Ddavid from NC

Its speaking of man without the aid of the Holy Spirit using the natural mind trying to unlock things perceived only by the Spirit and illumined to the child of God.

And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many. Matthew 27:51-53 KJV The death burial & resurection of Jesus at the conclusion of the Holy Week are the gospel. Yet most pulpits save their focus on the events of that week to the Spring of the year. Then there are so many angles and texts to examine it gets a general treatment. This may not be your experience but mine in church. I have heard a lot of references to the temple veil being rent and its significance. I have never heard a live teacher address the resurection of saints that immediately follows the death of Jesus. Note as well the time lapse they do not go into the city until after Jesus' resurection 3 days later. Then we do not know if they continue their life cycle or ascend to heaven. Some of these question we can only guess at, but what is the significance and spiritual purpose of these events, and why didn't it turn the Roman world upside down?

Believe me, the whole polygamy thing makes me physically ill. In *MY* mind I cannot fathom how a woman could NOT feel like a piece of meat or property and surely not 'loved' the way a wife should be if she is just one of however many wives in this mans harem, kwim ? But I also cant comprehend the MAN who would even WANT more than a single wife....God knows I can barely handle the one I have sometimes Is it about sexual deviance? Is it about a man who has a LOT and sees women who cannot provide for themselves and actually works with his existing wife who MIGHT actually be ok with his taking a second wife? I just am not in a position to condemn what God doesnt seem to even if *I* feel like the women in these situations are being demeaned. Think about this too...SOME women dont want all that attention from their husbands. I know this because I see it in my own family. I actually have at least two women in my family that Im almost convinced would actually WANT their husbands to have a second wife to keep them occupied sometimes. I cant say that for sure, but if you saw the situation youd probably wonder too. Now a woman like my wife Laura...no way. If I even thought of being a polygamist it would break her heart. Shes very possessive of our relationship and time together so theres no way she would ever go for it and it would kill her to think I was with someone else like I am with her. Just some thoughts on my part...nothing substancial. Don't let her see this post.

Personally *I* would never 'advocate' polgamy *IF* I were the guy in charge of it all. But I could not in good conscious, knowing what I found in my studies, prohibit it or declare anyone having more than one wife as being 'sinful'. In our culture I would discourage polygamy, but in some middle eastern or asian country where it might be lawful, I really would not feel to present anything MORE than what Gods word declares...such as Exodus 21 showing that if a wife isnt being provided for then she is free to leave the marriage, no questions asked. I think, based on Exodus 21, that if the woman is not being treated AS a wife should be, then by default it is 'sinful' regardless of the situation and that she should be permitted to leave the marriage if the man does not give her what is due her as his wife. Oddly enough Ive read a LOT of interviews with wives in these polygamous marriages and almost ALL of them seem quite content. There are a few who break away and say they hate it, but for those that remain it seems to be ok with them for whatever reason. If the man is doing ok..and the women and children are fine also, who are we to declare that something is inherently 'wrong' with the situation *IF* Gods word doesnt state as much...kwim ? Sounds like a man's world to me...In those cultures you are somewhat familiar, what is the value of a woman in society? This is my point. The women who are content, know they can't survive in those cultures without a man. I think I would probably not want to express any discontent either. Therefore I believe it is a fair question does this mean it is mistreatment of women and therefore a sin?

Perhaps another thread but viable point to this discussion is one that they wrestle with in all seminaries in their ethics training. "Is evil independent of God totally? Is righteousness independent of God? Or is something righteous because God says it is and is something evil simply because says that it is? Now I know this is like the philosophical question about the tree falling in the woods that nobody saw or heard. But, I believe this is real question. If God hating seems unrighteous, that means we are admitting to a standard independent of God. Which we find no Biblical proof of at all. But, see hints of it being truth in these apparent contradictions. Something to think about.

As the OP set the subject in the patriarchal period, everyone to my knowledge and memory say they are not advocating it for today. Is that merely because it is illegal in Western culture? Or do you think the liberation of women to a higher equality in society changes that practice? Which would create the natural question is polygamy downgrading to women? If that is so, wouldn't that make it sinful both today and yesterday?

You'll feel it in your heart and then in your shoulders.....like a weight rolling off. I know you have not miscommunicate here I just want to clarify, that feelings do not precede the act of forgiveness. Forgiveness is a command to the believer not a goal. I would also caution the feelings of the offense may linger long after the act or commitment to forgiveness. Jesus forgave His persecutors even as they were offending Him. FOogiveness is often predetermined in relationships before the offense as in familial and marriage relationships.

I have a working definition for "iniquity". Sin with no excuse.

You make a good point here Eric. I may take it further than you would take it with my comment. I am willing to be vulnerable to correction here. We are told to love our enemies, because we don't simply know the result of the end time harvest. It was Paul present at the martyrdom of Stephen who would be the greatest evangelist, but at that moment an enemy of God. As we are all prior to new birth. Jesus demonstrated a love for His enemies, because He demonstrated the way for humanity. It seems He is willingly in the dark according to John 17's High Priestly Prayer, when He says here are those you gave me. But God in His Sovereignty is not in the dark to who are His, so His actions are perfect inside of His perfect counsel. He loves who He loves, and He hates who He hates. Another angle to consider, the position of love includes the possiblity to hate as a coponent of love. Example: You come home one night to your family, and there has been a home invasion. You find your wife and children being grossly mistreated and their life threatened. You have been undetected and you know where a gun is hidden. At that moment motivated by love and hate you take action. How much stronger would that action be with a God who is both sovereign and powerful? Sinners are enemies of God, they seek to destroy that which is precious to God. The offer of grace is sovereign, His mercy until the fullness of time in our lives. The views I have expressed here are spontaneous and a process. I reserve the right to back up, edit, or change as I study and consider. So please read them with carefulness they are intended.

I appreciate your struggling through this with us OneLight. I can hear you thinking...........I want to clarify I have not suggested with my comment that God sends our sins to hell. I was stating there is no separating the sinner from his sins without redemption. I did say there are countless references to God's hate for sinners, yet we always promote, God loves the sinner and hates the sin. How do we sift through this desire to say that with the countless references and actions that suggest differently? I'm working and thinking right along with you on this one.

I'm playing the devils advocate here: Well when he sens your sins to hell, you go with them. So, how would He separate the two. remember we are enemies of God prior to salvation. Scripture does say "while we were yet sinners". But, then we have this verse and other countless references to his hate for sinners. how do we make sense of it and remain true to the Scripture and just not as we would prefer Him to be?

No disrespect to anyone posting on this thread pro or con, but it amazes me that there is so much to say about this topic. The verse that comes to mind that solves the whole issue is .... All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any. 1 Corinthians 6:12 KJV Is it wrong no. Is it a possible hindrance to my witness perhaps? perhaps... I have to judge my culture and the current societal opinion. The latter part of the verse says I can't let it make decisions for me or control my life. Notice the personal evaluation of the verse. Examine yourself and answer this question for yourself. Quit searching the Scripture looking for a specific verse or obscure exegetical interpretation. It will be wrong if you offend your conscience or care less if is expedient or let it become such an overriding part of your life that you lose your identity as a Christian to participate in a freedom.

What do we do with it ? Learn of course. This Psalm is a prayer to God to deal with the enemies of the Psalmist, we assume could be David. We are in told to turn the other cheek. We are told quite clearly that any kind of revenge against our enemies is wrong, as Vengance is mine sayeth the Lord. Deu 32:35 To me belongeth vengeance, and recompence; their foot shall slide in due time: for the day of their calamity is at hand, and the things that shall come upon them make haste. Yes GOd wishes to see every human "saved" but at the same time God will not tolerate his enemies and those who do wrong against his people. We see time and time in Bible how God is disgusted with any sin, anyone who rises up against God and h is people will suffer the full wrath of God, especially if the person or people involved do not undertake themselves to take any kind of revenge, be it verbal spreading hatred or physical. I have experienced this first hand myself. A number of times over past few years i have been attacked by number of my ex wife family members, I did nothing at all in form of gossiping, bad mouthing or taking any kind of revenge on them, God quickly dealt with them in his own way and brought upon them much suffering and anguish which mirrored the accusations and actions they made against me. We also see this when Israel is attacked by other nations, God has not allowed Israel to fall and the enemies of God have been wiped out and totally beaten and destroyed despite heavily out numbering the Jews. This is what we are essentially reading in Pslam 5, if you read further, verse 10 5:10 Destroy thou them, O God; let them fall by their own counsels; cast them out in the multitude of their transgressions; for they have rebelled against thee. David what you are suggesting is an old argument that is put up against those who oppose Christianity, most notably atheists. They revel in the so called inconstancy, hypocrisies and contradictions that they perceive to exist within the Bible, especially when they deal with Gods character. After all how can a God who declares he loves everyone in the next breath destroy them etc. God made us, God can do what he likes with us, I already explained how GOd hates sin and deals with people who attack Him and His people. People seem to forget we are at war with satan, what good is it if our commander in chief, God, sits back and does nothing and simply lets our enemies walk all over us and Israel? God is our shepherd, What use is a shepherd if he allows wolves to enter the flock every night and just take any sheep they like. pretty soon there would be no more sheep left, and those still remaining may flee and leave. So in short , God wishes all of us to be saved, God hates sin, but God is no push over or politically correct when it comes to dishing out punishment revenge and protecting his people. GOd may not like taking these lives or punishing , but then that is the persons problem not Gods, for they have rejected God and risen up against God. Andrew, thanks for your response. You are correct in identifying this passage as part of an imprecatory prayer of David. For clarity I'm not suggesting anything in posting this. It is simply a passage that doesn't fit with our comfortable beliefs concerning God and His character. People enjoy talking about the Providence of God and dismiss the aspect of His judgment and His true Sovereignty. The underlying question in this passage is David putting words in the mouth of God or is it correct? God hates sinners and their ways. Some theologs will suggest foreknowledge or foreordination plays a role, is in fact God does hate sinners.

The foolish shall not stand in thy sight: thou hatest all workers of iniquity. Psalm 5:5 KJV We have all heard and probably all said, "God hates the sin and loves the sinner". Well, what do we do with this verse?

Why did Jesus curse the fig tree? It was not the season for figs according to Marks writings on the subject. And on the morrow, when they were come from Bethany, he was hungry:And seeing a fig tree afar off having leaves, he came, if haply he might find any thing thereon: and when he came to it, he found nothing but leaves; for the time of figs was not yet.And Jesus answered and said unto it, No man eat fruit of thee hereafter for ever. And his disciples heard it. Mark 11:12-14 KJV

I heard about it on talk radio program called Coast to Coast AM about a week ago. A Christian scientist made reference to it. He is the famed NASA employee who has been searching for Noah's Ark for 30 years. But other than his reference I haven't heard anything else

I heard about it on talk radio program called Coast to Coast AM about a week ago. A Christian scientist made reference to it. He is the famed NASA employee who has been searching for Noah's Ark for 30 years. But other than his reference I haven't heard anything else

I have met Dr. Stanley and heard him speak about 10 years ago during his divorce crisis. I was critical of him then, not publicly but privately. Now I am divorced and see him with more empathy. If I had a chance to have a private conversation with him, I would tell him that. Interesting, the sermons you hear him do on TV/Radio are highly edited for time. When he speaks, he almost always speaks for at least an hour and often 90 minutes. He is very skinny and very tall and believe it or not doesn't speak at a very high volume. He spoke at Southeastern Theological Seminary at Wake Forrest NC. We have one of those fancy pulpits with a rail that creates a semi-circle. If you know Dr Stanley's style you know he is a pacer when he speaks. So when he took the pulpit, he stated, "I've never preached in a cage, but I'll try anything once". He spent all day with the students that day, and even cried and prayed with some of us.

keep your shirt on eric "judge a sausage by its skin" here is a new saying for you I heard the other day..."that is about as sexy as sox on a rooster!"

Thanks for clarifying that. What you said earlier did get me thinking, so I might give that Salisbury church another try. I also had an invitation to a Pilgrim Holiness Church that is about 40 miles from where I live. I might check them out as well. Butero, I will be praying for God to open some doors for you. Your talent is needed in the church. IMO Your walk with the Lord would benefit from the fellowship. Some pastor out there needs you working with him to lead the flock.

Have I promoted polygamy as being acceptable in this day and age? Have I directly stated that, and I quote: "For myself: I do not advocate polygamy."? Richard I have not. My understanding your comments were time sensitive to the patriarchal period. Neither of us have advocated such in this day and age. Personally, I do not think there is a man alive who would be capable of such. Too many seem to be incapable of loving even one woman in the fullest sense of it. For myself, I would rather have one wife and be completely devoted to one another. I know that Shiloh and yourself hold a different perspective upon this than I. I can respect your respective POV's. Regrettably our diametric POV's may never be resolved. I probably should never have stepped into this thread, for I do not wish nor desire any dissension between nor amoung us. I have a great amount of respect for both Shiloh and yourself. However, it doth remain that upon some topics we are likely to not be in accord. In my last reply to you, I had hoped to bow out gracefully. My sincere apologies to both you and Shiloh in this. For I know that any of us could be a formidable adversary to the other. That is a path I do not wish to ever go down with either of you. I want for both you and Shiloh to know that I dearly love you both... There is no loss of respect or affection here. This hints at a dispensational argument of which I am not. The opinions you hold I believe you really hold. You are not blind to the danger of polygamy, ours was a third party discussion about a group of people of a different era, who we should be compassionate to because it was a totally different culture. I am not emotionally tied to the outcome of this discussion at all, but enjoy the interchange. Life is good here, the UNC Tarheels are ACC champs. It would take more than this to upset me. I like you have found it hard to keep one woman happy less a harem. The holidays would be a killa!

Have I promoted polygamy as being acceptable in this day and age? Have I directly stated that, and I quote: "For myself: I do not advocate polygamy."? Richard I have not. My understanding your comments were time sensitive to the patriarchal period.

When you attend a church you sense that pastor and congregation are sincerely pursuing their walk both individually and corporately. When you see a sincere attempt to expositionally preach the Word, even if the conclusions are not identical to yours. The reason I say that is the Holy Spirit will correct error in them or you when He is operative, but that genuine sensitivity is indispensible. When you observe it, you ask God is this where you want to challenge my walk? He will answer. Be willing to submit to whatever God says, even if it is not a place that appeals to your comfort.

What about reconciliation? Exactly, after every possible avenue of reconciliation has been attempted and your pastor or spiritual advisor releases you from the covenant pursue a legal divorce. IMO and personal expereince regrettably you need strong objective, spiritual counsel to deem the marriage to be dead. Moving slowly and with spiritual responsibility is crucial to your current marriage and any possibility of contentment in a future relationship. I see but what if the husband that wants out doesn't even want to reconcile or doesn't even want to go to church anymore? Can God forgive? Yes Remember it was the church who put the marriage together, the church should determine when it is dead.

Let's look at these questions. Am I looking for the wrong kind of church? In my mind, absolutely not. m I expecting church to be something it is not? I'm looking for a church that follows the Bible, and obviously, that will be based on my viewpoint of scripture. Am I a good member of the church versus is the church meeting my needs? I'm not a member of any church, but even if I was, why is it wrong to expect a church to meet my needs? Why can't I be a good member and why can't the church meet my needs at the same time? Am I failing to realize what my role is supposed to be in the church God has sent me to? I wasn't aware God sent me to a church. Every church I ever attended came as a result of my visiting differen't churches till I found one I liked. I have never had a voice speak to me and tell me to go to this church or that church. How does one determine God sent them to a specific church? I find it hard to believe there are no KJV only Holiness churches around. Evidently, there are some other criteria that you are not mentioning that you are not mentioning or that you are subconsciously unaware. Maybe you need to ask yourself if your criteria is right or simply an unfounded in Scripture and just a sole preference. The number one mistake IMO people make about churches is one of preference and based on consumerism. I like what I like. You are apart of worthy, my observation, your opinions run against the grain very often. But you are loved and appreciated here, and it is a productive relationship. Church is often the same way. We need people thinking outside the box to keep us honest. The local body of believers is often the same way.