God said, "It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him."

Most people (preachers or otherwise) who talk about "God's permissive will" really mean that "God winked at sin." That is a corruption of what Paul said in his Mars Hill sermon:
Acts 17:30 NKJV Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent[.]
{KJV says "winked at" where NKJV says "overlooked."}
It was not the sin that God "winked at"; rather, it was man's ignorance that something was sin:
Romans 5:13 NKJV For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
There are some things that the righteous men in the OT did that God later, in the giving of the Law at Mt. Sinai, said was sin. For example, Abraham married his own sister:
Genesis 20:12 NKJV But indeed she is truly my sister. She is the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother; and she became my wife.
Yet in Mosaic law, given 430 years after Abram was called by God:
Leviticus 18:9 NKJV The nakedness of your sister, the daughter of your father, or the daughter of your mother, whether born at home or elsewhere, their nakedness you shall not uncover.
But IMHO, one of the main reasons for the incest prohibition was because of the deterioration of human DNA after the Flood to the point that it was dangerous to the children produced by an incestuous union. So the laws about incest might be due to a change in mankind (DNA deterioration) that brought about changed circumstances that caused birth defects now (harm to the next generation) but would not have caused birth defects four or five centuries earlier. A modern example would be speed limit laws. 100 years ago, setting the speed limit to 75 mph would have been rather ridiculous since most automobiles available then might go 25 mph downhill with a tailwind. :lol:

There is absolutely nothing anywhere in the Bible that, at any time in the history of God's Revelation to us, calls polygyny "sin." Not in the OT, not in the NT. In fact, there are laws that make polygyny a requirement under certain circumstances.

So polygyny hardly falls under the concept of "God's permissive will" no matter what definition of that phrase a person applies to it.
 
Pluralfamilies.net said:
http://www.biblicalpolygamy.com/exegesis/god-said-he-gave-wives
this website is great......
see this from the page.
The following is from that website.


God said He GAVE Wives
Sometimes, people are indeed honest enough to admit that the Bible really does not prohibit polygamy (polygyny). However, as a hedge against that admission, such ones may then resort to saying one of the following assertions:

"Yes, but God never condoned polygamy."
"Yes, God allowed it, but He was against polygamy."
"Polygamy was only man's idea, not God's".
"Yes, but God never approved of polygamy."

The passage involving 2 Samuel 12:8 rather clearly reveals otherwise.

"And I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things."
2 Samuel 12:8.

The context of the verse is that of God, speaking through a prophet (Nathan), calling out David for David's sin of taking another man's wife (Bathsheba, wife of Uriah the Hittite), which is adultery indeed, and for setting up the death of Uriah the Hittite to try to hide David's sin.

Also, at the point in time of this situation, David had already been married to at least seven known-named wives. (1_Samuel 18:27, 25:42-43, 2_Samuel 3:2-5.)

But, in this verse 12 (above), God was not condemning David for all his wives! In fact, this verse 12 shows God Himself actually saying that HE was the One Who had GIVEN David His wives.

If God was against David's polygamy, He certainly would not have said that He had GIVEN David his wives.

But the LORD did not stop there. That verse 12 shows that the Lord took it even one step further than that! The LORD God even went on further to say that if David had wanted more wives, the Lord Himself said that He would have given David even more!

It was only because David had sinned, in committing adultery by taking another man's wife, and then causing that man's death to try to hide David's sin, that the Lord was calling him out through the prophet Nathan. There was no sin in the polygamy at all.

This is later confirmed that this was the only matter by 1 Kings 15:5, which says the following:

"Because David did that which was right in the eyes of the LORD, and turned not aside from any thing that he commanded him all the days of his life, save only in the matter of Uriah the Hittite. "
1 Kings 15:5.

Two verses before that, in 1 Kings 15:3, the Bible says that David's heart was perfect with the LORD God.

Very clearly, therefore, what all this shows is that God is the One Who gives wives, even when more than one wife.

This is, of course, confirmed by 1_Corinthians 7:17.

"But as God hath distributed to every man,
as the Lord hath called every one,
so let him walk.
And so ordain I in all churches."
1 Corinthians 7:17.

Be it
NO wife,
ONE wife, or
MORE THAN ONE wife,
it is only has God calls and gives.

As such, it is clear that the Bible does, in fact, explicitly show

"Yes, God did condone polygamy."
"Yes, God allowed it, and He was not against polygamy."
"Polygamy is not a man's idea, but God's".
"Yes, God did approve of polygamy."

In 2 Samuel 12:8, He Himself said so!
Great points! I recently debated polygamy with a pastor who said 2Sam. was about David's adultery and not about polygamy. I think he was being willingly ignorant.
 
PolyDoc said:
Jim wrote:

So polygyny hardly falls under the concept of "God's permissive will" no matter what definition of that phrase a person applies to it.

You've got no argument from me! I agree wholeheartedly. I don't even like the term, "permissive will". In my opinion, all that happened in the past is God's perfect will because it happened. I'm obviously a Calvinist ;)

My point was simply that sometimes it's nomenclature. If I were to use the term, "permissive will" (which I would rather not use), it would mean something entirely different than what Fairlight's pastor meant.

The whole "winks at sin" idea is also repugnant to me. First, because God, in His holiness, could never do such a thing. Second, because it's a total twisting of the verse it comes from.

As a member of a plural family, I am totally at peace with the fact that PM is righteous in the eyes of God!

Katie
 
we must be so amusing to the great cloud of witnesses in the heavenlys.

kinda like a kitten with a ball of yarn, except that we are so serious about our view of reality.
not poking fun at any one in particular, just all-us-all.
 
steve wrote:
we must be so amusing to the great cloud of witnesses in the heavenlys.
We must have a different concept of what Hebrews 12:1 means. Those witnesses are not just standing on the balconies of Heaven watching us as if we are contestants in a sporting event or actors in a theatrical production. Rather, they are witnesses in the legal sense to the fact that it is possible for a person to live a life of faith. The context is the famous "Faith" chapter, Hebrews 11.

The word translated "witnesses" is the same Greek word from which we get the word "martyr." I think those who have gone on before us have much better things to do than to watch us here on Earth. You know, things like sitting at Jesus' feet and learning about all those things they got wrong in this life... :D
 
You know, things like sitting at Jesus' feet and learning about all those things they got wrong in this life...
they may have gotten that sorted out well within the first hundred years and are now cheering or groaning our decisions. i know that YHWH cares greatly about our decisions and i do not believe that the things that He cares about and the people that His Son is interceeding for are ignored by those that have gone before.
 
"A sincere believer in the Lord Jesus would desire God's perfect will, not His permissive will. God permitted polygamy for the hardness of the heart." This is what my pastor told me today. Is the "permissive will" idea like saying God winked at sin, as someone else said in a previous post?
 
Jim, it appears we have a confusion of terms. What I was dealing with is perhaps better called God's general will compared to His specific will. What Fairlight's pastor and yours seems to be talking about is the idea that polygyny is not what God wants but He lets it slide in some circumstances, not that it is good, but it could be worse. In this context, I would certainly agree with sola scriptura, and say such pastors must have a low opinion of our sovereign God. There were times in human history when God permitted behavior, but only because He had not yet revealed the specific truth to His people. Such is not the case with polygyny or plural marriage. It is clearly documented in scripture that not only did God design, permit and regulate PM, but He also chose to bless it. My God is not thwarted by rebellious human will.
 
If God has a "perfect" will and a "permissive" one, doesn't that create gray areas between sin and righteousness, and wouldn't that make God less than holy, and less then all knowing? To say that something is less than God's "perfect" or what he regulates is less than "perfect" is insane. If polygamy wasn't "perfect" then why didn't God give a monogamy only command? One could easily conclude celibacy wasn't in God's "perfect" will either, does that make it less than "perfect"? And if celibacy was in His "perfect" will, does that place marriage in His "permissive" will? It's true that celibacy isn't perfect for everyone but neither is marriage be it mono or poly. God regulated them also. Maybe God had a plan A and plan B in the begining, He is all knowing, and plan A didn't work out so He implimented plan B also. Does that make plan B any less "perfect" than His plan A?....ok i'm just thinking, maybe not clearly. It was the way the pastor made polygamy appear because of God's "permissive" will. Does this "perfect" will vs "permissive" take us back to the strife over God's original intents? Brothers it's a blessing to be discipled.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top