The biggest obstacles in Brazil (South America). Problems rooted in society.

[Mark C]

Sometimes Protestants sadly fail to live up to their own doctrine of Sola Scriptura. Unlike Rome, at least they profess that God's written Word is authoritative.

Sadly, kinda like leftists proclaim they "support the Bill of Rights..."

 

[Mark C]

...Protestants twist Paul’s letter to state that we are not under the law, but grace. But they fail to realize that Paul is referring to a “law of sin”, and not “God’s law.” Through this mis-understanding they teach that we are no longer under God’s law (Old Testament), which opens the door for deception...

That was a great response, @OttoM, but for clarity I again note that the Hebrew word "torah," used in the original in all those cases, is FAR better rendered as His "teaching and instruction," or just "instuction," for brevity, in English. "Law" is misleading, at best.


And, likewise, 'nomos' in the Greek does more closely mean 'law', so it, too, is a mistranslation. A 'double-translation' error just makes things like this harder to see:

Paul very clearly teaches that we are not under the Law, and the Law he is talking about is not simply the traditions of the elders which were added to the Law. It is the actual Law given through Moses.

We are not under the "nomos" of men, (or, slightly better, not under the "traditions of men," or traditions. of the elders, which we added to His Instruction, which includes, but is not limited to, His 'commandments," and "statutes," and "judgments" (there is a unique Hebrew word, used frequently, for each).

But His Instruction, given at least in part all the way back to Adam, and put in Writing via Moses, remains. And it includes a lot of stories, examples, and cases for us to see and observe, as instruction, too!

We have died to that Law,

Isn't it more clear, less confusing, to say, "We have died to what men CALLED 'law,' " -- but really isn't? It was additions, and subtractions, and "fences", and sometimes, just plain made up crap. We have 'died' to the lies.

And, understood in that sense, what was "nailed to the cross" was NOT His Instruction, but the "handwriting of the indictment" against us, for REBELLION to Him.

 

[Mark C]

Unfortunately Protestantism is so broad, that the word has become virtually meaningless. You can always find some Protestant somewhere who teaches anything.

"Protestant" literally just means "Protesting Catholic." And there is a lot to protest. (Martin Luther came up with 95*, and his missed some. )

The most famous American Catholic, John Cardinal Gibbons, in the last century, famously wrote that he (and thus 'they') considered ALL such protesting catholics to be 'Catholic' -- because by their acceptance of certain doctrines (he named some, we aren't allowed to here) they MUST accept their doctrine of "Apostolic Succession" and thus their Authority to CHANGE THOSE THINGS, because, he noted "God did NOT." They did.

And that included a lot about marriage, of course.


----------------------------------
* PS -- 95 PLUS, as someone will no doubt point out.

 

[The Revolting Man]

Alright, we’re drifting. Please keep this thread focused and away from the topic we all know you’re itching to fight about.

The OP started an interesting and relevant topic and I’m not going to lock it on him so I’ll have to be heavy handed with delete button.

 

[Mark C]

"Drift"??? Not really:

...South America it's even worse [than North America.] ...strong Roman influence on people's religion, which further aggravates the situation. The hardest thing to find in South America (Brazil) is wives......the Roman pressure is very strong in their minds, which prevents the idea of the polygamous biblical family.

That "Roman influence/pressure" is exactly what is being addressed.

They will inevitably tell you that the "Church" re-wrote His 'commands' about marriage. Surprised?

"For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men...many other such like things ye do." Mark 7:8

 

[Mark C]

PS> As for "wife candidates" -- I can tell him what to look for.

Can we, Zec???

 

[Bartato]

I think the RCC is a big part of it. The USA which was built by Protestants is slightly more to Biblical correction or at least differing views on the topic of marriage.

Americans also tend to have more of a focus on individualism and "live and let live" attitude and a willingness to "agree to disagree".

Don't take me wrong, Americans as a whole also totally hate patriarchy and polygyny.

I think the Federalism of the USA might be a factor. It is a big country, and laws vary significantly by state. Some states are a little more flexible than others.

 

[Mark C]

I think the Federalism of the USA might be a factor. It is a big country, and laws vary significantly by state. Some states are a little more flexible than others.

That part was deliberate, courtesy of the Founders. Would that it still was so. (Think - federal tax pressure, and "revenue sharing," and similar control mechanisms that are arguably unconstitutional, but, still...)

 

[Mark C]

I think the RCC is a big part of it. The USA which was built by Protestants is slightly more to Biblical correction or at least differing views on the topic of marriage.

The term used during the period was "papist." Referring to the "infallibility" claim, that allowed The Pope to Over-ride the Almighty on anything in the Book. There really is no "Biblical" argument, when the paradigm (postulate) is that what is Written doesn't matter, if the guy in the Hat changes it anyway.

 

[Otto]

Don't take me wrong, Americans as a whole also totally hate patriarchy and polygyny.

The fruit of enforced monogamy always leads to feminism, because it quite literally opens the door for it.

When people celebrate that God’s law was nailed to the cross - then this becomes the fruit. It opens the door for people to add and take away from his (already) perfect instructions; which (He says) leads to darkness and eventually judgment.

So the belief that his Instructions were nailed to cross could lead people into being under the law (of sin and death), and not the law of grace.

One of the apocryphal books (originally part of the KJV, and still part of the Greek Old Testament), mentions that the Most High gives grace to those that convert to his Torah (instructions). So I guess that the ‘Law of Grace’ is another valid name for the Torah. I suspect Paul would have known about this Scripture - “You’re not under the law (of sin) but (the law of) Grace.”

2nd Esdras 7:133-134
He (The Most High) is called gracious, since he has mercy on those who convert to his Law, and patient, because he shows patience to those who have sinned, since they are his own creation.

 

[Bartato]

The fruit of enforced monogamy always leads to feminism, because it quite literally opens the door for it.

Enforced monogamy seems to be a critical component of feminism.

Likewise, the possibility of polygyny seems to be a key component of patriarchy.

 

[Mark C]

Enforced monogamy seems to be a critical component of feminism.

"There can be only one." - The Highlander