Then he should become single.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Requesting elder authority/support regarding street evangelism
- Thread starter evangelist6589
- Start date
- Status
Then he should become single.
Remarriage after divorce in today's church 3 Views.
The majority on this board hold to the second view
That would be sinning since he is married.
I don't have any suggestions for you, brother. I can tell you what the Bible says, but not what to do. Right or wrong, those are the choices you will have to make (like your choice to marry your wife and your choice to divorce). I can encourage you and pray for you...and journey through scripture with you...but it is up to you to choose what you will do. It seems to me everything is laid out before you and you just have to decide.
But you don't realize you can be happy by yourself until you are married
People that give that type of advice are married so their words mean little.
What is Evan going to do if the girl he finds on the dating site Google him and finds his posting here. I know when I was online dating before I met my husband I Googled any guy I was going to meet in person. I can tell you I would not go out with a guy if I found out he was looking for money, and could not support his family.
Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
Last edited:
This is so true. I was 31 before I got married to my wonderful husband and while I did not like being single, I learned to take it day by day. We cannot look for happiness in our spouse as they will fail us. Our happiness or better yet joy is found in Christ who will never fail. That is something I keep in mind with trying to have a baby. A baby can't bring lasting happiness and expecting that is setting that child up for failure. Same is true for a spouse of you are expecting them to keep you happy they will fail, and you will fail them in return.
Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
No sorry there is no biblical support for such a thing and it would only put someone in further sin.Failure to serve God would be that sin. BY the way serving and worshiping are the same thing.
Care to tell us how it's biblical to keep pastoring while a person is in blatant unrepentant sin?
Serving (as engaging people with your gifts) can be a form of worship, but it's not the *same thing*.
Particularly in the realm of an office...pastor, teacher, evangelist, deacon, etc...yes one should stop serving in that capacity. It's difficult for a person laid up in a hospital bed who is on the mend from a heart by pass to be out helping other people. Sometimes getting ministered to is what a person should fully concentrate on.
And that is the heart beat of this thread, you can't minister while you're in need of being ministered to...that's like a person who has suffered a gun shot wound to the head trying to give mouth to mouth to a unresponsive person...hard to do when you yourself are lying motionless on the ground as well.
Last edited:
Christ does not command all Christians to make disciples. Take note of the different pronouns in Matthew 28:19-20 ("ye" versus "them"). Those identified as "them" have been evangelized and are Christians but they are still the objects of the commission to make disciples. They have yet to be baptized, they have yet to be brought into a teachng observing assembly. Unbaptized, and untaught believers are not authorized to "make disciples" as that would be like authorizing the blind to lead the blind. In contrast, those being authorzied ("ye...you") "HAVE" already been through this process of discipleship already - they have already been evanelized, baptized and taught how to observe all things commanded. Furthermore, this contextual "ye" are those who are LIKE FAITH AND ORDER with Christ in the SAME gospel SAME baptism and SAME doctrine and practice as the commission does not authorize anyone to go evangelize by "another gospel" as such would be "accursed" (Gal. 1:8-9) or administer another baptism as that would be rejecting the "counsel of God" (Lk. 7:29-30) or teaching another faith and order as that would be a heretic who departs from the faith once delivered (1 Tim. 4:1; 2 Thes. 3:6).
Now, all Christians can be gospel witnesses, but the Great Commission is more inclusive than mere witnessing or evangelization as the command is not merely to witness but to "make disiples" and the three participles describe or define how that is to be done (1) Go with the gospel (2) baptize "them" or the gospel converts and then (3) teaching "them" or baptized believers how to observe all things commanded.
When this commission is reduced to mere evangelization or stops at evangelization the result is not obedience but disobedience to this commission.
You must take in all accounts of the Great Commission rather than merely picking and choosing the one you want to obey. "Go" preach the gospel and baptizing are but two aspects of a threefold command to "make disciples" (Mt. 28:19-20). The third aspect is "teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded." Look at my previous post and you will see that not all Christians are authorized to "make disciples" because not all Christians have been baptized or instructed how to observe his commandments and that would be like authorizing the blind to lead the blind, as one cannot teach what he has not yet learned.
Wow. So the man who wasn't married for many years has nothing to say about being single because he's now married? Interesting.
When I read Ephesians 5:22-33, I cannot help but think of love between a husband and a wife in different terms than is often presented in our culture.
We are to love our wives as Christ loved the Church, and wives are to submit to their husbands as to the Lord. This (in both cases) is descriptive of love (just as we, as Christians, submit to one another in reverence to Christ). Simply, we are putting the needs of the other above our own.
The passage does not present this love as conditional on the other person. Thankfully God’s love was not conditional on us, as the object of His love - for while we were yet sinners Christ died for us. The command for husbands to love their wives is not conditional upon wives loving them back. The command for wives to love their husbands is not conditional upon husbands loving them back. The command for believers to love other believers is not conditional upon their brethren loving them back. We are to be imitators of God. We are to love as Christ loved.
The problem with expanding “adultery” to include abusiveness is that it tears apart the meaning of marriage as is presented in Scripture. Hosea serves as a good illustration of this love, even in the face of adultery (where divorce is only permitted, I do not see where it is encouraged). Christ died for us while we were, spiritually, adulterers. Because of God’s love, God sending His Son into this world so that all who believe would live, we (who believe) enter into a covenant with God that is not dependent on us. God will never leave or forsake us. And this has everything to do about God, not us.
God is faithful to his covenants, and this type of faithfulness is illustrated in marriage. God loves us in such a way that He gave His Son for us while we were still sinners….adulterers, abusive, enemies, rebels, slanders, haters of God, under condemnation…unconditioned in regards to us loving Him back. How can we say, then, that we as husbands are loving our wives as Christ loves the Church, putting their needs above our own, if we view the bonds of marriage so lightly that harsh words spoken justify divorce?
There are two issues on this tread. One is divorce in general and specifically among Christians. The other is justifying divorce through Scripture. I understand life often throws us curve balls, and I even understand divorce for things other than adultery. I realize the reasons people leave their spouses, and I even agree that some are really good reasons. But I do not understand Christians trying to justify their actions by tweaking Scripture to their desires and needs. This compounds sin and nullifies Scripture to the world. One reason Christianity in our nation and in our culture is so superficial and lukewarm (at best) is because so many bend Scripture to justify their desires rather than allow God’s Word, as prescriptive, to incline their hearts and minds to God.
We are to love our wives as Christ loved the Church, and wives are to submit to their husbands as to the Lord. This (in both cases) is descriptive of love (just as we, as Christians, submit to one another in reverence to Christ). Simply, we are putting the needs of the other above our own.
The passage does not present this love as conditional on the other person. Thankfully God’s love was not conditional on us, as the object of His love - for while we were yet sinners Christ died for us. The command for husbands to love their wives is not conditional upon wives loving them back. The command for wives to love their husbands is not conditional upon husbands loving them back. The command for believers to love other believers is not conditional upon their brethren loving them back. We are to be imitators of God. We are to love as Christ loved.
The problem with expanding “adultery” to include abusiveness is that it tears apart the meaning of marriage as is presented in Scripture. Hosea serves as a good illustration of this love, even in the face of adultery (where divorce is only permitted, I do not see where it is encouraged). Christ died for us while we were, spiritually, adulterers. Because of God’s love, God sending His Son into this world so that all who believe would live, we (who believe) enter into a covenant with God that is not dependent on us. God will never leave or forsake us. And this has everything to do about God, not us.
God is faithful to his covenants, and this type of faithfulness is illustrated in marriage. God loves us in such a way that He gave His Son for us while we were still sinners….adulterers, abusive, enemies, rebels, slanders, haters of God, under condemnation…unconditioned in regards to us loving Him back. How can we say, then, that we as husbands are loving our wives as Christ loves the Church, putting their needs above our own, if we view the bonds of marriage so lightly that harsh words spoken justify divorce?
There are two issues on this tread. One is divorce in general and specifically among Christians. The other is justifying divorce through Scripture. I understand life often throws us curve balls, and I even understand divorce for things other than adultery. I realize the reasons people leave their spouses, and I even agree that some are really good reasons. But I do not understand Christians trying to justify their actions by tweaking Scripture to their desires and needs. This compounds sin and nullifies Scripture to the world. One reason Christianity in our nation and in our culture is so superficial and lukewarm (at best) is because so many bend Scripture to justify their desires rather than allow God’s Word, as prescriptive, to incline their hearts and minds to God.
I understand the frustration to some degree. It seems unfair, and you desperately want to be able to change (i.e. remarriage, in this case).
But is it really "plain HELL"?
I know that I wish I could be healed from my chronic illness, but that doesn't appear to be God's will. His grace is sufficient.
I may not feel like it is sufficient (I often don't), but that doesn't really change anything. My illness often gets so bad that I would probably rather die than to go through another day, but that hasn't happened yet (thankfully).
There are far worse fates than being single. Paul even encouraged singleness, and the fact is that without a partner, you are free to minister (in whatever capacity God calls you) without distraction.
But he's an Arminian.
I have lots of debt so I can't minister except on the streets.
But he's an Arminian.
I listen and read from them in some areas. Charles Stanley would be one example.
I did not know he was single for many years.
- Status