Beyond The Four Spiritual Laws

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Webers_Home

Well-Known Member
Apr 12, 2012
4,656
760
113
80
Oregon
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
-
59) 1Cor 1:26-31 . . Remember, dear brothers and sisters, that few of you
were wise in the world's eyes, or powerful, or wealthy when God called you.
Instead, God deliberately chose things the world considers foolish in order to
shame those who think they are wise. And he chose those who are
powerless to shame those who are powerful. God chose things despised by
the world, things counted as nothing at all, and used them to bring to
nothing what the world considers important, so that no one can ever boast
in the presence of God.

. . . God alone made it possible for you to be in Christ Jesus. For our benefit
God made Christ to be wisdom itself. He is the one who made us acceptable
to God. He made us pure and holy, and he gave himself to purchase our
freedom. As the Scriptures say: The person who wishes to boast
should boast only of what the Lord has done.


Some of us tend to think ourselves pretty smart for having enough good
sense to believe the gospel. But according to the passage above, we didn't
become believers due to our IQ. No; the credit is due to God's IQ, i.e. God
alone was smart enough to make it possible for any of us to be in Christ
Jesus. Personally, I look upon that as something not for me to boast about,
rather; an incredible stroke of luck.

The next commandment I wish to discuss is embedded in the following
scripture. It's indicated by underlined text.

60) 1Cor 3:5-15 . .What, after all, is Apollos? And what is Paul? Only
servants, through whom you came to believe. As the Lord has assigned to
each his task: I planted the seed, Apollos watered it, but God made it grow.
So neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only God, who
makes things grow. The man who plants and the man who waters have one
purpose, and each will be rewarded according to his own labor. For we are
God's fellow workers; you are God's field, God's building. According to the
grace of God which was given to me, as a wise master builder I laid a
foundation, and another is building upon it. But let each man be careful how
he builds upon it.


. . . For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which
is Jesus Christ. Now if any man builds upon the foundation with gold, silver,
precious stones, wood, hay, straw, each man's work will become evident; for
the day will show it, because it is to be revealed with fire; and the fire itself
will test the quality of each man's work. If any man's work which he has
built upon it remains, he shall receive a reward. If any man's work is burned
up, he shall suffer loss; but he himself shall be spared, yet so as through
fire.

Sorry for that big gob of scripture, but in order to explain what is meant by
the underlined text it's essential that I retain it's context.

It's easy mistake the judgment spoken of in that passage for the judgment
spoken of in Rev 20:11-15. But there are crucial differences worth noting.

1• The fire spoken of at 1Cor 3:5-15 burns works. The fire spoken of at Rev
20:11-15 burns people.

2• People walk away alive from the fire spoken of at 1Cor 3:5-15. Nobody
walks away alive from the fire spoken of at Rev 20:11-15.

In context, "each man" refers to God's fellow workers.

The works in context are those pertaining specifically to Christians like Paul
and Apollos; viz: people involved in ministerial capacities e.g. apostles,
missionaries, evangelists, pastors, deacons, Sunday school teachers, church
administrators, home Bible study leaders, et al. Though John Q and Jane
Doe pew warmer's works will some day be evaluated too; they are not the
ones whose works will be evaluated as per 1Cor 3:5-15 because John Q and
Jane Doe are depicted not as God's fellow workers, but as: (1) God's field,
and (2) His building.

It's extremely important to note that only the Christian worker's works ar
tested with fire; not the worker himself. Compare this to the great white
throne event depicted at Rev 20:11-15 where the dead's works are not
tested; but rather, their works are introduced as evidence in the
prosecution's case against them. The Christian worker's works aren't
evaluated as evidence against them, but as potential credit to justify giving
them a performance award.

Another extremely important thing to note is that the Christian worker's
substandard works are burned up rather than burned off; as if the worker
has to spend some time in a purgatory or something like that.

The phrase "he himself will be spared, but only as through fire" is rendered
by some translators as "like someone escaping through a wall of flames"
and/or "as one escaping through the flames". It's a depiction of people who
waken inside a burning home with barely enough time to get out; taking
nothing with them but whatever they wore to bed. Their home is destroyed,
and all their valuables and all their mementoes; but at least the occupants
themselves are safe, and suffer no harm from the fire.

"let each man be careful how he builds upon it" indicates that Christian
workers need to keep in mind that what they produce will be thoroughly
scrutinized; and projects that don't measure up will be summarily culled;
resulting of course in reduced compensation for their service. How sad it
would be to see workers like Mother Teresa who, after devoting decades of
their lives to a Christian service capacity, only to be stripped of everything
and come away with nothing to show for it; not even so much as a Boy
Scout merit badge.


NOTE: According to 1Cor 4:5 the motives of Christian workers will be
evaluated too in order to determine whether they were in it for the Lord, or
just in it for themselves.


FYI: The koiné Greek words for "purify" and "purge" are nowhere to be
found in 1Cor 3:5-15; and a note in the current official Catholic Bible-- the
2011 New American Bible --says: "The text of 1Cor 3:15 has sometimes
been used to support the notion of a purgatory, though it does not envisage
this."

If perchance there are Catholics reading this, I should clue them that the
non Biblical materials (foot notes) in the 2011 New American Bible have a
nihil obstat by Reverend Richard L. Schaefer, Censor Deputatus, and an
imprimatur by Most Reverend Jerome Hanus, O.S.B. Archbishop of Duguque.

Nihil Obstat is defined as: The certification by an official censor of the Roman
Catholic Church that a book has been examined and found to contain
nothing opposed to faith and morals

Imprimatur is defined as: Approval of a publication under circumstances of
official censorship

/
 

Webers_Home

Well-Known Member
Apr 12, 2012
4,656
760
113
80
Oregon
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
-
61) 1Cor 3:18 . . If any one of you thinks he is wise by the standards of this
age, he should become a fool so that he may become wise.

Webster's defines a fool as a person lacking in judgment or prudence and/or
someone lacking common sense.

Well, as most everyone knows; someone need not have a low IQ to qualify
as a fool. It isn't uncommon for otherwise bright people with above average
intelligence to think, act, and speak like they've taken leave of their senses.

How do you go about convincing somebody with an IQ of 110 that they're
foolish? Well; of course they're not really half-witted; they're smart in their
own sphere, but alas; challenged in things that have value to God.

Take for example people like Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, Barbara Walters,
Oprah Winfrey, US President Donald Trump, Warren Buffet, Mark
Zuckerberg, Jimmy Fallon, Paul McCartney, et al. Those people are geniuses
at what they're good at; but when it comes to things that mean something
to God: they're incompetent dunces because they have focused all their
intellectual energy upon things that have value to themselves; and zero
intellectual energy contemplating things that have value to God.

1Cor 3:20 . .The Lord knows the thoughts of the wise; that they are
worthless.

Maybe the thoughts of the wise are worth something to the world; but not to
God. They bore Him to tears.

62) 1Cor 3:21-23 . . So don't take pride in following a particular leader.
Everything belongs to you-- Paul and Apollos and Peter --the whole world
and life and death; the present and the future. Everything belongs to you,
and you belong to Christ, and Christ belongs to God.

I've noticed that avid sports fans are afflicted with chronic identity
syndromes. When their favorite team wins; they say "we" won; as if they
were on the field playing the game instead of up in the bleachers or on the
couch at home watching the action on TV. Christians who worship the
ground that their favorite pastors and/or Sunday school teachers walk on
are just as avid. They want to be identified with those kinds of church
luminaries because it makes them look really smart and elite; when in
reality it just makes them look silly and star-crossed.

63) 1Cor 4:1 . . So then, men ought to regard us as servants of Christ, and
as those entrusted with the mysteries of God.

Christians are so prone to hero worship. They idolize the pastors of their
churches; celebrities of the Christian world like Mother Teresa and Billy
Graham are practically sacred cows-- when they should recognize that those
celebrities are only human rather than divine. (cf. 1Cor 3:5-15)

64) 1Cor 4:5 . . Judge nothing before the appointed time; wait till The Lord
comes. He will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and expose the
motives of men's hearts.

The "judging" with respect to 1Cor 4:5 regards human nature's propensity to
idolize religious celebrities without having all the facts. For example; we now
know from Mother Teresa's private letters-- made public by Father Brian
Kolodiejchuk's book "Mother Teresa / Come Be My Light" --that Ms. Agnes
Gonxha Bojaxhiu was a nun with so little personal belief in God as to be an
agnostic; and yet for decades everyone the world over thought she was the
cat's meow and the bee's knees: a veritable poster child of piety in thought,
word, and deed. It turns out Teresa was a remarkable actor. Her public
image bore no resemblance whatsoever to the secret life of her inner being.

/
 

Webers_Home

Well-Known Member
Apr 12, 2012
4,656
760
113
80
Oregon
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
-
65) 1Cor 5:1-5 . . It is actually reported that there is immorality among
you, and immorality of such a kind as does not exist even among the
Gentiles, that someone has his father's wife. And you have become
arrogant, and have not mourned instead, in order that the one who had
done this deed might be removed from your midst.

. . . For I, on my part, though absent in body but present in spirit, have
already judged him who has so committed this, as though I were present. In
the name of our Lord Jesus, when you are assembled, and I with you in
spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus, I have decided to deliver such a one
to Satan for the destruction of his flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the
day of the Lord Jesus.

Gentiles of course do sleep with their stepmothers on occasion; but the
world's practice of that kind of behavior is more an aberration than a
custom.

Well, the Corinthians were treating that man's behavior as if it were a norm,
i.e. they apparently felt that the man's conduct was trivial, undeserving of
either attention or criticism. They must have wondered why Paul was
reacting so badly rather than just "get over it". After all; it's none of his
business what goes on behind closed doors. Had he not heard of the right to
privacy? And besides, didn't the Lord say: "Let he who is without sin cast the
first stone."

Delivering someone to Satan for the destruction of the flesh just simply
means to cull them from the herd, so to speak. In other words: exclude
them from congregational activities; e.g. worship, Sunday school, and
prayer meetings. This is not as radical as totally breaking off contact with
someone; it's purpose is church discipline rather than the social blacklisting
practiced by Jehovah's Witnesses.

66) 1Cor 5:6b-8 . . Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole
lump of dough? Clean out the old leaven, that you may be a new lump, just
as you are in fact unleavened. For Christ our Passover also has been
sacrificed. Let us therefore celebrate the feast, not with old leaven, nor with
the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of
sincerity and truth.

. . . I wrote you in my letter not to associate with immoral people; I did not
at all mean with the immoral people of this world, or with the covetous and
swindlers, or with idolaters; for then you would have to go out of the world.
But actually, I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he
should be an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a
drunkard, or a swindler-- not even to eat with such a one. For what have I
to do with judging outsiders? Do you not judge those who are within the
church? But those who are outside, God judges. Remove the wicked man
from among yourselves.

His comparison to leavening indicates that the shameful conduct of just one
member of the congregation is the whole congregation's shame. This isn't a
proprietary Christian principle. It first shows up in the 7th chapter of Joshua.
The insubordination of one insignificant Jewish man-- just one --caused God
to stop assisting Joshua's army in battle. As a result, 36 men were
needlessly killed in action; and ultimately capital punishment was inflicted
upon not only the insubordinate man himself, but also his sons and his
daughters. What did God say? Achan has sinned? No: Israel has sinned.
(Josh 7:11)

This is one of the best arguments against church expansion. The bigger a
congregation gets, the more difficult it is to keep an eye on everyone's
conduct.

Q: What about saved and born-again LGBT? Do they have to be judged and
ostracized too?

A: There was a time in the not-so-distant past when there would have been
no need to ask that question. But the question is very pertinent nowadays
what with so many State, local, and Federal laws practically giving LGBT the
status of protected species. It's got to the point when accusing them of
sexual sin is considered hate speech.

The key to correctly applying Paul's instruction to Christian LGBT is the word
"indulges" which Webster's defines as: excessive compliance and weakness
in gratifying another's or one's own desires. In other words: before judging
and ostracizing LGBT they have to be sexually active.

And please; let's not level all the heavy guns at LGBT because the list
includes swindling and greed too; which were responsible for the Wall Street
crash back in 2008 that led to thousands of people everywhere losing their
jobs, their retirements, and their homes. LGBT are of no consequence at all
in comparison to the power of greed and swindling to ruin people's lives,
collapse entire economies, and create fear, panic, and havoc on a titanic
scale.

67) 1Cor 5:6a . .Your boasting is not good.

The Corinthian church was liberal in its attitudes about sex. That's no
surprise considering the city's culture in that day and age. Then, as now,
liberals tend to think of themselves as sophisticated and progressive. And
vastly superior to the stodgy, old-fashioned ways of conservatives.

/
 
Last edited:

Webers_Home

Well-Known Member
Apr 12, 2012
4,656
760
113
80
Oregon
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
-
68) 1Cor 6:1-6 . . If any of you has a dispute with another, dare he take it
before the ungodly for judgment instead of before the saints? Do you not
know that the saints will judge the world? And if you are to judge the world,
are you not competent to judge trivial cases? Do you not know that we will
judge angels? How much more the things of this life!

. . .Therefore, if you have disputes about such matters, appoint as judges
even men of little account in the church! I say this to shame you. Is it
possible that there is nobody among you wise enough to judge a dispute
between believers? But instead, one brother goes to law against another-and
this in front of unbelievers!

Apparently some of the Christians in the church at Corinth let the Sermon
On The Mount go in one ear and out the other.

Matt 5:39-40 . . But I say unto you: That ye resist not evil; but whosoever
shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if any
man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak
also.

Luke 12:57-59 . .Why don't you judge for yourselves what is right? As you
are going with your adversary to the magistrate, try hard to be reconciled to
him on the way, or he may drag you off to the judge, and the judge turn you
over to the officer, and the officer throw you into prison. I tell you, you will
not get out until you have paid the last penny.

The Lord began his teaching in Luke with the words "Why don't you judge
for yourselves what is right?" In other words; if someone threatens to take
you to court over a tort matter, and you know darn good and well he's in the
right; don't force him to go to law. Instead, admit to your wrong and settle
out of court. According to the Lord, it’s unrighteous to tie up the courts when
you know your own self that you are the one who's in the wrong. There's
just simply no righteous reason why Christian defendants and plaintiffs can't
be their own judge and jury in tort matters.

1Cor 6:7-8 . . Now therefore there is utterly a fault among you, because
ye go to law one with another. Why do ye not rather take wrong? why do ye
not rather suffer yourselves to be defrauded? Nay, ye do wrong, and
defraud, and that your brethren.

The koiné Greek word for "defraud" is apostereo (ap-os-ter-eh'-o) which is
an ambiguous word with more than one meaning, and more than one
application. The meaning that seems appropriate in this instance is
"deprive".

It works like this: Were I to trip and fall because of a crack in the walk
leading up to the front door of the home of one of my kin; I wouldn't haul
them into court over it because we're related; viz: any injury I might incur
by tripping and falling because of a crack in their walk would be a family
matter rather than a legal matter; and they have a right to be treated by me
as family rather than as enemies in a lawsuit because we're related. Were I
to sue them for tripping and falling because of a crack in their walk; I would
be depriving them of the love that kin have a right to expect from one
another.

Well; Christians are supposed to be brethren; in the highest possible sense
of the word.

1John 3:14-16 . .We know that we have passed out of death into life,
because we love the brethren. . . We know love by this, that He laid down
His life for us; and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren.

I think it's safe to say that if somebody is comfortable taking a fellow
Christian to court; then they certainly are not prepared to lay down their life
for the brethren.

It's really sad to see relatives suing each other in court; but it happens all
the time. When the world does it; well, that's to be expected; but when
Christians sue each other; that's dysfunctional.

/
 

Webers_Home

Well-Known Member
Apr 12, 2012
4,656
760
113
80
Oregon
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
-
69) 1Cor 6:18 . . Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the
body; but he that commits fornication sins against his own body.

The koiné Greek word for "fornication" is porneia (por-ni'-ah) which doesn't
mean pornography; it means harlotry; a term that Webster's defines as
sexual profligacy. Porneia would include things like prostitution, adultery,
promiscuity, date sex, free love, shacking up, one-night stands, swingers,
wife swapping, and that sort of thing.

The command is not to walk away from fornication; but to run away from it
as if your very life depends upon putting distance between you and it. The
same Greek word is used at Matt 2:13 where an angel instructed Joseph to
flee into Egypt in order to save his little boy's life.

Fleeing is different than shunning. I think what we're talking about here are
the times when a golden opportunity comes along to mess around with
somebody who is absolutely irresistible. Some people would call that getting
lucky; but in God's estimation, it's getting stupid if you play along and see
what happens.

Young Christian couples often want to know how far they can go with their
dates before they're into forbidden territory. Well, we all instinctively know
the upper limits, but since the lower limits aren't chipped in stone then I
would have to say let your own conscience be your guide in accordance with
the Lord's principles stipulated in the 14th chapter of Romans regulating
gray areas. The key principles are:

"Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind." (Rom 14:5)

"Happy is he that feels no guilt in that thing which he allows." (Rom 14:22)

He that doubts is guilty if he eats, because he eats not of faith: for
whatsoever is not of faith is sin." (Rom 14:23)

However, as an old senior guy of 73 who's been around the block a time or
two: I must forewarn youngsters that the human conscience is trainable.
What I mean is, if you manage to suppress your first-time pangs of guilt, the
second time will be easier; and each succeeding suppression of your
conscience gets easier and easier till the day comes when you feel no guilt at
all. In other words: you will eventually succeed in cauterizing your
conscience. (cf. 1Tim 4:1-2)

The phrase "sins against his own body" is sort of the same wording as at
1Cor 11:27 where it's said "whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the
Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and
blood of the Lord."

Some Christians construe 1Cor 11:27 as murder. Well if so, then sinning
against one's own body would be suicide. But actually, what we're talking
about here is gross contempt and disrespect. In other words; Christian
fornicators are treating their body like a chamber pot instead of a holy
vessel; and all the while dragging God's Spirit into situations that He finds
extremely unbecoming.

1Cor 6:19 . . Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy
Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God?

Eph 4:30 . . Do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, with whom you were
sealed for the day of redemption.

They're also dragging Christ into shame and disgrace too.

1Cor 6:14-16 . . Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ
himself? Shall I then take the members of Christ and unite them with an
harlot? Never! Do you not know that he who unites himself with an harlot is
one with her in body? For it is said, "The two will become one flesh."

It's sad but true: a number of Christians have spent so little time in the book
of Genesis that they haven't a clue what 1Cor 6:14-16 is talking about.

1Cor 15:34 . . Awake to righteousness, and do not sin; for some do not
have the knowledge of God. I speak this to your shame.

/
 
  • Like
Reactions: tabletalk

Webers_Home

Well-Known Member
Apr 12, 2012
4,656
760
113
80
Oregon
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
-
70) 1Cor 6:20 . . For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in
your body, and in your spirit, which are God's.

Christ's crucifixion and resurrection liberated his followers from facing justice
and the second death in the scene depicted at Rev 20:11-15. That was a
mighty big favor, and I should think it earns him the right to ask a favor in
return. All things considered; conducting ourselves in ways that honor God is
really not too much to ask seeing as how it was He who donated His own son
to die for us.

71) 1Cor 7:2 . . Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his
own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.

The above is especially pertinent in 2014 America. Fornication is
everywhere: on a pandemic scale. It's in our music, in our schools, in the
White House, in our offices, on our televisions, in our movies, in our novels,
and in our conversations. People are even sleeping together on their very
first dates. Even Congressmen, Senators, and US Presidents are indulging in
forbidden love. The previous Governor of Oregon was openly shaking up with
a girlfriend. An item in the January 2011 issue of National Geographic
reported that 41% of America's births in 2008 were illegitimate; which is up
28% from 1990.

This country is in a state of moral decadence, and becoming more and more
like the ancient city of Pompeii just prior to its destruction by the volcanism
of Mt. Vesuvius.

It's important to note that 1Cor 7:2 makes it okay to marry for sex. My
childhood religion taught me that it's a sin to marry for any other reason
except procreation and that couples who decide to remain childless are living
in sin. They get that from Genesis 1:28 where it's says: "God blessed them;
and God said to them: Be fruitful and multiply". But that is clearly a blessing
rather than a law. It's always best to regard blessings as benefits and/or
empowerments unless clearly indicated otherwise.

Ironically the original purpose of marriage was neither sex nor procreation;
it was companionship. (Gen 2:18)

72) 1Cor 7:3-4 . . Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence:
and likewise also the wife unto the husband. The wife hath not authority of
her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not
authority of his own body, but the wife.

What we're talking about in that verse is the principle of private property. In
other words: spouses own each other in a community property arrangement
wherein the wife is "his woman" and the husband is "her man". So then; if
you're looking for a man, or for a women, then go out and find one of your
own instead of taking a married one who has no right to give themselves to
you without their spouse's consent.

It's not uncommon for wives to withhold intimacy from their husbands as a
strategy to manipulate them. God forbid that any woman believing herself to
be one of Christ's followers should ever pull a stunt like that! Same goes for
the husbands. There is just no excuse for that kind of behavior in marriage.
It's deplorable and it's unbecoming.

/
 

Webers_Home

Well-Known Member
Apr 12, 2012
4,656
760
113
80
Oregon
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
-
73) 1Cor 7:5 . . Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for
a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come
together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.

The koiné word for "defraud" is apostereo (ap-os-ter-eh'-o) which means: to
despoil; which Webster's defines as: to strip of belongings, possessions, or
value; viz: pillage.

In other words, married people who withhold intimacy from their spouses
without a valid reason for doing so are nothing less than thieves, and in
violation of the 8th commandment.

Ex 20:15 . .Thou shalt not steal.

The temptation in question is of course adultery. In other words; if one
spouse denies the other spouse's conjugal rights for too long a time they run
the risk of pushing them into another's arms.

I heard a story recently about a rather conniving Christian woman who
wanted a divorce from her Christian husband; but seeing as how God
only allows death or adultery to dissolve the marital bond; she deliberately
denied her husband his conjugal rights in order to force him to think about
taking a lover; and when he did; she proceeded to divorce him on the
grounds of unfaithfulness. That way, in her mind's eye, she was the innocent
victim and he the villain. (chuckle) What people won't do to circumvent the
laws of God.

74) 1Cor 7:8-9 . . Now to the unmarried and the widows I say : It is good
for them to stay unmarried, as I am. But if they cannot control themselves,
they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn.

The koiné Greek word for "burn" is puroo (poo-ro'-o) which means: to
kindle, to ignite, to glow, and/or to be inflamed. I seriously doubt Paul
meant to convey the thought that the believers who lacked self control at
Corinth were in grave danger of the flames of hell since he had already
assured them in 1Cor 6:9-11 that they were washed, sanctified, and justified
in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.

Paul was one of those kinds of men with a very low-powered libido. But not
everyone is like him; nor is everyone cut out to live alone.

Webster's defines "celibacy" as (1) the state of not being married, (2)
abstention from sexual intercourse, and (3) abstention by vow from
marriage. Celibacy then, isn't limited to zero sex, but also includes zero
marriage; even platonic unions.

Not long ago, a Catholic priest here in Oregon quit the priesthood after
serving more than 30 years in order to get married because he couldn't
stand being alone anymore. He wasn't especially looking to get laid, he just
wanted to be with somebody; which is exactly how normal guys are
designed.

Gen 2:18 . .Yhvh God said: It's not good for Adam to be solitary

The problem with a vow of celibacy is that although it may hinder a priest
from getting married, it does nothing to prevent him from pining for a
female companion. 1Cor 7:9 should suffice to silence the mouths of ascetics
who preach it's holy to abstain from every form of earthly pleasure; and also
the mouths of those who preach it's a sin to marry solely for sex.


NOTE: Typical wedding vows are unconditional, i.e. couples, as a rule, don't
promise to love each other in a ratio relative to the amount of love they get
from the other. It would be educational for couples to review their vows now
and again to see just how conscientious they've been in complying with the
unconditional aspect of their vows.

/
 
Last edited:

Webers_Home

Well-Known Member
Apr 12, 2012
4,656
760
113
80
Oregon
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
-
75) 1Cor 7:10-11a . . Unto the married I command-- yet not I, but The Lord
--let not the wife depart from her husband: but and if she depart, let her
remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband.

Walking out on a husband when there is no scriptural cause to do so is
wrong per se, but that doesn't preclude walking out on an abusive husband
for safety's sake. According to Christ's sabbath teachings, the safety and
welfare of human life takes priority over strict observance of religious laws
and customs. However; abuse isn't scriptural cause for divorce.

76) 1Cor 7:11b . . and let not the husband put away his wife.

A man doesn't have sufficient scriptural grounds for divorce just by his wife
walking out on him. Now should his estranged wife take up with a lover
during their separation; that would definitely be sufficient. (Matt 5:32)

/
 
Last edited:

Rollo Tamasi

Well-Known Member
Aug 28, 2017
2,317
1,512
113
73
Inverness, Florida
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
-
75) 1Cor 7:10-11a . . Unto the married I command-- yet not I, but the Lord
--let not the wife depart from her husband: but and if she depart, let her
remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband.

Supposing one of the spouses sleeps with somebody during the separation?
Is the other spouse supposed to still make an effort to reconcile? NO!
According to the lord and master of New Testament Christianity;
unfaithfulness dissolves the marriage bond.

Matt 19:9 . . I say unto you: whosoever shall put away his wife, except it
be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery

Q: May a woman put away her husband for a cause other than fornication?

A: No; of course not; that would be a double standard.

Q: But why are only the husbands targeted in Matt 5:32?

A: The Lord's audience was primarily Jewish and lived under the terms and
conditions of Israel's covenanted law. Under that law, the husbands typically
initiated divorce rather than the wives.

Matt 19:7-8 . . They say unto him: Why did Moses then command to give
a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? He saith unto them, Moses
because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives:
but from the beginning it was not so.

The Lord's comments were based upon the passage below:

Gen 2:24 . . For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be
united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.

There is no mention of divorce in the wording of that decree, nor is there
any mention of polygamy either. In point of fact, if I'm understanding the
Lord correctly, prior to rules regulating Christian church officers at 1Tim 3:2,
it was okay for every man to have more than one wife just so long as they
didn't divorce the first simply in order to take up with a second.

According to Matt 19:7-8, Moses premised divorce settlements upon the
hardness of men's hearts rather than upon the hardness of their heads. In
other words; Moses decreed divorce settlements as a safe-guard against
men discarding their unwanted wives like chattel. A proper divorce separates
a woman from her husband with at least a measure of her dignity intact and
also ensures she isn't dumped without fair compensation; in other words:
mandatory divorce settlements force men to respect women as human
beings rather than yesterday's newspaper.

Q: So then; God permits divorce?

A: Webster's defines "permission" as: formal consent; viz: authorization. It's
far more accurate to say that God tolerates divorce.

Were God to authorize divorce for any cause other than unfaithfulness; then
according to Matt 19:9, God would be condoning adultery. And not only
would He be condoning adultery, but He would also be inconsistent with His
own one-flesh decree at Gen 2:24. The point is; people get divorced
regardless of God's decree at Gen 2:24. Because of that ugly little fact of
life; God requires that if people just have to get divorced; that it be done in
such a way as to protect the women; especially their reputations. If a man
dumped his wife without something in writing, future suitors might assume it
was because she was unfaithful.

Q: But doesn't Gen 16:1-4 and Gen 30:3-10 indicate that God permits
adultery?

A: I am unable to locate wording in either of those passages clearly
indicating that God granted Abram permission to marry his half sister and/or
to sleep with Ms.Hagar; and I am also unable to find wording in either of
those passages clearly indicating that God granted Jacob permission to sleep
with his wives' maids.


FYI: When the Bible's God stands by and does nothing to prevent sin, it
should never be construed to indicate that He condones it because the
Bible's God prefers not to micro-manage intelligent creatures. For example:
the Bible's God could easily have prevented Cain from murdering his kid
brother Abel. Does that eo ipso indicate Cain had God's consent to murder
his kid brother? No. The Bible's God also could have prevented Judah from
sleeping with his daughter-in-law Tamar to produce an illegitimate child who
subsequently ended up in the Lord's biological genealogy. Does that eo ipso
indicate Judah had God's consent to commit incest? No. In some
jurisdictions; silence is construed as consent. Beware applying that kind of
logic to the Bible's God.

Anyway; before meeting my wife in 1979, I was active in a very large
single's group in a church in San Diego. One of the girls in the group had
supported her ex while he was in medical school. You know the story: after
graduation, Mister Gray's Anatomy dumped her.

That girl was level-headed, young and pretty, had no children from a
previous marriage, drove her own car and had a job. In other words, she
was a good bet; but her conscience wouldn't permit dating since she was
convinced that Christians are married forever. Wishing to be helpful, I
pointed out that if her ex was sleeping with somebody, then Matt 19:9 made
her available. (No, she couldn't accept it; at least not right then anyway. I
sincerely hope she changed her mind some day before the aging process
ruined her looks.)

/

Are we suppose to respond to all your copy and pasting, or should we just listen and obey?


Pink-floyd-film-Stills8.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: GodsGrace

Webers_Home

Well-Known Member
Apr 12, 2012
4,656
760
113
80
Oregon
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
-
Are we suppose to respond to all your copy and pasting, or should we just
listen and obey?

This particular area of Christianity Board is set up for the benefit of newbies,
i.e. beginners.

Perhaps you would be more at home in an area set up for advanced Christians.

/
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: tabletalk

Webers_Home

Well-Known Member
Apr 12, 2012
4,656
760
113
80
Oregon
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
-
76) 1Cor 7:11b . . and let not the husband put away his wife.

A man doesn't have sufficient scriptural grounds for divorce just by his wife
walking out on him. Now should his estranged wife take up with a lover
during their separation; that would definitely be sufficient. (Matt 5:32)

/
 
Last edited:

DPMartin

Well-Known Member
Jan 30, 2014
2,698
794
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
webers_home don't sweat the peanut gallery criticisms, as you notice they aren't doing what you are doing. it takes a certain heart to care for the young in Christ.


but if I may, remember the kiss method "keep it simple stupid" it worked for me when I was young in Christ. when others were getting me familiar with the things of the Lord.
 

bbyrd009

Groper
Nov 30, 2016
33,943
12,081
113
Ute City, COLO
www.facebook.com
Faith
Christian
Country
United States Minor Outlying Islands
i don't think @Rollo Tamasi means to be discouraging, but this is like more bloggy than forumy, i kind of had a similar reaction myself, when some question got ignored. The forum section is not delineated very clearly in search or new posts, so that is prolly a factor too, but regardless, if one does not want interaction of this kind, which is certainly understandable i guess, then why not be led by that
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: pia and Helen

Webers_Home

Well-Known Member
Apr 12, 2012
4,656
760
113
80
Oregon
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
-
77) 1Cor 7:12 . . If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be
pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away.

78) 1Cor 7:13 . . And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not,
and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him.

Christians are of course strictly forbidden to marry non-Christians (1Cor
7:39, 2Cor 6:14-18). But even if a potential spouse is a Christian, you may
want to think twice before tying the knot if the other does not believe the
same things and/or the same way. Marriage is hard enough to keep intact
without introducing religious division into the home right out of the gate.

It's very common for marriages to start off okay, and then later on to
become religiously divided; like for instance when one of the spouses gets
converted at a Luis Palau crusade. As long as the situation doesn't cause
intolerable friction in the home, the couple should stay together.

1Cor 7:14-15 . . For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and
the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband; otherwise your children
would be unclean, but now they are holy.

According to Matt 19:9, divorce and remarriage are holy only if one of the
spouses has been unfaithful. So; if a believing spouse divorces their
unbelieving spouse for any other reason than infidelity, and remarries; then
as far as God is concerned, any children produced in the believing spouse's
second marriage will be illegitimate.

Q: Why isn't spousal abuse cause for a believing spouse to divorce an
unbelieving spouse? After all, according to 1Cor 7:15, God has called
believers to peace.

A: Because according to Matt 19:9 the only acceptable cause for divorce is
infidelity. Other than that, the only acceptable alternative is separation.
(1Cor 7:10-11)

It isn't unusual to encounter unbelievers employing clever sophistry to
circumvent Matt 19:9. I highly recommend letting their smooth words go in
one ear and out the other because there is no peace to be obtained by
disobedience.

John 16:33 . .These things I have spoken to you, that in me you may have
peace. In the world you have tribulation

One of the "things I have spoken to you" is Matt 19:9. If believing spouses
heed Jesus' instructions, they will have peace. If not; then I think they
should pretty much expect to be out on their own.

1John 1:5-6 . . And this is the message we have heard from Him and
announce to you, that God is light, and in Him there is no darkness at all. If
we say that we have fellowship with Him and yet walk in the darkness, we
lie and do not practice the truth.

79) 1Cor 7:15 . . But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a
sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace.

In other words: If an unbelieving spouse initiates divorce for whatever
reason; then the believing spouse is in the clear to remarry; but of course
not until the unbeliever starts sleeping with somebody.

80) 1Cor 7:17 . . But as God hath distributed to every man, as the Lord hath
called every one, so let him walk.

It isn't necessary to go out on the mission field in order to serve Christ
faithfully and effectively. Even just being a good citizen counts.

81) 1Cor 7:18a . . Is any man called being circumcised? let him not become
uncircumcised.

It was of course impossible to literally reverse circumcision in Paul's day.
However, there did exist a procedure to ceremoniously reverse it. (cf.
1Maccabees 1:15)

82) 1Cor 7:18b . . Is any called in uncircumcision? let him not be
circumcised.

The circumcision in question is ritual circumcision; specifically the initiation
rite into Judaism. Paul's advice is very practical because if a believer
undergoes Judaism's circumcision rite, they will obligate God to come down
on themselves with the curses listed at Lev 26:3-38, Deut 27:15-26, and
Deut 28:1-69 for noncompliance with the covenant that Yhvh's people
agreed upon with God as per Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy.
All one has to do is research the last 3,500 years of the Jews' history, up to
and including the Holocaust, to see for themselves that God is serious about
those curses.

A fair question one might ask is: If 1Cor 7:18b is a hard and fast rule, then
why did Paul circumcise Timothy at Acts 16:1-3? Answer: that wasn't done
to initiate Timothy into Judaism, but rather, so that the Jews wouldn't make
an issue of Paul associating with a Gentile who had no respect for their
religion and thereby self-render themselves tone deaf to the Gospel. This
very same problem exists today among people who fixate on the King James
English translation of the Bible. They will not listen to a teacher, not even a
Spirit-empowered teacher, unless he quotes from the KJV.

/
 

Webers_Home

Well-Known Member
Apr 12, 2012
4,656
760
113
80
Oregon
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
-
83) 1Cor 7:20 . . Each one should remain in the situation which he was in
when God called him.

In other words: Bloom where you're planted. There's no need to quit your
job and sell your home in order to run off to God knows where and start an
orphanage in some third world country. God can make use of you right
where you are.

I once knew a really good Catholic man who felt guilty never going out as a
missionary to a foreign land to help people less fortunate than himself. Well,
I assured him that somebody has to stay back here in the States and hold
down a job in order to earn the money needed to finance missions already in
place.

The ratio of soldiers in the rear compared to the ones at the front is
something like six to one. It takes a massive support base to keep guys on
the line out there facing off with the bad guys; all the way from workers in
state-side factories manufacturing war materiel, to the sailors, soldiers, and
airmen moving men and materiel over land and seas, to the doctors and
nurses staffing MASH facilities, to the guys and girls driving supply trucks to
the front. We can't all be in the doo-doo. Somebody has to be in the rear
with the gear.

So take comfort in knowing that if you're involved in the effort, then you're a
part of the effort; and will be rewarded accordingly. (cf. 1Sam 30:1-25 and
Matt 20:1-16)

84) 1Cor 7:21-22 . . Were you called while a slave? Do not be concerned
about it; but if you can be made free, rather use it. For he who is called in
the Lord while a slave is the Lord's freedman. Likewise he who is called while
free is Christ's slave.

Were this the only life, then slavery would be a terrible fate because there
would be nothing better to look forward to; viz: Christian slaves should think
of their situation as only a temporary set-back. They're missing out on the
best that life has to offer for now, but I'm pretty sure they can look forward
to Christ making it up to them in the next life.

The situation of Christians behind bars without possibility of either release or
parole, is little different than that of slaves. However, though their time
inside may be for life, it isn't permanent. No, their time inside is just a bump
in the road: it's not the end of the road.

As I was watching a prison documentary on NetFlix some time ago, one of
the inmates interviewed, an elderly man sweeping with a broom out in the
yard, said, in so many words: Guys come in here thinking their life is over. It
ain't over, it's just different.

That old guy was a lifer, but he was at peace with his situation-- an amazing
attitude for an institutionalized man with no hope of ever again having a
normal life on the outside.

85) 1Cor 7:23 . .You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of men.

In other words; selling your body is one thing, while selling your soul is quite
another; Christ has first dibs on that so don't even think abou it.

The point is; whether bonded or free, every believer is indentured to the
Lord. But it is his wish that believers remain free rather than make a habit of
indenturing themselves to humans primarily because a free man's labor
earns him wages: a portion of which can be donated towards the Lord's
work; while a slave earns no wages to donate towards the Lord's work. Also;
a free man is at liberty to move about and make himself useful to the Lord,
while a slave's movements are pretty much limited to their human master's
jurisdiction.

86) 1Cor 7:24 . . Brethren, let each one remain with God in the situation in
which he was called.

If you're a slave; don't become a runaway slave. If you're a secretary, don't
quit your job and/or abandon your husband to run off and become another
Joan of Arc. Stay put; always keeping in mind that whether slave, free, or
crusader; will make no difference in your association with God.

87) 1Cor 7:25 . . Now about virgins: I have no command from the Lord,
but I give a judgment as one who by the Lord's mercy is trustworthy.

The koiné Greek word for "virgins" is parthenos (par-then'-os) which
basically refers to maidens and/or unmarried daughters.

There's an ancient temple in Greece called the Parthenon; which was at one
time a sort of shrine to the goddess Athena (a.k.a. Minerva). Apparently it
was common for Athena's followers to donate their young girls to her
service.

I'm guessing that the Christians in ancient Corinth, influenced by Greek and
Roman culture, were curious whether they were supposed to donate their
young girls to Christ's service; viz: make nuns of them; which of course
would seal them into celibacy and thus preclude the possibility of ever
having a man and a family of their own.

Paul's claim to be "trustworthy" is saying that he could be relied upon to
speak as Christ and for Christ on certain issues without having to first
inquire his mind about them.

That's a pretty advanced degree of inspiration when somebody is 110%
confident that their thoughts on a matter are God's thoughts.

Too many Christians are wishy-washy. They have an annoying habit of
pontificating their opinions as the God's truth; when in reality they have
neither the confidence nor the integrity to stand up and announce
themselves trustworthy, i.e. infallible; the meanwhile quick to call others
heretics for disagreeing with them.


NOTE: Be circumspect with your choice of words lest the hapless day arrives
when you are forced to eat them. Never call someone a heretic because it
just may be that your own beliefs are heretical without your knowing. It's
okay to be positive, but for God's sake don't be conceited: leave yourself
some room for error.

88) 1Cor 7:26-28 . . Because of the present crisis, I think that it is good
for you to remain as you are. Are you married? Do not seek a divorce. Are
you unmarried? Do not look for a wife. But if you do marry, you have not
sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned.

The "present crisis" probably relates to circumstances that make it difficult
and/or inadvisable to settle down and raise a family, e.g. Jer 16:1-4 and
Matt 24:19-22.

However, marriage, overall, doesn't displease God; and best of all, the
Corinthian Christians did not have to donate their maidens to Christ as nuns;
rather, the girls were perfectly at liberty to settle down with a man.

/
 
Last edited:

Webers_Home

Well-Known Member
Apr 12, 2012
4,656
760
113
80
Oregon
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
-
89) 1Cor 7:36 . . If anyone thinks he is acting improperly toward the virgin
he is engaged to, and if she is getting along in years and he feels he ought
to marry, he should do as he wants. He is not sinning. They should get
married.

We have a saying in America that goes like this: So and so married what's
her name and made an honest woman out of her. Well, most grown-ups
know what that means without me having to say so. The point is: if a
Christian man and his Christian significant other find themselves on the
brink of exceeding the limits of propriety, it's time to tie the knot.

And then too there's the so-called biological clock that stalks women during
their productive years. It's cruel, unthinkable, and utterly selfish and
psychopathic of a man to keep a girl on hold during those years if and when
he's fully aware that she's longing to settle down and have a family of her
own. A man who does that has no clue what the word "honor" means.

90) 1Cor 7:39 . . A woman is bound to her husband as long as he lives. But
if her husband dies, she is free to marry anyone she wishes, but he must be
in the Lord.

When people sound-bite a verse like that one out of context, they run the
risk of coming to some very false conclusions; and one of those is that
Christians can never, under any circumstances, divorce and remarry while
their spouses are alive. Well, obviously they can, under certain
circumstances (e.g. Matt 5:32). However, a Christian ex-wife has to be
careful not to re-marry outside her faith as that would be like jumping from
the frying pan into the fire. (cf. 2Cor 6:14-18)

/
 

Webers_Home

Well-Known Member
Apr 12, 2012
4,656
760
113
80
Oregon
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
-
91) 1Cor 8:4-13 . .We know that an idol is nothing at all in the world and
that there is no God but one. For even if there are so-called gods, whether in
heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many "gods" and many "lords"), yet
for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for
whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all
things came and through whom we live.

. . . But not everyone knows this. Some people are still so accustomed to
idols that when they eat such food they think of it as having been sacrificed
to an idol, and since their conscience is weak, it is defiled. But food does not
bring us near to God; we are no worse if we do not eat, and no better if we
do.

. . . Be careful, however, that the exercise of your freedom does not
become a stumbling block to the weak. For if anyone with a weak conscience
sees you who have this knowledge eating in an idol's temple, won't he be
emboldened to eat what has been sacrificed to idols? So this weak brother,
for whom Christ died, is destroyed by your knowledge. When you sin against
your brothers in this way and wound their weak conscience, you sin against
Christ. Therefore, if what I eat causes my brother to fall into sin, I will never
eat meat again, so that I will not cause him to fall.

1Cor 8:4-13 can be said to be a codicil to the 14th chapter of Romans.

Putting this into a modern context is pretty simple; e.g. here in Oregon we
have tavern-style restaurants; viz: a section of the tavern is a bar, and
another section is dedicated to dining. The bar sections usually host State
sanctioned gambling machines too and typically off-limits to minors.

Suppose you have Christian friends who seriously feel it's wrong to dine in a
tavern-style restaurant because of the alcohol and the gambling. Though
you yourself might be comfortable in your own mind that there is no sin in
dining at taverns, your friends are not so sure. So if you were to take them
to a tavern, they would be committing sin in compromising their conscience;
and you would be committing sin by knowingly leading them in a situation
that causes them to make that compromise.

Rom 15:1-2 . .We may know that these things make no difference, but we
cannot just go ahead and do them to please ourselves. We must be
considerate of the doubts and fears of those who think these things are
wrong. We should please others. If we do what helps them, we will build
them up in the Lord.

A pertinent example is Hooters; where the waitresses are cute buxom girls
filled out in all the right places clothed in short shorts, and clingy tops; so
that the situation is a double whammy of babes and alcohol. Supposing your
Christian buddy seriously feels it's wrong to dine at Hooters? Then you would
be wrong in taking him there for a burger even if you were convinced in your
own mind there is nothing wrong with Hooters because you would be leading
your Christian buddy into a situation that causes him to feel guilty.

The Bible says that Christians should accommodate others to their
edification (edification means to build someone up as opposed to tearing
them down), Well, when we please ourselves to their detriment; that's being
selfish. Some guys feel that cute buxom girls and yummy gams are a God
send, while other guys regard them as the Devil in disguise. The correct
route here is to accommodate the more sensitive conscience.

This is one of those situations that requires that each individual to be
convinced in their own mind whether Hooters is wrong for themselves or
okay for themselves (Rom 14:5) and God forbid that Christians should
criticize a fellow Christian who frequents Hooters because this is indeed one
of those gray areas; and just who are you to legislate the rules for others in
gray areas (Rom 14:3-4). It's unfortunate that there are some very
imperious, domineering Christians out and about who see nothing wrong
with bullying others to compromise their convictions just so long as they get
their own way and everybody conforms to their way of thinking.

For example: it is my own personal feelings that Luke 22:35-36 makes it
okay for Christ's followers to own guns for self defense. Well; a rather
opinionated Christian in one of my Sunday school classes sneered at me for
feeling that way and proceeded to pontificate that Jesus' instructions were
only "preparatory" for the upcoming confrontation with Judas and the crowd
that came with him that night to arrest Jesus. Okay; that's fine with me if
that's the way he feels about it; but sneering at me for feeling my way about
it was really out of line.

/