BigBert

Nope, we don't loose our salvation every time we sin. However, we are known by our fruits. Just like we would be suspicious if a serial murderer or rapist claimed to have saving faith, we might also be uncertain about whether a self-murderer (suicider) has saving faith. Then according to your logic, everyone's salvation is under question, since we all continue to sin. We should question the salvation of a person wh tells a lie, who over eats, who gossips. Any person's life could be looked at at a given isolated moment and faith not appear to be present (i.e. Abraham's little episode in Egypt with Sarah). If the person was trully saved before they sinned (what ever the sin is) the sin cannot separate them from God. If it can, then salvation is maintained by our righteousness. Our salvation is a result of our faith. Once we are saved, we are taught to walk in the Spirit and if we do so, we will not fulfil the lusts of the flesh, and will not be under the law. When we stop walking in the Spirit, and we go back to sinning, we are in danger of losing our salvation. If we commit a wilful transgression, like suicide for instance, and have no opportunity to repent, the result will be a loss of salvation and eternity in hell. This has nothing to do with questioning other people's salvation. We need to be concerned with ourselves, but I do not believe a Christian can continue in sin and remain saved. If you want to call that a salvation where someone believes it is maintained by our righteousness, so be it, but I don't believe that either. God is the one that empowers us to live right. We cannot do it by ourselves. The key is walking in the Spirit, and trusting God to give us the grace to walk the Christian walk. As we drift away from God, then we have the law staring us in the face telling us right from wrong, but we cannot live by those laws in our own strength. We must get up trusting God in the morning, continue to do so throughout the day, and go to bed trusting in God to keep us. Pray without ceasing. So salvation is by faith, but maintained by works? Yes. James 2:14-26 14 What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him? 15 If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, 16 And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit? 17 Even so, faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. 18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works. 19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble. 20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? 21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? 22 Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? 23 And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God. 24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. 25 Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way? 26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also. That passage does not say that salvation is maintained by works. That is a theology called covenental nomism. It says that true faith will result in works. Works are the fruit of faith (See Ephesians 2:8-10 for the exact logical relationship. Works do come as a result of faith. I said that in another post. At the same time, the passage makes it clear that if a person has faith, and no works, their faith is dead. It is of no value. If a person goes about in constant sin after getting saved, they are not bearing the fruit of the Spirit, but they are fulfilling the lust of the flesh, and the Bible says such a one shall not inherit the Kingdom of Heaven. When a person commits suicide, they are not walking in the Spirit, but they have committed murder of self, and no murderer has eternal life. It is Jesus that cleanses us from all of our past sins, and reconciles us to the Father. It is also Jesus that gives us the grace and ability to walk the Christian walk, but he doesn't make us continue with him. While no man can pluck us out of his hand, he won't force us to remain in it. Killing ones self is walking out of Jesus' hand and into the flames of hell. Butero, if we're speeding on the highway in a state of anger and get killed in a crash, are we headed for hell, then, being in an unrepentant state at the moment, Jesus' death for all of our sins notwithstanding? There is a difference between a wilful sin and something we are doing without thinking it through. Hebrews 10:26 "For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins." While I suppose it is possible that a person could pre-meditate that they are going to wilfully speed while in a state of anger, it is not likely. Most of the time, those things occur without giving them any thought, and a transgression that occurs without pre-meditation won't cause a person to lose their salvation. Most of the time, God will convict that Christian later on, and then they need to repent. I probably don't see it that way, since the more attuned we would be to Christ and walking in His Spirit, the more likely we'd perceive an immediate problem with our thoughts and actions, as it would be obviously in stark contrast to His will for us. Is He not with us, convicting us of the possible dangers of our actions when our very life (and others around us) is at stake? On Hebrews 10:26, that's certainly one way of interpretation. Many others may point that it's referring to those who have been presented the gospel (without necessarily accepting it internally and humbly) and then outright reject it in an utterly arrogant fashion (indicating a belief they don't in any way need such grace). I admit to having great difficulty with such a subject, since our righteousness in God surely can only be because He views us through Christ, whose death paid the price for our sins. It seems when we start thinking "what if" on various scenarios, our salvation starts depending on things besides His righteousness and ultimate gift of love and it becomes one of performance. We move away from grace at that point, as any of our own best efforts are "as filthy rags" compared to the perfect holiness that God's standard requires. Either Christ's righteousness, death and resurrection saves us, or it fails to on its own and we're stuck with trying to determine what level of consistency, total walking in His ways, etc is required to ensure we're still saved. Those who have been or are married realizes how sour a relationship based on such conditional love and acceptance can be.

Nope, we don't loose our salvation every time we sin. However, we are known by our fruits. Just like we would be suspicious if a serial murderer or rapist claimed to have saving faith, we might also be uncertain about whether a self-murderer (suicider) has saving faith. Then according to your logic, everyone's salvation is under question, since we all continue to sin. We should question the salvation of a person wh tells a lie, who over eats, who gossips. Any person's life could be looked at at a given isolated moment and faith not appear to be present (i.e. Abraham's little episode in Egypt with Sarah). If the person was trully saved before they sinned (what ever the sin is) the sin cannot separate them from God. If it can, then salvation is maintained by our righteousness. Our salvation is a result of our faith. Once we are saved, we are taught to walk in the Spirit and if we do so, we will not fulfil the lusts of the flesh, and will not be under the law. When we stop walking in the Spirit, and we go back to sinning, we are in danger of losing our salvation. If we commit a wilful transgression, like suicide for instance, and have no opportunity to repent, the result will be a loss of salvation and eternity in hell. This has nothing to do with questioning other people's salvation. We need to be concerned with ourselves, but I do not believe a Christian can continue in sin and remain saved. If you want to call that a salvation where someone believes it is maintained by our righteousness, so be it, but I don't believe that either. God is the one that empowers us to live right. We cannot do it by ourselves. The key is walking in the Spirit, and trusting God to give us the grace to walk the Christian walk. As we drift away from God, then we have the law staring us in the face telling us right from wrong, but we cannot live by those laws in our own strength. We must get up trusting God in the morning, continue to do so throughout the day, and go to bed trusting in God to keep us. Pray without ceasing. So salvation is by faith, but maintained by works? Yes. James 2:14-26 14 What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him? 15 If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, 16 And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit? 17 Even so, faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. 18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works. 19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble. 20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? 21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? 22 Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? 23 And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God. 24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. 25 Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way? 26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also. That passage does not say that salvation is maintained by works. That is a theology called covenental nomism. It says that true faith will result in works. Works are the fruit of faith (See Ephesians 2:8-10 for the exact logical relationship. Works do come as a result of faith. I said that in another post. At the same time, the passage makes it clear that if a person has faith, and no works, their faith is dead. It is of no value. If a person goes about in constant sin after getting saved, they are not bearing the fruit of the Spirit, but they are fulfilling the lust of the flesh, and the Bible says such a one shall not inherit the Kingdom of Heaven. When a person commits suicide, they are not walking in the Spirit, but they have committed murder of self, and no murderer has eternal life. It is Jesus that cleanses us from all of our past sins, and reconciles us to the Father. It is also Jesus that gives us the grace and ability to walk the Christian walk, but he doesn't make us continue with him. While no man can pluck us out of his hand, he won't force us to remain in it. Killing ones self is walking out of Jesus' hand and into the flames of hell. Butero, if we're speeding on the highway in a state of anger and get killed in a crash, are we headed for hell, then, being in an unrepentant state at the moment, Jesus' death for all of our sins notwithstanding?

(to Cobalt) And her convictions about that showed you were on the right path with that one. Third time a charm, huh? (grins) Regarding reconciliation, I tend to agree with you, and as Paul exhorts, we're to let the non believer go in such a situation. Having said that, I feel peace about my own end of it. Because, while I certainly didn't beg, I did all I felt I could, even relaying to her just a week ago my willingness in this "final hour" to still try and reconcile, that we need some Christian-based counseling together. Absolute silence on her end, as always, which says a lot, actually.

I definitely agree with you here 100%. The problem is, the church, in general, does not seperate the Victimizer from the Victim. They lump them into the same class and treat them the same way, and they shouldn't. There should be a clear deliniating line between them, and they should be treated differently. I am with you. The instigator should not have his/her actions condoned. This is often done, and the victim is often the one they hang out to dry, like it was somehow their fault. That part I don't get at all. Good stuff from both of y'all as far as I'm concerned. I enjoy this kind of back and forth.

Great post, Cobalt. And I think I can speak for more than myself in that we're appreciative of your laying out your life's difficulties on this forum. One thing that stuck out to me is your marrying non-believers and I see this a lot as a fundamental flaw in a marriage. God wants us to be equally yoked, and I have serious doubts my wife (soon to be ex) is a believer. Certainly, she's in the same place your two ex's were--not wanting any part of reconciliation despite our best efforts nor wanting a real relationship of any kind with God (so far as I can tell).

by the way, I don't notice an edit function for the title, but it should have included "repentance" as well. The link I cited deals extensively with what this meant to Jesus and the early believers and plays a big role in how we view true salvation.

As always, peoples interpretations of Jesus teachings on divorce, and any other subject should be tempered by heart knowledge, not head knowledge, and the spirit of the law, not the letter of the law. Jesus was saying to the Pharisees, who really didn't want to hear it, that you cannot just divorce your wife for any old reason like not having supper ready on time, or some other equally stupid reason. Also, as you said, a great deal of the time, men simply "put away" their wives without lawfully divorcing them, causing the woman all kinds of problems. That is the issue that Jesus was dealing with. But traditionally, the church in general has used these scriptures to people's detriment instead of to their benefit. They have used them to keep certain class of Christians pressed down and relegated to a lower status because they have failed to explore the spirit of what Christ said. It is much easier to go with a legalistic approach based on interpretations that are, in some cases, faulty at best. The only way we will know for certain what Jesus meant is when we stand before Him face to face, and some people will be very surprised by what He has to say to them on this issue. I think you're right.

See my reply to the real life scenario you cited. I believe it is the Church's responsibility to get involved in these matters, yes. I just think it needs to take the approach I've laid out in so doing. Having said that, I recognize we're all fallible and I don't have all the answers for the many questions on this difficult subject.

Agree that's a situation that, IMO, is where the guy's in the wrong. The woman may have been hard to live with, but she showed no interest in leaving and in fact appears deeply sorrowful for his splitting from her. Perhaps it's indirectly a message she took to heart and would do whatever she could to try and make the marriage more fruitful for both parties. Despite her continued efforts, he's moving on and messing with someone else and set to jump to her. I can't abide that. Having said that, if he goes through with it, it's certainly something he'll have to answer to God on. Meanwhile, I feel that while he should not remarry, if he does go ahead, then I don't believe it's a loving thing to insist the abandoned woman stay unmarried. She should feel free as God moves in her to remarry another believer.

Smalcald--I myself support the freedom to remarry, but not as "freely" as some likely hold to. I think it's a case-by-case situation, largely. For instance, let's assume two believers, and one spouse is truly attempting to reconcile on a consistent basis. Let's further assume that spouse has not had a history of, say, adultery or severe abuse but the other spouse opted to leave and divorce anyway. Assuming the latter wants to remarry, I would have a deeply difficult time justifying performing that ceremony as a pastor or supporting it in any way at all. Maybe the spouse that was deserted had other issues. However, if he/she has truly shown a willingness to do whatever necessary to save the marriage, I find it against all aspects of God's character to allow the new marriage to take place. This doesn't encompass all situations, but I think it a godly perspective that considers the situation and invokes God's desire to love and cherish one another in an atmosphere where true reconciliation is possible, but for the one side's bitterly closed heart.

Briefly, Jesus reveals more than anything God's grace and love. Just one example is His request to turn the other cheek, rather than take an eye for an eye. Everything He did seemed to be about displaying love to the fullest. Does the same Savior who repeatedly sets the standard of grace then take a contrary position on divorce? Some seem to believe that. I think the point is missed when we try and blanket cover something He said without really considering who He was talking to and the situation right then and there. He tended to consistently defend the defenseless or the wronged, which seems exactly what He was doing in His passages on marriage and divorce. As has been noted before, Jesus was dealing with unbelievably consistently hard hearted men who dominated women and often treated them worse than slaves. With woman's position being so inferior in that society and being thrown out for cooking a bad meal, who do you think Jesus is going to strongly defend here? Notice the verses; He doesn't say a word about what grounds the woman had for divorce. We're making assumptions if we carry His statements to exclude all the allowances in the Old Testament for the woman leaving. Further, many of the men were just putting away their wives without an actual certificate of divorce, vastly compounding the problem because the women could not legally remarry, being literally guilty of adultery in a legal sense--though their husbands had ruthlessly dismissed them. [Many, in fact, believe this is primarily what Jesus was referring to in using the term for putting away and not divorce, just as God through the prophet Malachi (2:16) stated He "hated the putting away."] Again, of course Jesus is going to come down hard on these hypocritical Pharisees, who on top of everything else were trying to trick Jesus in their questioning so they could further accuse Him. Instead, He cut through their garbage and ridiculed their hearts, telling them clearly the only thing they could put away (He didn't actually say divorce) their wives would be for legitimate, very limited grounds of adultery/fornication (these words are not always super clear in meaning, but they relate to unfaithfulness for sure). Interestingly, it's the same reasons God Himself gave for giving Israel a certificate of divorce in the Old Testament (Jeremiah 3:8, with the same exact Hebrew word for divorce as was used in the laws Moses granted for divorce). Israel was acting as the adulterer, the whore. One's physical-spiritual (the human marriage), the other relationship solely spiritual, but the same meaning--severe unfaithfulness. Today's world and our society is wholly different, with the women actually often filing for the divorce and sometimes abusing the men in some manner, etc. I think it's somewhat apples and oranges, as our society, for instance, sure doesn't possess such a male dominated culture of bullies. What's not apples and oranges is the motivation behind His teachings and expectations. And that motivation is love and mercy, "for which there is no law," as Paul would say. The Bible covers a lot of ground, obviously, but most would agree many situations in life come up that it does not cover, whether that be content or context. It does, however, give us godly principles to pursue. It's when our motivation is wholly selfish that we know we're doing wrong in His eyes. But I believe many bad marriages reach a point where we fail to consider the context and fall short in showing love to the victim by holding him or her to standards we ourselves may not endure (or at least shouldn't). Even if we do, it's quite conceivable God Himself would not want us to in some cases.

I have researched God myself on these issues and as I said, I do not feel any condemnation in my heart on these issues. How can you people know what is going on with a servant of God and their Lord? Yes, you are defending a pet doctrine. The Holy Ghost will not dwell in an unclean vessel, why then do I have the Holy Ghost? And don't you dare say I don't, because you DON'T know. And besides, you had best be careful who you are calling unclean. You people can believe what you want to, so will I. As for me, my belief is a person should have obedience in marrying in the first place and keep that marriage alive. God will help people in their marriage if they ask him too. We do bring a lot of what we go through on ourselves. You are trying to put bondage on God's people who have made mistakes. I am out of this discussion.....I'm sorry I divorced in the first place and sorry if I did wrong about remarriage. But God knows that and I do not feel any condemnation about my present. God loves me and I have fellowship with him. He answers my prayers. I love him. Miss Ely, I hope you don't feel too aggravated with JCISGD and the whole subject. This is his opinion based on his interpretations, which I respect. However, as you may have read on the marriage-divorce thread, such opinions can be held both ways. There is surely enough substance from the other side of the coin on this to feel every bit as sure. Though I know his experiences leading to his convictions to be fully genuine, I know others who have experienced life lessons that may well result in different convictions. In the end, we each must simply go with what we absolutely know to be best. I also believe there's a spiritual component that can shed light when scripture is not really nearly as plain as some prefer to believe.

A. Let's clear this up right away: No one has called you any names, so let's not go there. Your attitude on this issue often lacks grace and understanding, and that is what you are being called to account for, not particularly the message itself. B. If you don't like responses to your posts, perhaps you should consider a change of attitude towards your Christian brothers and sisters and choose your words more carefully. Remarriage is not always a sin. There is absolutely no way that being married again after a divorce is living in a constant state of adultery. The first act might be adulterly, IF the divorce was not for a biblical reason, but as soon as one repents, they are forgiven by God and that sin is forgotten. For good. When you, and others who wish to cause guilt trips about divorce (and that's really the only motivation I can think of for threads like this) start tossing around "constant state of adultery," you are saying, not hinting, not suggesting, not intimating, that divorce and remarriage is an unforgivable sin. And you are 100% wrong, not according to me, but according to scripture. There is only one unforgivable sin, and adultery, and/or divorce and remarriage isn't it. I've seen all kinds of people saying all kinds of things on this subject. Some of them way too hard-line like you and JCISG, and others advocating divorce for just about any conceivable reason and the truth lies somewhere in the middle. I've seen people advocate divorcing whoever you are with now and trying to hook up with your first spouse, if he/she will take you back. How stupid is that? Commit another sin by getting divorced again, and then committ another sin because Deuteronomy 24:4 says you are not to re-marry your first spouse. Divorce is horrible and should always be resorted to as the absolute last option. But this whole attitude of "then you can't get married again" is bogus. The whole attitude that one is in a constant state of adultery if they remarry is bogus. When a couple is divorced, there is seldom a divorce that has both people wanting out. One wants out, the other does not. The entire process is painful enough, but then we have people who wish to prolong that pain and make sure a person suffers for a divorce the rest of their life, and these people are inside the church. The church is one of the few institutions I know of that often trys to kill their wounded. "Been divorced? Too bad, we'll make it worse. Your living in a constant state of sin. Your damaged goods and a second-class Christian. Your only good for menial tasks within the church like taking out the trash and cleaning up after a church dinner. Hope you don't desire more than that, because we will remind you often that you sinned, you are basically no good, and you should feel shame the rest of your life." I often anger people because even though I have been divorced, I refuse to hang my head in shame, or resign myself to the position that most of the churchs would like for me to that I am no good for anything but warming the back pew. IF I was wrong in my divorce and remarriage, which I don't feel I was, I have ask forgiveness, and I stand forgiven, now and always by Jesus' shed blood. I don't need or seek the approval of the church or someone on a message board. God shows much more grace on this issue than most churches, or individuals do, and it's too bad that more people and fellowships are not able to figure that out. So to those that wish to make those who have already suffered enough through this horrible experience suffer more: Stop. And to those that have suffered, have asked forgiveness, but are still feeling guilt or shame: Stop. God doesn't see you that way, just some mis-guided and unforgiving people do. Fantastic reply, brother. I believe you understand the spirit of what God/Jesus wants to convey more than a lot of folks who inevitably miss the Spirit of love, forgiveness and grace and, rather, mistake it for permissiveness and a do whatever feels good mentality. But that's not what folks like you and I are talking about, and I believe it's a grave error to assume that to be the case for folks without knowing the circumstances.

Believer 97's post reminds of so many times we hear of two believers coming together in remarriage and having it be blessed many times over. Hardly the stuff of a God that is ensuring they end up bound for hell due to unrepentant sin. She's right--Jesus died once and for all, for all sins. This is hardly the time to play the "you're making sin acceptable" card. It's more complex than that, as the other marriage-divorce thread pretty much showed. Repentance in the Bible most often has more to do with a change of attitude about your actions--ie an acknowledgment to God you need Him and that you fall well short of perfection. It's up to His Spirit to convict you and to guide you in your ensuing actions. As even JCISGD stated in that other thread, for King David to have then divorced Bathsheba would merely have created another hardship and sin, yet according to some that's exactly what David should have done. God, though, did not require it, and that even included a murder involved to attain her.

Truly, all the work has been done already by Him; no credit to us, not to anything we can do, except to accept the ultimate divine gift. I fear--as I myself at times have been guilty of--that we attempt to add or twist His love gift into something that takes glory from Him in some way, whether we intend to or not. I'm in essence "preaching to myself" at least as much as anyone else. At times, I simply need to get grounded again and again in this truth, for my very peace in Him is fully dependent on it. If my eyes start focusing too much on myself, my progress in being holy, etc, the joy starts vanishing as does the inevitable fruit. Personal experience should have shown me this more clearly than the sun coming up, yet I'm too unwise at times, at least, to keep His boundless love at the forefront of my heart and mind. Truly, though, it all starts with this ultimate sacrifice of love. Here is a fantastic piece describing such in terms of giving us confidence in this scripturally. http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Books,%20Tr.../repentance.htm I won't copy and paste it, since it's a long page and the quoting function causes this site's pages to fill up too fast. Please read it, though, as time permits and thank Him for such unsurpassed love.

JCISGD, you make some points worthy of consideration, but there are some hard line literalists who will take certain passages in such a way as to allow for zero grace.

gotta agree here with cobalt in light of the air that you seem to present, sorry to say. And as to divorce, while I know JCisGD's response to this, you can give yours (either to yourself or on this board) as to God divorcing Israel. Obviously, His relationship is not the totally 100% exact same thing as a man to a woman, but, as you know, God often parallels His relationship to the church with that between a husband and wife. In the OT, He refers to Israel committing adultery, whoring itself to others, so that He put her away and gave her a certificate of divorce. In fact, this is the only time in the OT (maybe the whole Bible) where an actual divorce is recorded, and it's by none other than God Himself. So, obviously, the hard line approach of zero exceptions is faulty right there. And that's just the beginning, frankly. The Bible is replete with exceptions to basic rules, and if we're honest and open, we'll acknowledge. We then realize that the motivation for all things God-related is love, and when we try to insist on absolutes in all cases in this complex thing we call the world, we're going to miss the crux of love more than we should. something to think about, maybe.

sorry, but the thread on marriage and divorce delved into many scriptures pertaining to this subject. The problem came about more due to interpretation than a total dearth of any possible reasons for divorce allowance. Like with many such subjects, it's actually far more complex (in terms of understanding the culture, the precise Greek and Hebrew, etc) than either the hard line or the overly permissive would prefer to believe. I'm actually with you two in terms of battling against easy-way-out divorce. What I have a problem with as well, though, is the lack of grace on the subject in some quarters when actual study of the spirit of the law as well as particularly passages within said may well lead to less circulation-killing criteria.

I find this to be a strong take and perhaps answers at least some of the apparent fuzziness on the other (Westminster) thread. God bless

I appreciate the spirit of what you're saying. There are many qualifiers you present here, which to me kind of makes the initial question hard to answer in the vein you seem to be asking. God's standards have always been perfect, with Jesus further emphasizing this when discussing the thoughts from the heart in addition to the evident deeds. He did so in order to show us our own futility in trying to manage it, leading us to the mandatory requirement of the Cross. Not sure why you're bringing up OT figures, who--like everyone else, as Jesus and Paul repeatedly noted in various ways--were not perfect in their lives, and far from it when all is considered. For "even our righteousness is of filthy rags" compared to God. It's all relative, and we naturally fall short, as I'm sure you'd agree. Perhaps I don't understand the standard you're conveying, since real perfection (ie like Jesus) surely must include failing to do that which Christ would do. I gave a couple of examples, attempting to illustrate situations that, even in our possessing the Holy Spirit, we're prone to failure toward in areas that include not meeting legitimate needs of our fellow man/woman. I'm just sayin'.....(grin)

How does a couple know what is lawful, who do they go to for advice and who will grant this marriage or divorce? Really this is very complex, most Christian couples are not going to understand what to do. These really look like case by case situations from what I can tell. Actually, as our discussion the other marriage-divorce thread indicated, this is indeed a more complex issue than one may prefer it to be, if we're fully willing to consider all aspects of it--without falling into the trap of rationale for our selfish purposes, which JC naturally is concerned about.

Here's one approach to this question: http://www.faithalone.org/news/y1988/88dec3.html 21 Not everyone who says to Me, "Lord, Lord," shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. 22 Many will say to Me in that day, "Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?" 23 And then I will declare to them, "I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness." Recently I received a question from a reader about this passage. He wondered how I would respond to the charge that this passage teaches that one must submit to the Lordship of Christ to be saved. The interpretation of this passage hinges not on the expression, "Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,'" but on the expression, "He who does the will of My Father." Jesus did not say that no one who says "Lord, Lord" will enter the kingdom. He said, rather, that not all who say that will enter. So, who among those who say "Lord, Lord" will enter? Answer: those who do the will of the Father. What, then, does Jesus mean by the will of the Father and who are those who do it? One popular view today suggests that by the expression "the will of My Father" Jesus meant a life characterized by obedience to all that the Father has commanded. Thus those who do the will of the Father would be people who live godly, holy lives. There are several problems with this interpretation. First, God is perfect and one cannot enter His kingdom without becoming absolutely perfect (Isa. 64:6; Gal. 3:6-14; Heb. 10:1-18; James 2:10). Second, one cannot be said to have done the will of the Father unless he does it completely, 100%. To violate even just one of God's commands is to break them all (James 2:10). Third, even if these first two objections were not valid, this view leads to the unbiblical conclusion that no one can ever be sure that he is saved until he dies or is raptured. No one could ever know if he had obeyed enough. Yet the Scriptures are clear that the apostles knew with absolute certainty that they were saved and they wanted their readers to know this as well (Luke 10:20; John 13:10; Rom. 8:31-39; 2 Pet. 1:1; 1 John 2:12-14, 25; 5:13). There is another view as to what Jesus meant by the expression "the will of My Father." When Jesus spoke of doing the will of the Father to obtain kingdom entrance, He had one act of obedience in mind: believing the gospel. It is God's will that none should perish but that all should come to a change of mind about the gospel (2 Pet. 3:9). When asked the question, "What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?" Jesus said, "This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent" (John 6:28-29). In John 3:36 John is quoted as saying, "He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not believe/obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him." The word translated "he who does not believe" in the KJV and the NKJV and "he who does not obey" in the NASV is the verb apeitheo. The leading Greek Lexicon of the New Testament by Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich, and Danker makes a very insightful comment about apeitheo which sheds light on both John 3:36 and our passage, Matthew 7:21-23: Since in the view of the early Christians, the supreme disobedience was a refusal to believe their gospel, apeitheo may be restricted in some passages to the meaning disbelieve, be an unbeliever. This sense, though greatly disputed (it is not found outside our literature [i.e., outside the New Testament, the Apostolic Fathers, and other early Christian literature]), seems most probable in John 3:36; Acts 14:2; 19:9; Rom. 15:31. (BAGD, p.82) A person who trusts in Christ alone obeys completely the will of the Father to believe in Jesus Christ alone for eternal salvation. Such a person obtains absolute perfection before God [positionally speaking] since Christ takes away all of his sins and gives him His righteousness in exchange (2 Cor. 5:21; Col. 2:13-14; Heb. 10:1-18). And, such a person can be 100% sure of his salvation since he can know with certainty that he has done the will of the Father (in relation to the gospel) once and for all (cf. John 3:16; 5:24; Rom. 8:38-39; 1 John 5:13). Acts 5:32 and Acts 6:7 also refer to believing the gospel as an act of obedience to God. This passage, rather than supporting the Lordship Salvation or Works Salvation positions, actually contradicts them. Probably many of those who will say "Lord, Lord have we not prophesied, cast out demons, and done many wonders in Your name" are people who in this life were pastors, evangelists, missionaries, and the like. They may have baptized many, prayed and witnessed much, and done what they thought were many deeds which made them think that they were probably saved. Notice that Jesus does not question whether they actually did such deeds. Yet He rebukes them for not doing the Father's will and He denies them kingdom entrance. Those who do not believe in Christ alone for their salvation have failed to do the will of the Father. I do not believe that those who hold to Lordship Salvation or even Works Salvation are necessarily unsaved. Many people who now believe in Lordship Salvation, and even some who now hold to out-and-out Works Salvation, came to simple trust in Christ alone at some point in their lives and later became confused about the gospel. On the other hand, it is a sad possibility that some in the Lordship Salvation movement and many, if not most, in the Works Salvation camp have never placed their trust in Christ alone. They may go to their graves preaching passages like Matthew 7:21-23 only to find out that Jesus was talking about them, not someone else. I hope and pray that such people wake up before it is too late. The way that leads to life is narrow (Matt. 7:13-14). Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but by Him (John 14:6). Self-righteous people are on the wrong path. They are on the broad way that leads to destruction (Matt. 7:13). Jesus came to save those who know that they are sick and lost and in absolute need of His deliverance (Matt. 9:12-13; Mark 2:17; Luke 5:31-32; 18:9-14). Of course, that is all of us, all of mankind. However, some people are unwilling to own up to the truth. The cross of Christ is a stumbling block to those who think that they are good enough to deserve kingdom entrance. Those who throughout the course of their lives reject the free gift of salvation and refuse to trust in Christ alone will find out that in reality they are sinners, those who "practice lawlessness" (Matt. 7:23). Only then it will be too late. What would you say if you appeared before God and He said, "Why should I let you into My kingdom?" Matthew 7:22 is the wrong answer. The right answer is, "Lord, I am an unworthy sinner who has placed his complete trust upon what Jesus did for me upon the cross, and He promised that whoever believes in Him has eternal life" (Luke 18:13-14; John 3:16; Rom. 4:5; Eph. 2:8-9; Titus 3:5). May we call people to do the will of God so that they can obtain entrance into the kingdom of God. Those who place their trust wholly in Jesus Christ have done the will of the Father and have already passed from death to life (John 5:24) and will not come into judgment regarding their eternal destiny (John 3:18).

Interesting and worthy question. I think it's important in such a subject--if we're to really talk about being PERFECT, assuming that's the call here, we need to not only think about sins of commission--those we actively do to break God's precepts, but also those of omission--things we don't do that Christ would have done daily. Here are a couple of scriptures that illustrate (there may be more, but these are the two I recently came across): Romans 14:23 says, "For whatsoever is not of faith is sin." That seems to indicate that anything we do that we don't possess faith as being clearly OK is a sin, going beyond, say, the ten commandments. For those especially with acutely sensitive consciences (like myself), that can create unbelievable tension and a total lack of peace. I speak from experience there, and it's inevitably destructive to our walk (certainly was mine). James 4:17 says, "Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin." --Here we have the flip-side, the sins of "omission," where on some level (extremely clear or a modest beckoning) we fail to act where we know we should. Perhaps going across the street to talk to that troubled soul but we instead get in a hurry to do our own thing. Or maybe it's witnessing to someone who appears spiritually lost but for some reason we just don't quite do it. I don't know about you, but if we're truly going to stay sound across the board, then I think an awful lot of us fall short a number of times daily, much less over the course of a lifetime, even if we generally do a "very good" job of walking in the Spirit. It's a very long process, I believe; a Christ-like level that we don't really attain in full deed and spirit until we meet the bridegroom and are in His presence.

Like you, I too want to know the truth, even where it hurts. What I'm finding in large part is the traditional teachings of the church are often to be seriously questioned and sometimes flatly in error, at least the more in depth one searches. We need to get at the heart of the matter, take the whole of the Bible into account while also ensuring we're understanding the context of the times. There are many matters that Jesus or an apostle makes a comment in a way that easily would have been understood in their day, yet to us seems confusing, even contradictory to what we read elsewhere or have been raised to believe. For those wishing to stick to whatever doctrine they've grown up adhering, it can be a rugged journey to be exposed to other possibilities. Yet, if they find their long held beliefs to hold up, then they're on that much firmer ground and can walk in deeper confidence. I'm finding that ground, and I appreciate this thread and those who've participated thus far.

well said, as usual, my friend. I do appreciate your points and you've made me think more deeply about the subject. Like you, I want to be correct and not just right in my own mind. To that end, I think you've helped make me think more about the whole crux of the Good Book, the spirit of it, etc. This has brought me perhaps to conclusions that I wasn't as sure of before. In other words, you posed things in such a thoughtful manner that it inspired me to research and contemplate to another level. Thanks for that and the sincerity with which you present.