another_poster Posted October 4, 2014 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 4 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 336 Content Per Day: 0.09 Reputation: 129 Days Won: 0 Joined: 06/14/2014 Status: Offline Share Posted October 4, 2014 I just went back to post #21, where the comparison to slaves and their masters was made. My original impression was that Faith Pleases God was saying that the husband and wife relationship was virtually the same as the relationship between a slave and their master, which of course is not true. Upon looking at the post more carefully, it appears that all he was saying is that if God expected a slave to remain a faithful servant to his master, it could give us insight into a wife remaining faithful to her abusive husband. This is actually a good point. In the case of a slave, in many cases, they didn't even choose to join themselves to their master, but they are told to remain. I can't take this example as anything more than something to use for comparison. It does not directly apply to husbands and wives, but I do see the point Faith Pleases God is making. I mean, wouldn't you naturally think that our advise to a slave dealing with an abusive master would be that he run away, just as our natural instinct to the abused wife is she leave and go to a place of safety? I can't ignore the logic in this argument. Yes but have you addressed the factors involved in a person becoming a slave that do not apply to a marriage and why taking the principle being taught and applying it to a marriage even more so because they are one flesh is not reasonable. To start lets look at why people became slaves generally. It was because they owed a debt that they could not repay. So entering slavery was their way of repaying the debt. Of course slaves were to be set free after a certain amount of time. So how has a slave repaid their debt if they take off? They haven't so what would they need to do if they have a debt they can't pay to that person? They would need to enter into slavery to the very same master they ran away from one minute ago. Alternatively they could be thrown into jail until they repay their debt. Of course when in jail it was impossible to earn any money to repay your debt so you would never get out of jail. So how is that applicable to a marriage situation? It doesn't change our personal responsibilities to follow scripture. It would be like the man having a wife who is not following him, so he decides he won't love her and do the things he is supposed to do towards her, and justify it based on her behavior. The man is supposed to obey Christ. The woman is supposed to obey her husband and the Bible says in everything. What happens when one or the other fails in doing what scripture says they are supposed to do? BTW, I thought you were the one that came up with 3 Biblical grounds for divorce, but I see it was InChrist. Do you agree with his 3 things, and if so, what is "constructive desertion" and how is that Biblical grounds for divorce and re-marriage? Did you actually have a comment on what InChrist said about constructive desertion? Since Sevenseas said they agree with InChrist then itseems reasonable to me that would be a good starting point. I can't recall you having responded to that bit of InChrists post. Please note I have only read to post #198. If the answer has followed then I will see it later and apologise for not taking that into consideration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
another_poster Posted October 4, 2014 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 4 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 336 Content Per Day: 0.09 Reputation: 129 Days Won: 0 Joined: 06/14/2014 Status: Offline Share Posted October 4, 2014 Wives are told to submit to their husbands in the same way they submit to the Lord Jesus. That means I need to consider how we are to submit to Jesus, and how he deals with us. Jesus always has been and always will be supreme in authority over us. He showed us that even though he is supreme in authority, he will meet our needs, like when he gave the example of washing the disciples feet. That is what it means with regard to the husband's responsibility to his wife. He is to submit in the way of doing things for her, like if she needs him to help lift something heavy she can't handle. She asks his help and he gives it. She is fixing supper, and needs something from the store on the way home, so she asks and he gets it. That is a form of submission. On the other hand, the husband is Lord over his wife, as Sarah is used as an example and how she called Abraham Lord. He is supreme in authority in the home under Christ, so what he says is law. The wife is required to obey her husband unless he tells her to sin. That is in everything. The Bible actually says, "in everything." If you seriously don't know that those scriptures exist, I suppose I can grab my concordance and post every scripture on wives being submission, but if you know anything about the New Testament, you have to have read this. Jesus washing his disciples feet showed that one was to be a servant to others. It isn't just when you are asked to do the odd thing here and there. I also noticed you did not address the points I specifically asked you to address. God said this is the way it is going to be and people argued and God changed his mind. That is not the you must do whatever your told picture that you paint. If you go back to post 199, it states how I personally would deal with abuse if it was presented to me when I was Pastoring a church. Nothing has changed since I posted that earlier today. I have no Biblical leg to stand on to tell the wife she needs to leave her husband for abuse. If I tell her to leave because of any abuse, it is just me acting outside of scripture and based on personal feelings. As such, I would make a distinction in the different situations, like the type of abuse, frequency of abuse, etc. I wouldn't automatically assume the person is a heathen. I just thought of a scripture that should clear up where it says a wife must obey her husband. Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee. Genesis 3:16 It doesn't matter if this is part of a curse or not. We are all living under conditions that exist as a result of the fall, and that includes that men have to work by the sweat of their brow to earn a living, and women have pain in child bearing. Until Jesus returns, we still deal with this, and God states that the husband shall rule over his wife. but it doesn't actually say she must obey everything he says. He can still rule without her obeying everything. Just like governments rule without everyone obeying all the time. I would call it a sin to stay in an abusive situation. Hardly taking care of the temple is it. I do make a distinction in physical abuse and verbal abuse, but it really doesn't matter since the Bible doesn't say either is grounds for divorce. I have made that clear. It is an extra-Biblical opinion I am giving, so it carries no weight. I gave the actual scriptures back in about the 3rd post, and there is nothing about physical or verbal abuse. Yes, I do actually want someone to explain "constructive desertion" and show scripture that says it is grounds for divorce. Then by all means read the description that was provided and start the discussion from that. Is that really so hard??? It has been explained and while you may not agree it is wrong to claim it has not been explained. There is no such thing as mutual submission in the way it is misused. That is a false doctrine that people came up with to make it ok for wives to disobey scripture. I already addressed this. Well perhaps you could point out the post number where you explain why a verse appears in the KJV that should not be there according to you. When we take marriage vows, it is till death do us part, so we need to learn to extend grace to our husband or wife and do everything in our power to work things out. Um no this is not correct for all. As you yourself proved. You pointed out that in cases of adultery it is permitted. So it isn't neccesarily till death do us part. However if you mean the actual vows we make then you are still wrong as those words are not required in vows. Some include them but some do not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sevenseas Posted October 4, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 30 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,373 Content Per Day: 0.76 Reputation: 683 Days Won: 22 Joined: 02/28/2012 Status: Offline Share Posted October 4, 2014 You can agree with InChrist all you want Sevenseas, but you haven't been able to show me from scripture where he is correct in saying that "constructive desertion" is a Biblical grounds for divorce. I have never heard that term before, so if you agree with him perhaps you can explain it? And, you can ignore those scriptures all you want Butero. Which you appear to be doing. As has been pointed out, you are not the final authority on the Bible. People just do not have to agree with you only in order to live a life pleasing to God. I'm sorry you don't understand what InChrist wrote. I thought it was concise, well laid out and he gave scripture as the basis for the post. You may have strong convictions, but you cannot expect others to live by your code. A strong conviction can be wrong. We are discussing things here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sevenseas Posted October 4, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 30 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,373 Content Per Day: 0.76 Reputation: 683 Days Won: 22 Joined: 02/28/2012 Status: Offline Share Posted October 4, 2014 There is no such thing as mutual submission in the way it is misused. That is a false doctrine that people came up with to make it ok for wives to disobey scripture. I already addressed this. Wives are told to submit to their husbands in the same way they submit to the Lord Jesus. That means I need to consider how we are to submit to Jesus, and how he deals with us. Jesus always has been and always will be supreme in authority over us. He showed us that even though he is supreme in authority, he will meet our needs, like when he gave the example of washing the disciples feet. That is what it means with regard to the husband's responsibility to his wife. He is to submit in the way of doing things for her, like if she needs him to help lift something heavy she can't handle. She asks his help and he gives it. She is fixing supper, and needs something from the store on the way home, so she asks and he gets it. That is a form of submission. On the other hand, the husband is Lord over his wife, as Sarah is used as an example and how she called Abraham Lord. He is supreme in authority in the home under Christ, so what he says is law. The wife is required to obey her husband unless he tells her to sin. That is in everything. The Bible actually says, "in everything." If you seriously don't know that those scriptures exist, I suppose I can grab my concordance and post every scripture on wives being submission, but if you know anything about the New Testament, you have to have read this. I do make a distinction in physical abuse and verbal abuse, but it really doesn't matter since the Bible doesn't say either is grounds for divorce. I have made that clear. It is an extra-Biblical opinion I am giving, so it carries no weight. I gave the actual scriptures back in about the 3rd post, and there is nothing about physical or verbal abuse. Yes, I do actually want someone to explain "constructive desertion" and show scripture that says it is grounds for divorce. No its not. the false doctrine is telling a wife she has to live with an abusive man who does not follow Christ but merely uses the Lord's name in vain in order to quote the verse you are quoting. You cancel your own arguement when you state a man should submit to Christ. If he does not, who is that man's Lord? Jesus said: Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Matt 7;21 So, according to Jesus, a man saying Jesus is Lord, who abuses his wife on a continuing basis, is NOT doing the will of God. That man, might miss the boat entirely unless he confesses how he has treated his wife and repents of his sin. “Why do you call me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ and do not do what I say? 47As for everyone who comes to me and hears my words and puts them into practice, I will show you what they are like. 48They are like a man building a house, who dug down deep and laid the foundation on rock. When a flood came, the torrent struck that house but could not shake it, because it was well built. 49But the one who hears my words and does not put them into practice is like a man who built a house on the ground without a foundation. The moment the torrent struck that house, it collapsed and its destruction was complete.” Luke chapter 6 The above portion of scripture from Luke 6 actually illustrates why so many Christian marriages fall apart. The people IN them, are not doing as Jesus instructs. The onus is not on the wife to obey, the onus is on the husband to actually DO what Christ says he should do. You are stating that a woman should submit to her husband is the foundation of the marriage...but it isn't. The foundation of the marriage is JESUS CHRIST...not the man berating his wife because she does not submit to his abuse and mistakenly call it her 'cross' as you stated earlier. That view is harmful and abusive in and of itself! If he does not obey and love his wife and treat her with the respect she deserves, then Christ is not his head. If Christ is not his head, then a woman does not submit to the spirit that is not of Christ. I do not hesitate to state that a man who abuses his wife by any means, is under the influence of a spirit that is not the Holy Spirit. Jesus does not abuse us. Why do you tell others they may not be aware of certain scriptures when you ignore verses that do not agree with your position? (see underline above) It appears you repeatedly pick verses that you believe back you up even when they are taken out of context. The bottom line seems to be if you don't agree, then it must be false. That seems to be the basis for your posts IMO in this op Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
faith pleases God Posted October 4, 2014 Group: Senior Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 10 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 653 Content Per Day: 0.11 Reputation: 189 Days Won: 0 Joined: 11/18/2007 Status: Offline Birthday: 03/26/1977 Share Posted October 4, 2014 How can someone defend a stance the Bible does not permit? I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery. How is this debated??? If someone holds to a different doctrine than what Christ teaches, what religion is that? Why justify disobedience? Only to feel okay about living in sin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
faith pleases God Posted October 4, 2014 Group: Senior Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 10 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 653 Content Per Day: 0.11 Reputation: 189 Days Won: 0 Joined: 11/18/2007 Status: Offline Birthday: 03/26/1977 Share Posted October 4, 2014 @Faith Pleases God. The Pharisees did the exact same thing. They would twist the law of Moses in order to allow them to violate God's law to honor Father and Mother. That is what is taking place with divorce today. People are twisting scripture to claim an unbiblical divorce is Biblical. It's amazing. The same thing happens with grace to live a life in disobedience, unholiness, and unrepentance. I am not necessarily talking about a issue of being saved or unsaved. I am talking about living a life of lasciviousness and sin. Scriptures are being bent, distorted, ignored, and taken out of context. It's rampant, popular, and terrible! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
another_poster Posted October 5, 2014 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 4 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 336 Content Per Day: 0.09 Reputation: 129 Days Won: 0 Joined: 06/14/2014 Status: Offline Share Posted October 5, 2014 How can someone defend a stance the Bible does not permit? I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery. How is this debated??? If someone holds to a different doctrine than what Christ teaches, what religion is that? Why justify disobedience? Only to feel okay about living in sin. So apostle Paul is following a different religion then? Paul does condone divorce for a different reason. Here is a interesting question. What is adultery? We know Israel committed adultery without a sexual act. So adultery is not neccesarily sexual. Since the root word can be translated in a non-sexual way then the question needs to be asked Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
another_poster Posted October 5, 2014 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 4 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 336 Content Per Day: 0.09 Reputation: 129 Days Won: 0 Joined: 06/14/2014 Status: Offline Share Posted October 5, 2014 @ Another Poster. So God says the man will rule over his wife, and that doesn't mean she has to obey everything he says? Fine. Then how does anyone find fault in the husband and claim he isn't following Christ because he simply chooses at times not to obey. Christ is his head, and rules over him, but he doesn't have to obey all the time. In the case of abuse, that is just one of those times he chose not to obey. Now, I will give you credit for one thing. You think it is a sin to remain in an abusive situation because it is not taking care of the temple. The only problem with that is Christ subjected himself to physical abuse and even being put to death on the cross, and he never sinned, so that can't be true. I did have to take a moment to consider that comment though. Sorry I should have made it clear in my original post the exception is in witnessing. A number of times when crowds or groups of people around Jesus were going to get nasty and hurt him Jesus disappeared from the crowd. So Jesus humbling himself and becoming obediant to death on a cross does not negate that argument as far more often he dissapeared from violent situations. His death on the cross was God's will so unless you are claiming it is God's will that a woman gets beaten by her husband then there is no obligation to stay. As you pointed out there are over 200 posts in this thread and I didn't bother to read every word of every post. I simply asked for a definition of "constructive desertion" and where it is found in scripture and nobody would tell me. I doubt anyone showed scripture to back it up, because I never saw that term in the Bible, but if you are so familiar with it, just answer my question. There are many terms not found in scripture. That does not mean they are unbiblical or that they are correct for that matter. If you disagree then show me where the bible speaks of heroin or ice by those specific names. It doesn't yet I am not aware of any christian who would say the bible is not against them. Once again generally comes back to the body being a temple passage and also being clear in mind. The principle is clearly in the bible that they are wrong but it does not mention them by name. So that the words constructive desertion do not appear is neither here nor there. Question is is it correct? Also what is it with people who refer others back to posts they previously made but then take issue with others telling them to go back and look. You are not the first person to do this in this thread. In any case I know you read the post because you quoted it. I did say that adultery is grounds for divorce and re-marriage, but we did take marriage vows that said "till death do us part," or at least I did, and we should do everything in our power to work it out. I absolutely stand by that comment. We should try to forgive adultery if possible, but we aren't required to. and as I said just because you said it does not mean everyone did. I never said it and I never promised to honour or obey either. So saying people made that promise is not legitimate point as many write their own wedding vows or use a different standard vow that does not contain those words The you are misusing the scripture in Corinthians as well. It is dealing with a specific situation where two people are married but unsaved, and one of them gets saved and one remains unsaved. If the unsaved person wishes to remain in the marriage, the saved person is to allow them to, but if the unsaved departs, the saved is free. Two problems here. First, the unsaved is the one choosing to leave, and the saved is specifically told that if they wish to stay, they can. Second, it is not a case of a person being "as unsaved" in the eyes of the church, but actually unsaved. Again, you provided scripture, but out of context. This is not the first time you have said this but there is no evidence that is the case that they were both unbelievers when married. Sure we can look at the don't be unequally yoked passage but since that instruction was written later then you can not apply it to this passage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Openly Curious Posted October 5, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 4 Topic Count: 55 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 4,568 Content Per Day: 0.68 Reputation: 770 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/18/2006 Status: Offline Share Posted October 5, 2014 another_poster said So apostle Paul is following a different religion then? Paul does condone divorce for a different reason. Here is a interesting question. What is adultery? We know Israel committed adultery without a sexual act. So adultery is not neccesarily sexual. Since the root word can be translated in a non-sexual way then the question needs to be asked Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
another_poster Posted October 5, 2014 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 4 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 336 Content Per Day: 0.09 Reputation: 129 Days Won: 0 Joined: 06/14/2014 Status: Offline Share Posted October 5, 2014 There is no scriptural evidence that it is a sin to allow yourself to suffer abuse. As a matter of fact, it was Jesus that spoke of turning the other cheek, which would indicate it is not a sin. We were told by InChrist that there are three Biblical grounds for divorce, and one of them doesn't appear in scripture, meaning it is not a Biblical ground. If there is no such doctrine as "constructive desertion" taught in the Bible, and there is not, it is not Biblical. I know everyone does not take the same marriage vows, and that is something else I could start a thread on. We have people writing their own vows today that don't even indicate they have a real commitment to the other person for life. It is a complete joke. Even if they don't make real vows, God still says what he does about marriage, and according to scripture, unless there is adultery involved or two people are married as sinners and one gets saved and the other doesn't, leading to abandonment by the unbeliever, marriage is for life. How do I know that the two people were unsaved when they first got together? Because if they were not, they had already disobeyed scripture by becoming unequally yoked with an unbeliever. If they did that, then the consequences are their fault in the first place. I am making the assumption that some people actually follow scripture. I have seen by things I have read lately that is not the case. Sorry but you failed to read what I wrote. The instruction not to be unequally yoked was written after the passage being discussed so was not at that point in time a instruction. So you can not know they were both unbelievers. Surely you understand that 2 corinthians was written after 1 corinthians. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts