| Re: |
This post hit my heart. Thank you for posting this.
I used to believe the same about divorce and remarriage due to the same influences.
However, some of the brothers and sisters at these churches are still very near and dear to my heart.
I am glad to see Jerry Mawhorr's name mentioned. This brother used to bless me tremendously back in the day.
| 2010/10/13 22:33||Profile|
| Re: |
Quote: Denny Kenaston Isn't this the same man that preached at the Revival conferences?
I would not discount Denny's preaching. I still have notes written in my Bible from some of his messages! :) He is still a man of God.
| 2010/10/13 22:53||Profile|
| Re: |
by snufalapagus on 2010/10/13 6:06:45
I hear ya Everest, it's just that where do we draw the line with law?
We seem to sit under it at ours or someone else's expense or whenever it suits us.
We are dead to divorce, but if divorce happens which is a sin, we have an advocate with the father Christ Jesus our Lord who will forgive us of our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
Does forgiveness stop at Divorce?
The way people talk it seems it does. To them it's the unpardonable sin.
You bring up a good question Everest about the Children. God would have us to visit the fatherless and widow, but these children are now without a father because of religious nuts. These kids will no doubt hate God because God broke up their marriage.
Satan is happy.
Divorce is a sin, yes. Is it covered? Yes. But the question is not divorce, but, rather, the sin of re-marriage afterwards. Re-marriage is wrong, since the other spouse is living: it is classified as adultery. Paul defines that fact very clearly in Romans 7.
You might say, "Well, they were remarried before they were saved, so that re-marriage was covered in the blood also, therefore, it's ok..."
Well, if it's adultery before, is it still adultery after?
If a drunk gets saved, is his drinking forgiven? Absolutely. But can he keep on drinking?
Why? Because it is still sin. The same is true to the sin of remarriage while the other spouse is still living.
I also sense a lot of anger and bitterness in your words... please check your heart everyone on this thread...
In this whole discussion of the "Charity" churches, i'm seeing a lot of people bashing them, criticizing them, etc.
This is not Christian, nor is it wise.
| 2010/10/13 23:54||Profile|
| Re: |
It's the lies cloaked in truth that hurt people the most.
| 2010/10/13 23:59|
A Little Town In Iowa
| "What grace is this?" The grace of God that teaches us to deny...|
This grace is that which teaches us to "deny ungodliness and worldly lusts [desires]." (Titus 2:11-15)
My heart bleeds as I think about the many broken homes and corrupt influences that have so swallowed up our concept of right that we hardly know what it is anymore. It also pains me to see brethren that I know personally being attacked because of their careful attention to conscience. Godliness is offensive to the world by its very nature (Matthew 10:32-40). A servant of God will be unpopular and most people will hate him (Luke 11:47-52).
If you are one that is in a divorced/remarried situation, I pray you will not take offense to what I will say here. I am NOT attacking you. I only ask that you prayerfully consider the plain words of Jesus and do not rationalize Him away. Please search it out for yourself and seek the Lord's will for you.
First of all, we all know and agree that the words of our Lord Jesus Christ explain and supersede all that has gone before, including the Law of Moses. Everything MUST be interpreted by what He has said. This is an axiom upon which I have striven to build my life.
According to Jesus, remarriage after divorce is sin, based upon many clear statements He made on the subject:
It hath been said, "Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:" But I say unto you, "That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery."
And the Pharisees came to Him, and asked Him, "Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife?" tempting Him.
And He answered and said unto them, "What did Moses command you?"
And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away."
And Jesus answered and said unto them, "For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept. But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. 'For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.' What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder."
And in the house His disciples asked Him again of the same matter.
And He saith unto them, "Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery."
Mark 10:2-12 (see also Matthew 19:3-9)
"Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery."
Even if we consider the "exception clause" referred to in some of these passages, the "clause" will only allow for divorce. Never, in any case except death of the spouse, is remarriage allowed for according to Jesus. Please, let the Scripture speak for itself without squeezing it through our "cultural mold". Nothing is mentioned here of believers or unbelievers. It is a universal principle from time immemorial, as Jesus alludes to in Matthew 10:6-9.
We may give reasons as to why "it won't work." Let us not forget, brethren, that God will not always tell us to do the "reasonable" thing (c.f. Isaiah 55:6-9, 1 Corinthians 1:18-29). Jesus gave us commands, and we must obey because WE LOVE HIM more than ANYTHING else! If something else is causing us to rationalize disobedience to Him, where is our love truly at?
We are called to deny ourselves, take up our cross and follow Him. This is grace that empowers us to live in a way that honors God, and leaves the world wondering what we are doing (Titus 2:11-15, mentioned above). Grace is power, not license (Romans 6:1; Jude 1:4). That grace working in our lives can mean painful separations in family, church and occupation (Mark 10:29-30). Therefore this IS the grace of God moving in two believers' lives.
Christianity has always been in stark opposition to the spirit of the age. Why is it that only recently the church has altered her standard about divorce, remarriage and other such related matters? It is only because the world at large has shifted its opinions. You will not find that such things were ever permitted in the church until our more "modern" times.
We have done much "sowing", now we are "reaping".
Friends, it is not the Scripture that has changed. It is us.
At the bare minimum, if the sister and brother in the article feel the Lord was telling them to separate, can we not allow them the liberty to do so? Remember, liberty of conscience should work both ways (Romans 14:4 et al). Why are we so afraid of legalism that we keep ourselves from following our conscience, and the plain teaching of the Word of God?
Brethren, can we not at the very least allow for liberty here, in this voluntary separation?
I will not continue a debate on this topic, as I can see it will be counterproductive. Call me a parrot. Call me a literalist. Call me a cultist. Call me biased. Call me prudish. You are welcome to dissect and twist and destroy my posting all you wish... just know that I love you all in Jesus' name! :)
I pray this forum does not further digress into a cesspool of accusation and wrathful rhetoric. Let us share freely, but in the love of Jesus. Oh, that we would love Jesus unashamedly, unreservedly, unwaveringly!
After all, it is before Him that we will all give answer for our conduct on that great Day (2 Corinthians 5:10).
I pray that I have not unnecessarily offended anyone. Please, please, please, if you are divorced and remarried, do not be angry with me or with anyone here... read the words of Jesus and consider them. I do not condemn you, I only ask you to meditate on these very grave and direct words of Jesus. Your souls may depend on it.
Peace and blessings to all in Jesus,
| 2010/10/14 0:21||Profile|
| Re: MDR topic|
According to the Scriptures and the whole counsel of God from Genesis to Revelation, what is a lawful divorce and what does it do?
Actually there are two question in one.
Please answer *IF* able(rightly dividing the Word of Truth).
Please study the question carefully before answering,and then answer the question as it is set forth.
Thanks in advance for your serious consideration of the above.
"Grace be with all them who love our Lord Jesus the Messiah without corruptness. Amen." Eph. 6:24
| 2010/10/14 0:24||Profile|
| Re: |
A quote from factnet. "I like Charity Gospel. I still listen to their tapes. I've learned things there that I never learned anywhere else. I appreciate what they are trying to do. They have their divorce doctrine totally wrong though. It goes against scriptures completely."
Of course, I have no doubt that she learned good things. No one preaches straight out lies. Lies are always mixed with truth. Jessie Penn-Lewis said it best, "Satan needs a few good teachers in which to float his lies".
The fact that 90% of the teaching may be great, actually convinces them that the 10% of lies must be "right" because everything else is.
But the fruit is rotten. ALIENATION. And their alienation is not just with children and former husbands and wives but with the Lord God Himself. They have alienated themselves from HIM, by believing lies and perverting His character.
A quick note to you, pilgrim777...
You talk about fruit and quote an ambiguous blanket statement about them separating families, alienation...
I'd like to ask you a question: since when was alienation from evil a bad thing?
If it is sin to stay in adultery (see my previous post) then what is right about "letting God work it out"? Does God call us to live in sin? I know you know the answer to that.
You have probably never really worked with these people, nor know them, and have only researched them from afar, through websites such as the one you linked to; factnet.org
Many of the people who write about their "bad experiences" with the "Charity" churches are wrong in many of their statements and their assumptions. Many are very selfish individuals who really just want their way (not saying all of them, but i personally know several) and because of that interpreted the elders' instructions in the light of such...
You also likened Kathleen's fear of losing her salvation to a cult-like strategy to keep her around; unless you believe you can never fall away from the faith, i see nothing wrong with her being fearful: when we walk in sin, we SHOULD be fearful, lest we continue in it, and be caught unawares when our time is up.
If fear is a sure-fire way to find a cult, i guess you'd have to say that everyone who is a true Christian, who allows his conscience to operate, is in a cult. Fear is a good thing, in the context of dealing with sin.
It has been said that the bad side of a product is more widely publicized than the good; i think this is also very true to church movements. As you consider this, please remember that the "fruit" you spoke of isn't the only "fruit" that comes from that ministry. There is much good fruit too.
Are they human, and can, and have made mistakes, even preached things wrongly in the past, and possibly currently, and in the future? Yes.
But should we take that, along with several "poor me" stories and complaints, and throw out something that God is obviously using for His glory?
I don't think so...
You mentioned that since 90% is correct, "they" swallow the 10% which is not. This is not true for all which listen to their teachings. I (one of "they") have noticed things that have been preached from there which were not right, and have spoken to several preachers from there and (for the record) they have been open to correction... That can't be said about many preachers today.
What i can't figure out is why many people are so severe with "Charity" and some other modern movements, and so lenient with others... if you'd take the same judgements and applied them to many other movements from the past (many of which we revere and look upon as wonderful examples), you would have to come to the same conclusions you are coming to with "Charity" churches... apostate; heresy; false teachers.
Please, let's stop spewing out bitterness, condemnation, and angry words in the name of "truth".
This thread could very easily become like the one on Rick Warren... Let's not let that happen...
| 2010/10/14 0:34||Profile|
| Re: |
Seems like they both got saved after their divorces. Am I missing something? Then seventeen years later they are convinced by others who "expound" God's Word to them to divorce. What am I missing?
"Three weeks later, an older gentleman came in the store and began reciting scriptures and telling me about Jesus. Through his persistent witnessing, I was brought to salvation, in 1982.
In 1985, I married Mark Naylor, who was also a babe in the Lord. We met at Central Bible Church in Boundbrook, NJ. Our pastor told us it was okay to get remarried, since both our spouses had committed adultery on us and we were the innocent ones. We believed him and were so very happy together. We had two children. Never could we imagine the agony we would go through later."
| 2010/10/14 0:38|
| Re: |
Note that they knew it was possibly wrong at that time, but their pastor said it was ok...
Remember, the issue isn't so much the divorce, but the remarriage...
EDIT: wanted to add also, that their second marriage was not legitimate, since their spouses were still living... therefore, in God's eyes, it was not divorce, but repentance from adultery.
| 2010/10/14 0:46||Profile|
| Re: What grace is this?|
There is a big misunderstanding generally about what Paul is saying in Romans 7, because it is impossible to reverse the polarity (if I can put it that way), and say that if a man takes another wife while his first wife is still living, he is committing adultery.
Because Paul was not using a one-man-one-woman 'marriage' as his example. He was basing his example on the traditional practice of polygamy. That's why he had to use the WOMAN as the example of the adulterer(ess in this case).
A woman could be married to only one man at a time. This is completely clear from both the Old Testament and what Jesus said about the importance of giving the woman a 'bill of divorcement'. It was her LEGAL PROOF that she was FREE TO REmarry.
It is also obvious from the Old Testament that many men remarried or took several wives, perfectly within the Old Covenant legal system. There is nowhere in the New Testament that any of the writers speak specifically against remarriage - because it was a normal part of their culture. It is only in Christianity, since Spirit-filled believers have victory over SIN (the main reason for divorces), that there is an expectation they have the power to make it work. But, IF there is sin, there is still an understanding from God, that infidelity is naturally intolerable.
1 Chron 2:26 Jerahmeel had also another wife, whose name [was] Atarah; she [was] the mother of Onam.
Exodus 21:10 If he [a man] take him another [wife]; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish. 11 And if he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out free without money.
So, in Romans 7, Paul is making a point about how Christ has freed us from the Law, which Tyndale translates (also a correct translation, but one which does not throw divorce and remarriage into the spotlight), slightly differently, saying:
Remember ye not brethren (I speak to them that know the law) how that the law hath power over a man as long as IT endureth: For the woman which is in subjection to a man, is bound by the law to the man, as long as he liveth. If the man be dead, she is lowsed from the law of the man. So then if while the man liveth she couple herself with another man, she shall be counted a wedlock breaker. But if the man be dead she is free from the law: so that she is no wedlock breaker, though she couple herself with another man.
¶ Even so ye my brethren, ye also are made dead as concerning the law by the body of Christ, that ye should be coupled to another (I mean to him that is risen again from death) that we should bring forth fruit unto God.
| 2010/10/14 8:14|