|
Post by emy on Apr 27, 2010 22:46:41 GMT -5
So what you're saying is that Jesus fulfilled all the law with his death, and none of it applies anymore? If you believe that, then it's okay to just skip over all the commandments and stuff like that? 'K, I get it. Modified: If you believe this, Paul says this makes you LAWLESS. Is that where you want to be? Jesus has not yet completed all the work that will fulfill all of the Law. Jesus taught to keep the commandments, but he didn't teach to keep the law, and the apostles surely didn't teach that. And yes, Jesus death signified the end of the old covenant (Moses' law) and the beginning of the new. (Heb. 8&9) What is yet to be completed?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 27, 2010 22:48:30 GMT -5
~~ The workers have love for these people but their ways of showing love not so effective. There was a time in society when it was considered an act of love for parents to inflict pain and torture upon their children. That is no longer acceptable in our society, it is considered abuse.
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Apr 28, 2010 6:46:10 GMT -5
Delpha Spunaugle (a professing woman I personally knew and had been to meetings with and shared a meal with once) tried that (murdered her husband) in Edmond, Oklahoma and wound up in prison. She was on death row until her appeal changed her sentence to life without parole. I attended her husbands funeral with my parents. At that time, my father went to meeting in the home of her husbands parents. Her husbands brother owns the rest home at Redbud Canyon in Guthrie, OK which has been used by many retired workers. I heard that a sister worker told Delpha before this happened that Divorce was NOT an option. She HAD to stay married to her husband. www.wetv.com/video/1483830534/delpha-spunauglewww.crimeandinvestigation.co.uk/shows/women-behind-bars/episode-guide.html
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 28, 2010 7:08:05 GMT -5
More evil workers?
A former Edmond woman... Delpha Spunaugle, 49, admitted... slaying of her fourth husband, Dennis Spunaugle... The victim, a 40-year-old owner of an Edmond screen printing shop, was beaten with an aluminum baseball bat by Woodward. Woodward and Delpha Spunaugle then coiled a rope around the victim's neck and pulled on it until he died, court records show... Spunaugle tried for 2 years to get someone to murder her husband because she wanted to collect $150,000 in life insurance proceeds, prosecutors alleged.
|
|
|
Post by freespirit on Apr 28, 2010 7:12:56 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Apr 28, 2010 9:56:52 GMT -5
So what you're saying is that Jesus fulfilled all the law with his death, and none of it applies anymore? If you believe that, then it's okay to just skip over all the commandments and stuff like that? 'K, I get it. Modified: If you believe this, Paul says this makes you LAWLESS. Is that where you want to be? Jesus has not yet completed all the work that will fulfill all of the Law. Jesus taught to keep the commandments, but he didn't teach to keep the law, and the apostles surely didn't teach that. And yes, Jesus death signified the end of the old covenant (Moses' law) and the beginning of the new. (Heb. 8&9) What is yet to be completed? Emy, I'm not so certain that Jesus wanted us to "forget" the commandments...He didn't teach that! This is what He said. Mat 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Mat 5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach [them], the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. Breaking and teaching to break the commandments doesn't lose you salvation but it will secure being the "least" in the kingdom of heaven for you! Also Jesus said " Till heaven and earth pass away" not one jot or tittle would pass from the law! And I don't think heaven and earth has passed away yet!
|
|
julio
Junior Member
Posts: 142
|
Post by julio on Apr 28, 2010 10:05:12 GMT -5
The 'rules' of ET are alive and well in the West Coast Alliance. BC does not allow D&R couples to attend meetings. That is the harshest.
Contrary to what was posted earlier, it was during ET's administration that MANY people who remarried were told not to attend meetings anymore.
Since MH has taken position of overseer in WA, there is a softening, and some of those above mentioned were approached and told they'd be welcome back in meeting (although not taking part).
The Western Alliance seems to be drawing hard lines that more clearly define their separateness from the East. Even their western convention list shows SK and MB conventions, but not UT, CO, ND.
There's much more activity lately as far as emails and 'talk', but the overseer DS of CA, NV, AZ, etc. stated he believes that the decision made by the overseers many years ago was made with the aide of the Holy Spirit, and he does not intend to change any of the D&R rules.
That is discouraging.
|
|
|
Post by Sylvestra on Apr 28, 2010 11:45:54 GMT -5
So what you're saying is that Jesus fulfilled all the law with his death, and none of it applies anymore? If you believe that, then it's okay to just skip over all the commandments and stuff like that? 'K, I get it. Modified: If you believe this, Paul says this makes you LAWLESS. Is that where you want to be? Jesus has not yet completed all the work that will fulfill all of the Law. Jesus taught to keep the commandments, but he didn't teach to keep the law, and the apostles surely didn't teach that. And yes, Jesus death signified the end of the old covenant (Moses' law) and the beginning of the new. (Heb. 8&9) What is yet to be completed? emy, I might ask you what changed between the OC and the NC? And, do you not believe the commandments to be part of the "Law"? Jesus fulfilled the Passover and the Wave Sheaf Offering, Pentecost was fulfilled soon after. However, none of the fall feasts have been fulfilled in Christ...Tabernacles, Trumpets, Day of Atonement, etc. Those are still future. I would also ask what is supposed to be written in our hearts according to Jeremiah and Hebrews? Doesn't it say the LAW is to be written in our hearts? So, how can the NC have done away with "the Law"? Best! Edy
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 28, 2010 13:03:27 GMT -5
How many times is it okay to "divorce and remarry" when an ex-spouse(s) is/are still alive? When your answer corresponds with God's Word: (what Jesus spoke when asked the question), then the matter will be settled. However, for some folks they want to be judged regarding the matter on the judgment day --"adulterers and ladymongers God will judge." Better to be judged now: "There is joy in heaven over one sinner that repenteth." There is no joy in heaven over unrepented people. It is not kind to let people think they have been salvaged from the deceiver if they remain in their sin. Go and sin no more. That brought to my mind about the Samarian woman at the well...Jesus told her all that she'd done...she'd had multiple husbands and the one she had NOW was NOT her husband! There are NO indications what Jesus told her she should do about that....now do you suppose after she'd received the "water of life" that she continued as she had been....now be careful for we're talking about a culture where a woman has little recourse without some male taking care of her! I'm not saying she did, but that wasn't the point Jesus was making with her, IMO....He introduced her to the everspringing well of life and apparently with her running back and tell the men folk, she believed on Jesus....wasn't that her taking the everspringing well of life? I think so..... So it would seem that she repented but it doesn't say what changes she made in her daily living because one has to remember what the culture was of that day....she'd likely been without home, food, clothing etc IF she'd left the man she was not married to. Do you suppose that is where common law marriages came into effect? Sounds kind of like she was the man's concubine and it never came out of Jesus' mouth about concubines that I know of. The laws of the land is what has pushed the "divorce" and "remarriage" issue onto people by outlawing more then one wife, which is biblical...that is having more then one wife is biblical. No word against more then one wife in the Bible...we had this discussion on another thread. So to continuing living with a remarriage partner is continuing in sin? Though they've repented? How many more lives can be wrecked with another separation and it would take a divorce again to make them "available" for their other living ex spouse! I think the main issue with D&R is the trespassing against one another...once the trespass is done, then to cause another divorce is just making for another trespass against someone else. IMO This is a very interesting occurrence which I would challenge anyone to come up with a better and more appropriate intention of Jesus than for that woman to be married to husband No. 6! Jesus told that woman, "Go, call thy husband and come hither!" Jesus recognised 5 previous husbands. Read 5 previous marriages. Also read this woman was the concubine of potentially husnand number 6. We do not know the circumstances of the 5 previous marriages. It is unlikely this woman had been widowed 5 times, therefore she had at least one divorce behind her. In that culture her very survival depended upon her having a husband. Jesus was taking care of that. He knew the man was not the woman's husband. What was his intentions for that woman. "Call thy husband" Jesus told her. Now we all know thousands turned to Christ on account of that woman's testimony. Did Jesus want that woman to separate herself from man No. 6, and thus she would have no means of support, or did he want them to get married and thus provide the woman with support? I think the answer lies in "Go, call thy husband!"
|
|
|
Post by sojourningthrulife on Apr 28, 2010 13:08:07 GMT -5
Those in Christ are living under the New Covenant. The Old Covenant was done away with when Christ died on the cross, i.e., the "veil of the temple was rent in twain" was one example of it being replaced with the New Covenant.
Under the Old Testament (Covenant) (types and shadows of the New Covenant) those in the Lord looked forward to the coming of Christ; those living under the New Testament look back to Christ; and all look to his coming again.
Read in Hebrews where it emphasizes again and again that the New Covenant is far far better than the old.
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Apr 28, 2010 13:11:21 GMT -5
That brought to my mind about the Samarian woman at the well...Jesus told her all that she'd done...she'd had multiple husbands and the one she had NOW was NOT her husband! There are NO indications what Jesus told her she should do about that....now do you suppose after she'd received the "water of life" that she continued as she had been....now be careful for we're talking about a culture where a woman has little recourse without some male taking care of her! I'm not saying she did, but that wasn't the point Jesus was making with her, IMO....He introduced her to the everspringing well of life and apparently with her running back and tell the men folk, she believed on Jesus....wasn't that her taking the everspringing well of life? I think so..... So it would seem that she repented but it doesn't say what changes she made in her daily living because one has to remember what the culture was of that day....she'd likely been without home, food, clothing etc IF she'd left the man she was not married to. Do you suppose that is where common law marriages came into effect? Sounds kind of like she was the man's concubine and it never came out of Jesus' mouth about concubines that I know of. The laws of the land is what has pushed the "divorce" and "remarriage" issue onto people by outlawing more then one wife, which is biblical...that is having more then one wife is biblical. No word against more then one wife in the Bible...we had this discussion on another thread. So to continuing living with a remarriage partner is continuing in sin? Though they've repented? How many more lives can be wrecked with another separation and it would take a divorce again to make them "available" for their other living ex spouse! I think the main issue with D&R is the trespassing against one another...once the trespass is done, then to cause another divorce is just making for another trespass against someone else. IMO This is a very interesting occurrence which I would challenge anyone to come up with a better and more appropriate intention of Jesus than for that woman to be married to husband No. 6! Jesus told that woman, "Go, call thy husband and come hither!" Jesus recognised 5 previous husbands. Read 5 previous marriages. Also read this woman was the concubine of potentially husnand number 6. We do not know the circumstances of the 5 previous marriages. It is unlikely this woman had been widowed 5 times, therefore she had at least one divorce behind her. In that culture her very survival depended upon her having a husband. Jesus was taking care of that. He knew the man was not the woman's husband. What was his intentions for that woman. "Call thy husband" Jesus told her. Now we all know thousands turned to Christ on account of that woman's testimony. Did Jesus want that woman to separate herself from man No. 6, and thus she would have no means of support, or did he want them to get married and thus provide the woman with support? I think the answer lies in "Go, call thy husband!" Ram, there is NO indication of any divorce mentioned at all! I'm not certain, but in the eyes of God sexual congress between partners seemed to be "marriage" in the eyes of God....so I'm not certain that Jesus wasn't telling the woman she should not be just living with a man, she should obey the laws of the land and marry him... I don't know but it seems there were cultural, custom laws that people followed in those days to make a partnership a marriage, I guess is what I'm trying to say. Nor do I say that what you're saying is wrong, it's just that it is open to supposition just like Jesus' comments about divorce seem to be....divorce vs. putting away....keeps coming up out of Jesus' words.....and in those days a woman put away had no recourse for life sustenance esp. if her father and brothers were non existent at that time. A put away woman would NOT be desired by any man at least not for a wife! Simply because putting away a woman says that she was undesirable...whereas divorce was a complete cutting of any effect the first man had on her.....she was free to accept another bride price or at least her father/brothers/guardians were.
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Apr 28, 2010 13:16:46 GMT -5
Those in Christ are living under the New Covenant. The Old Covenant was done away with when Christ died on the cross, i.e., the "veil of the temple was rent in twain" was one example of it being replaced with the New Covenant. Under the Old Testament (Covenant) (types and shadows of the New Covenant) those in the Lord looked forward to the coming of Christ; those living under the New Testament look back to Christ; and all look to his coming again. Read in Hebrews where it emphasizes again and again that the New Covenant is far far better than the old. This NC had to do with the stopping or the unnecessary continuing of animal slaughter...the animal's blood would not redeem anyone...the OC was a way to keep people obedient and thinking about how they stacked up before God, which was they were sinful and had to pay the price sacrificing animals. That is the OC that was done away with.....the Passover lamb completed that part of salvation. The other feasts that were spoken about have to do with harvest, gathering, celebrating the fruits..... The feast of trumpets are said to be a type and foreshadow of Jesus' return for His saints...I am thinking along with others that this is correct after having studied the feasts of trumpets. While in the fellowship I had never heard anything about the feasts of trumpets...when I heard the born and raised Jew turned Chrisitan speak about it and how it is a type and foreshadow of Jesus' return...I'd think perhaps if a Jew was to fully understand all these things, he would agree with the Jew turned Chrisitian.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 28, 2010 13:19:23 GMT -5
Sharon, obviously we don't know the circumstances of that woman's marital/ divorce history. It might well be as you say. The point I'm trying to make is that Jesus recognised "5" previous husbands, therefore five previous marriages. It's unlikely that all ended in widowhood for the woman.
It appears obvious to me that Jesus had marriage in mind for that woman with man No. 6.
The bottom line is this. Unless the anti D&R lobby can come up with a proper explanation to fit in with their beliefs, then they are up a gum tree.
Oh, and I don't want to hear how one worker explained the situation, i.e. this woman had had five previous faiths and the faith she had now, i.e. a sixth faith, was still not right. This was put right by Christ meeting her at the well.
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Apr 28, 2010 13:21:52 GMT -5
Sharon, obviously we don't know the circumstances of that woman's marital/ divorce history. It might well be as you say. The point I'm trying to make is that Jesus recognised "5" previous husbands, therefore five previous marriages. It's unlikely that all ended in widowhood for the woman. It appears obvious to me that Jesus had marriage in mind for that woman with man No. 6.The bottom line is this. Unless the anti D&R lobby can come up with a proper explanation to fit in with their beliefs, then they are up a gum tree. Oh, and I don't want to hear how one worker explained the situation, i.e. this woman had had five previous faiths and the faith she had now, i.e. a sixth faith, was still not right. This was put right by Christ meeting her at the well. Seems we may be thinking the same thing but from a different angle?
|
|
|
Post by sojourningthrulife on Apr 28, 2010 13:24:32 GMT -5
Heaven will be filled with repented sinners and they will be eternally thankful for the grace that brought them there.
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Apr 28, 2010 13:34:29 GMT -5
Heaven will be filled with repented sinners and they will be eternally thankful for the grace that brought them there. And I see us a falling down before the Holy Presence of God and His Lamb!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 28, 2010 14:28:09 GMT -5
Heaven will be filled with repented sinners and they will be eternally thankful for the grace that brought them there. That hardly responds to my earlier challenge!
|
|
|
Post by Sylvestra on Apr 28, 2010 14:40:40 GMT -5
Those in Christ are living under the New Covenant. The Old Covenant was done away with when Christ died on the cross, i.e., the "veil of the temple was rent in twain" was one example of it being replaced with the New Covenant. Under the Old Testament (Covenant) (types and shadows of the New Covenant) those in the Lord looked forward to the coming of Christ; those living under the New Testament look back to Christ; and all look to his coming again. Read in Hebrews where it emphasizes again and again that the New Covenant is far far better than the old. In these very broad terms, we agree. However, if you read Paul's letters carefully this, that "the law" was not put away, is one of the things he tried to hammer home to his readers. Under the OC, the people were responsible for their half of keeping the laws and making sacrifices for their lack and God kept His half. Under the NC, all of the responsibility is on God. HE drags us to Him, HE paid the price for our sin, HE fills us with Himself....we can't do anything that makes us worthy or righteous of this. There are no works/sacrifices involved in the NC, it is God working in lives that is the bargain He made. Under the OC, the people had to make their requests to God through the priests and could not enter the Holiest of Holies. (This was a choice the people of Israel made when they refused to go up the mountain and sent Moses instead). Under the NC, we enter directly to God through Christ with our requests. There is nothing in this that says the LAW was done away with. The animal sacrifices were, the need for the priests were, but not the LAW. That is what God is accomplishing through a personal relationship with us....writing the LAW on our hearts.
|
|
|
Post by JO on Apr 28, 2010 15:11:17 GMT -5
Sharon, obviously we don't know the circumstances of that woman's marital/ divorce history. It might well be as you say. The point I'm trying to make is that Jesus recognised "5" previous husbands, therefore five previous marriages. It's unlikely that all ended in widowhood for the woman. It appears obvious to me that Jesus had marriage in mind for that woman with man No. 6. The bottom line is this. Unless the anti D&R lobby can come up with a proper explanation to fit in with their beliefs, then they are up a gum tree. Oh, and I don't want to hear how one worker explained the situation, i.e. this woman had had five previous faiths and the faith she had now, i.e. a sixth faith, was still not right. This was put right by Christ meeting her at the well. The anti D&R lobby is big on judgment, big on outward appearance, and small on mercy. D&R folks are an easy target. I believe God's will is for sexual union to only occur within marriage. No friends or workers who have ever had sex outside of marriage are qualified to pass judgment. No man who has looked on a woman to lust after her has a right to condemn. Here are some ugly fruits of the anti D&R policy (some have already been mentioned): 1. Parents prefer young people to have sex outside of marriage rather than marry before they're certain they have a partner for life. This is an attack on marriage and NOT what God intended IMO. 2. Those who did the right thing and married as young people are treated like lepers in a subsequent relationship while those who had multiple sexual partners but only one marriage are welcomed with open arms. This also is an attack on marriage. 3. Those in a D&R situation are guilt-tripped into splitting up in order to be accepted into fellowship, even if young children are involved. This is an attack on marriage, and an attack on children. 4. Someone who murders the first spouse can repent and enter into full fellowship - they are no longer D&R. Those who refrain from murdering their first spouse are worse sinners according to the anti D&R lobby. 5. D&R folks are put in a position where they are hoping for the death of their former spouse so they can have a marriage with the church's blessing. 6. Some divorced people have sex outside of marriage rather than to marry and be despised by workers and church. This also is an attack on marriage. 7. Someone who is living in a defacto marriage is treated like a hero if they break up that family to profess. This also is an attack on marriage IMO, because I believe God sees beyond the marriage certificate. 8. Another ugly fruit is the self-righteousness this doctrine causes. Those who play by the rules, at least outwardly, despise those who don't.
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Apr 28, 2010 15:24:57 GMT -5
JO, you made me remember 2 scriptures Paul spoke about these things.
1Ti 4:1 ¶ Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
1Ti 4:2 Speaking lies in "hypocrisy"; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
1Ti 4:3 "Forbidding to marry," [and commanding] to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.
The second scripture
1Cr 7:2 Nevertheless, [to avoid] "fornication", let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.
1Cr 7:9 But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than "to burn".
|
|
|
Post by JO on Apr 28, 2010 17:07:21 GMT -5
Religious self-righteousness can cause a conscience to be seared.
It has led to people being excommunicated, even burned at the stake, by those who thought they were doing "God's service".
The anti D&R laws encourage folks to burn with lust rather than marry.
Workers would be better to discourage sex outside of marriage, and encourage loyalty and love within marriage i.e. to work towards upholding and strengthening the institution of marriage rather than undermining it.
My opinion FWIW.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 28, 2010 19:59:26 GMT -5
That just about sums it up.
|
|
|
Post by emy on Apr 28, 2010 22:45:32 GMT -5
Edy, I am very curious what it is you believe about keeping the law. As I see it, the commandments are part of the law and Jesus clearly told us to keep the ones he gave. But the apostles didn't teach to keep the law, in total. One place that seems pretty clear about that is Romans 8 - but there are many others.
I think this should go in a new thread.
|
|
shiloh
Senior Member
Posts: 723
|
Post by shiloh on Apr 29, 2010 6:31:41 GMT -5
I wonder if Walter Burkinshaw is afraid of vocal divorced-remarried friends trying to defend themselves in meeting? I don't think today's workers know how to handle the questioning attitude by the friends.
In the 70s and 80s, people either left the group or they would adjust to the expectations of the group. Now some are challenging certain ideas like being unable to take part over remarriage.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 29, 2010 6:49:39 GMT -5
I wonder if Walter Burkinshaw is afraid of vocal divorced-remarried friends trying to defend themselves in meeting? I don't think today's workers know how to handle the questioning attitude by the friends. In the 70s and 80s, people either left the group or they would adjust to the expectations of the group. Now some are challenging certain ideas like being unable to take part over remarriage. The worker group in general does seem to be doing more drawing-lines-in the-sand lately on this issue. The only way I can make sense of the hardening of attitudes is that softening up would be tantamount to an embarrassing admission of error. As a Western worker once said, "the (Western) ministry will never admit to an error." (he has been since shipped out to parts far away) Some people, once caught in an error, will sometimes double their efforts to deny they made an error by launching new excuses and other efforts to "prove" they are right. It's all about pride. With WB, I suspect it is mostly about enforcing what he understands to be the original agreement of the earlier overseers. That would be more in line with his general MO. From another post, someone indicated that the senior overseer of the region feels the same way about that agreement. It's unfortunate that they choose to hang their hats on an agreement of men.
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Apr 29, 2010 7:39:30 GMT -5
Edy, I am very curious what it is you believe about keeping the law. As I see it, the commandments are part of the law and Jesus clearly told us to keep the ones he gave. But the apostles didn't teach to keep the law, in total. One place that seems pretty clear about that is Romans 8 - but there are many others. I think this should go in a new thread. Paul taught that obeying the second commandment covers all the others! Jesus said this to his apostles in his last commission. Mat 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, [even] unto the end of the world. Amen. Mat 5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach [them], the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Apr 29, 2010 7:41:59 GMT -5
I wonder if Walter Burkinshaw is afraid of vocal divorced-remarried friends trying to defend themselves in meeting? I don't think today's workers know how to handle the questioning attitude by the friends. In the 70s and 80s, people either left the group or they would adjust to the expectations of the group. Now some are challenging certain ideas like being unable to take part over remarriage. The worker group in general does seem to be doing more drawing-lines-in the-sand lately on this issue. The only way I can make sense of the hardening of attitudes is that softening up would be tantamount to an embarrassing admission of error. As a Western worker once said, "the (Western) ministry will never admit to an error." (he has been since shipped out to parts far away) Some people, once caught in an error, will sometimes double their efforts to deny they made an error by launching new excuses and other efforts to "prove" they are right. It's all about pride. With WB, I suspect it is mostly about enforcing what he understands to be the original agreement of the earlier overseers. That would be more in line with his general MO. From another post, someone indicated that the senior overseer of the region feels the same way about that agreement. It's unfortunate that they choose to hang their hats on an agreement of men. It seems to me that IF something was ever wrong, IT still is wrong....however as it was said, since the founding fathers thought some things were wrong it seems that following workers do not want to admit that the founding fathers were wrong....however they do not take into thought that times proves all things.
|
|
|
Post by grace1 on Apr 29, 2010 13:33:25 GMT -5
The worker group in general does seem to be doing more drawing-lines-in the-sand lately on this issue. The only way I can make sense of the hardening of attitudes is that softening up would be tantamount to an embarrassing admission of error. As a Western worker once said, "the (Western) ministry will never admit to an error." (he has been since shipped out to parts far away) Some people, once caught in an error, will sometimes double their efforts to deny they made an error by launching new excuses and other efforts to "prove" they are right. It's all about pride. With WB, I suspect it is mostly about enforcing what he understands to be the original agreement of the earlier overseers. That would be more in line with his general MO. From another post, someone indicated that the senior overseer of the region feels the same way about that agreement. It's unfortunate that they choose to hang their hats on an agreement of men. It seems to me that IF something was ever wrong, IT still is wrong....however as it was said, since the founding fathers thought some things were wrong it seems that following workers do not want to admit that the founding fathers were wrong....however they do not take into thought that times proves all things. Here is a letter written by a worker, which explains why they had a softening in attitute. IMO, the reason the workers in the West take the position they do, is because of misinterpretation of words. Hoping that one day we'll see unity amongst the workers on this issue, as the division is hurtful and confusing to those who are involved in D & R situations. Letter from worker On Marriage, Divorce & Remarriage INTRODUCTION: It has come into my heart to write some of the facts of my experience and some of the personal visits and conversations I have had with various of my brethren and companions over the years concerning the matter of Marriage, Divorce and Remarriage in the light of the best understanding of the Scriptures, both Old and New Testaments, that we arrived at prayerfully and out of great concern for ourselves and for those we were responsible to guide and counsel in the fear of the Lord. I have not held on to any interpretation that a good many of my closest brethren and companions did not agree with; just as all doctrine of the Lord is understood, so this was "precept upon precept, line upon line, here a little, there a little," Is. 28:10. Concern in these matters for me goes back to my earliest years in the work of the Gospel and the beginning of my studies of the Bible with my companion; a concern that has intensified as my responsibilities to enter into judgments affecting the souls of others has increased. Let me say that I sought the counsel and aid of older brothers in deciding some cases that were in my field of responsibility, from the time I became responsible, nearly 30 years ago; and what some may look upon as being a change cannot appear so to me, due to that fact. Even then, we were considering cases, as we are now, and looking back have not been disappointed in the outcome of any of them, as there has been good evidence of the Lord's pleasure in them. There was a general feeling and desire among us that discussed this, that there would be some day a meeting of our elders to settle this question definitely and for all, and in the area of my responsibilities it has been. There never was, in my mind, nor even voiced by those with whom I discussed it, any criticism of those who went before us, for we did then as now..."weigh as one who dreads dissent and fears a doubt as wrong" to quote Whittier. It was just that we felt in our own souls that we were lacking. The decision (Par.3) was that every case be examined and decided upon its own merits and the circumstances peculiar to it. 1. Matt. 5:32, 19:9, Ps 56:5-6 Remarriage-exceptive clause of fornication. Attention is especially drawn to the exception Jesus made where fornication was concerned. It seems evident that remarriage was in question; if there had been no "marrying of another" involved, Jesus would have made no such exception, since no question of possible sin could arise if a union had been dissolved by death; but this was a case of putting away, questioning its legality. 2. Remarriage of the innocent party. (Ps 55:11-15) Jesus included the exceptive clause to make it clear that the remarriage of the innocent party was not a sinful action where fornication was involved. I Cor. 7:27-28. This is confirmed by Paul. A difference is made here between those who were "bound to" or "loosed from" a wife, and one who had never been married, virgins. In both cases marrying was not a sin, which could not have been referred to if the "loosing from" had been by death. Again no questions in that case. The questioning arose in my heart in view of the fact that we were treating all cases of abandonment and divorce of spouses amongst us more or less the same. 3. Job 31:9-12 Remarriage only where fornication has taken place. In a meeting of our elders it was decided that only cases where fornication was involved would the question of remarriage be included. It was also agreed that 3 overseers would consider and render judgment; not 1 or 2. This is very much in line with what Job said about it in his day before the law and in all probability before there was any written guidance. It was a matter for the Judges to decide; note the plural. 4. Meaning of fornication. As to the meaning of fornication, it has seemed to me that Jesus deliberately chose the word in order to cover all sexually related vice, forseeing our time and the perversion that would overspread the race. If He had said "except it be for adultery," He would have confined it to that particular form of fornication; fornication being a general term that did cover all as stated before. The man in I Cor. 5:1 was guilty of fornication because of an adulterous relationship with his father's wife and in both Old and New Testament, the word is used to describe the sins of married women. 5. Ezekiel 16:32-38, Jer. 3:1 Fornication dissolves the marriage bond, possibility of reconciliation. In one chapter in Ezekiel, ch. 16, the term harlotry, ladydom and adultery are referred to as being a multiplication of Israel's fornications, and she is called "a wife that committeth adultery" to be judges as women that break wedlock, from which we may rightly conclude that fornication dissolves the marriage bond. Not that it cannot be repaired, indeed that was the Lord's offer to Israel, contingent upon their repentance and return to Him. In Jer. He ____?? that is something the Law did not require a man to do, and it would be an act of great compassion and forgiveness for him to do it, an evidence of godliness in the man and testimony to a justice that only God could impart to him. The first attempt should be to effect such a reconciliation ______?? where there is ______?? pursuit of fornication and willful departure from one's faithful mate, that same justice demands that the guilty bear punishment and not the innocent. 6. II Kings 9:22, Hosea 2:2, Amos 7:7, I Cor. 5:1, Rev. 2:20-21. Fornication and adultery synonymous. It has been interesting to learn that the Greek word used in the Gospel for fornication is porn, which is employed in the Septuagint speaking of women (married) in the following cases, among others, (1st 3 above... the last 2 using the word to fornicate.) The same Greek word issued in I Cor. 5 and Rev. 2, in one verse to commit fornication and in the other to commit adultery. Happily a knowledge of Greek is not necessary to understand the Scriptures, but it's reassuring when the Greek and Hebrew texts confirm what the Holy Ghost has given to us from what is available in our own language. 7. Lev. 20:10, Gen. 20:3, John 8. Death the penalty for adultery in the law. There are commandments in the law concerning these matters, one given by God carried the death penalty for both parties proven guilty of a willful act of adultery, and such punishment must have preceded the law. It seems to me that the only time Jesus dealt with this was in John 8, and He did not impose the death penalty that the Scribes and Pharisees were urging by the law, because He had come to abolish the death penalty of the law and bring life and immortality to light through the Gospel, to forgive repentant sins, except one, which we are certain was not fornication. 8. Deut. 24:l-4 Moses commandment of divorce for restraint. The other commandment was written by Moses for hard hearted men, not to encourage or sanction divorce "for every cause," but to restrain and guide as much as possible a practice that was never pleasing or acceptable to God. Jesus confirmed this by His own words to those who questioned Him about it. If we are to understand His teaching on the subject, we must take this into account, for in all other places than John 8, He was dealing with Moses' commandment, explaining why He would say, "but I say unto you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery". Matt. 5:32, 19:9, Mark 10:12 and "I say unto you, whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication and shall marry another, committeth adultery and whosoever marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery." All the participants in this arrangement were held responsible, being the instigator. Is. 54:4-6. In those days it was not possible for a woman to readily support herself and her recourse was to find another man who would marry her. In Isaiah the Lord reveals His heart feelings for a woman so treated, according her the dignity and consolation of widowhood, when in reality she was a forsaken woman in youth. He was willing to take such to be His wife, to remove her shame and reproach, pleading with Israel in this vein. 9. I Cor. 7:25, 40 The innocent party divorcing. If a man or woman be put away for fornication, then they who put her away would not be the author of adultery in remarriage, since it was for that cause that he or she was put away. Doubtless the free and conscienceless use of Moses' precept; and the Pharisees instance that Jesus declare His interpretation of it was the reason for the Lord's words on the subject. He did not cover all the ground on it and the related circumstances that would arise, Thus Paul saying to the Corinthians, "I have no commandment of the Lord (concerning virgins) yet I give my judgment as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful" and "after my judgment, I think also that I have the Spirit of the Lord." 10. John 14:26, 16:13, Matt. 18:18-20 The guidance of the Holy Ghost. Jesus made it very clear that the Holy Ghost would come and teach them all things and bring to remembrance "all things that I have said unto you" and "He will guide you into all truth." We cannot escape the responsibility that was laid on the early Apostles in this regard if we are to be true to our profession to be followers of them. It is most awesome being charged to obtain the guidance of the Holy Ghost, so that judgment we give would be equitable and merciful, acceptable to and binding in Heaven, following this with the answer to Peter's question about forgiveness. emphasizing compassions and reminding us all of our utter dependence on the merciful and forgiving God, so that we would not deny to another what we must have ourselves. 11. O.T. parallel teaching. Ps. 94:20-21 Again we have 2-3 involved in settling whatever controversy had arisen. A parallel teaching may be found in the O.T. showing that all matters were not covered by the law and had to be taken to Judges in that event. To attempt to settle questions that arise in our day by law would bring up the question that is asked in Ps. 94 and result in the answer in the following verse, I greatly fear. 12. I Cor. 7:8-11. Distinction between Classes. There are a number of classes, different classes, husbands and wives, married people, divorced people and widows. In two verses making a distinction between them, putting the woman who departed from her husband (not an adulterous mate) in the unmarried state and not responsible to remain so or to be reconciled to her husband. 13. I Cor. 7. Unbelieving partners. Paul also had advice for unbelieving mates, making it clear that their unbelief was not grounds for putting them away, if they were pleased to dwell with them, to do so would again, exercising Moses' precept, "for every cause." On the other hand if unbelieving depart, let him depart, a brother, a sister is not under bondage in such. 14. I Cor. 7:39 Wife bound by the law: The word bondage used here carries the same meaning as "bound by." The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth. (Husband not an adulterous, departed mate.) It is significant that Paul uses the word bondage 6 times in the Galatian epistle in reference to the law and its bondage. Again I understand that the Greek words for "leave" and "put away" and "depart" are all correctly translated to mean separation by divorce, permissible for the Christian for only one cause, fornication. Gal. 2:4, 4:3, 9, 24, 25; 5:1. 15. Hosea 2:2 Innocent party free to marry. The clear intent of the teaching every place is that the innocent victim of divorce for that cause is free from the law of husband and wife because an adulterous mate is no longer husband or wife. It was never possible for me to accept that the law offered a more equitable solution to the problem than our Lord, in that the penalty for the guilty under the law was death; harsh, but just; leaving the innocent free and not in an untenable position through a compelling human desire and God-given inclination to seek the love and compassion of a true mate. 16. The celibate life is of free will. Matt. 19:11-12, 1 Cor. 7:9, 37. Our Creator saw it was not good for a man to be alone, and Jesus confessed that every man could not live a celibate life in connection with His teaching concerning divorce. One might inject the question of the power and grace of God to enable a man or woman to remain unmarried in such circumstances, and far be it from me to minimize that possibility, but Jesus put it upon the individual's own ability to do so and so did Paul, "but if they cannot contain, let them marry" and "nevertheless he that standeth steadfast in his heart, having no necessity, but having power over his own will, and hath so decreed in his own heart that he will keep his virgin, doeth well." 17. I Cor. 7:37 Marriage is ordained of God and typifies Christ and the Church. This verse in I Cor., of course, was directed to ones who had never been married and by all understanding would find it easier to maintain a celibate life than those who had experienced the married state. It seems very clear that in all the Bible, God expected most men and women to seek a mate and enjoy the love and companionship that its union affords; the closest human tie as the most sacred. It is, in its purity, representing the relationship intended between Christ and His church. There is nothing in the Scripture to lead us to believe that any man or woman was expected to go through life alone, except by choice, and that, primarily, for the King of Heaven's sake. We have that example in Paul, Jesus and others, but not to the exclusivity of those who were married. 18. Adultery, an heinous crime. Job 31:11, Prov. 6:32-35 In conclusion, adultery is not unforgivable, but it is still what Job said it to be, an heinous crime, certain of punishment most damaging and dishonouring personally and with the longest lasting consequences for all those concerned. An offence that may not be purged by rewards and gifts, and we who have been called to try to mitigate these consequences know what a wounding it is, and we sadly conclude with Sol. "but whose committeth adultery with a woman lacketh understanding. I have not written this to rebut arguments to the contrary, not even to try to convince skeptics, but that my friends might know my firm convictions and from whence they came.
|
|