I used to think it must be restricted for bishops and deacons until I realized the assumptions behind it, and considered the issue more in the light of Scripture rather than hoping to "throw a bone" to the Romans. "You must have one" does not mean "only one" unless it is already understood that having more than one would be bad. Thus it is circular reasoning: "We know Paul believes multiple wives are bad because he said "you must have one wive", and we know this means "only one" because he believes multiple wives are bad."
As to why the word "one" was used you'd have to ask the translators, as I mentioned on the other thread: "The passages saying a deacon or bishop must be husbands of one wife were translated in a nation where there probably was not even one person who did not follow the Roman tradition of condemning multiple wives. Suffice it to say that the word translated "one" is also translated in other cases as "a" by the same translators, and they chose to translate it as "one" in this case no doubt because it bolstered their unscriptural tradition." (Though, of course, it bolsters their tradition by assumption and circular reasoning.)
To this it can be added that when in the same epistle Paul says that a "widow indeed" must have been "the wife of one husband", where we can justly take this to mean "only one", Paul in fact uses a different phrase, using a different word, more akin to "single". But of course the translators wouldn't preserve this difference of phrasing in the translation: they would want the phrases to sound the same.
But in the end, I never believed multiple wives were a sin even when I thought bishops and deacons couldn't marry multiple wives (after all, Jeremiah wasn't allowed to marry anyone). Such a restriction certainly is no foundation or plausible origin for the vicious attitude some people have against multiple wives. That obviously springs from another source, which is clear enough after a little thought and research.
As for a change in law, this would only have to do with the issue if there was a ceremonial law about it for Jews specifically, which would have nothing to do with us gentile believers. It is strange that “we are not under the law” would be brought up, as I have usually seen people using it to excuse progressive ideas that creep into the Church, like women pastors, indecent clothes, or even homosexuality. Biblically “we are not under the law” was part of a long and complex explanation (often hard to understand, as the apostle Peter said) of why gentiles can be saved (which was always true, not just after Christ). But apparently “we are not under the law” is often used today as a catch-all justification whenever culture gets put above Scripture, since instead of always using it to excuse things, in the case of multiple wives “we are not under the law” is actually used to justify making something “against the rules” when it disagrees with non-biblical culture.
As I already talked about “two shall be one”, I will just say that the same answer applies to Christ and his Bride. One could also say that having more than one son breaks the image God placed in the family of his only begotten Son. When it comes to figures, one may recall that God likens himself to a man married to two wives, Israel and Judah, in Ezekiel 23 and Jeremiah 3.
@Servantfiss when I came to this conclusion I was in contact with no one (outside the Bible) who agreed, family and friends included. Until someone succeeds in discrediting God’s Word in my eyes, I will have no reason to follow a more Rome friendly worldview. I have been attacked before - not much to speak of I would say: some women were jailed for refusing to testify against their husbands (so much for “women’s rights”; as if women have never initiated being multiple wives). But these are some of the comments when I brought up the subject on a different site:
“I think when he dies he dies with his face smiling...hahaha”
“haha,
smiling maybe,
but there will be no resurrection of it!”
And there were some comments which I won’t share here, not being sure whether moderators would consider them too indecent or not.
I guess I'll respond to some common things I have heard. For context, I was taught them growing up as well. But the contrast between what I was taught and what the Bible portrayed was too great. When I came to the conclusion I hold, I did not know if there were any others who also did not reject multiple wives as the ancient Romans did. After all, the Roman Catholics outlawed it:
"If any one saith, that it is lawful for Christians to
have several wives at the same time, and that this is not prohibited by any divine
law; let him be anathema." - Canon II, the Doctrine on the Sacrament of Matrimony
But I have since found that the world is bigger and older than the Roman empire and the American way combined.
Some try to take passages that use the word "wife" to say that there should only be one wife. But can we take the various times "son" is used and claim people should only have one son? Saying "my wife" is like saying "my son": "My son, hear the instruction of thy father" - Pro. 1:8 Jacob says this: "Ye know that my wife bare me two sons" - Ge. 44:27 He was referring to Rachel, his second wife, one of four.
"Two shall become one" applies to a marriage whether a man is married already or not. He (one) is still marrying a wife (one). Multiple wives means multiple marriages, each with a husband and a wife. Like when a mother gives birth to a child, she has still given birth to a child (singular) however many children she has already given birth to.
Let us be holy as God is holy, and treat multiple wife families as he treats them. If he says a man with multiple wives is "his friend, who keeps my law", or "a man after my own heart", or "a wise man", we are not in a place to say someone is not a believer, not righteous, or not wise, simply because they believe the same as those who wrote the Bible. It may not be part of the culture you grew up in, but the Bible will not always agree with every random culture, especially one so drastically different from the culture of Abraham, the friend of God.
"Have ye not read what David did?" - Mat. 12:3
"We will joy and rejoice in thee, we remember thy loves more than yayin: the upright love thee." - Song of Songs 1:4
It is interesting to me that this subject has even come up. It is usually difficult for an issue so foreign to Roman culture to get much traction.
With the law, the moral law under which this question falls predates both old and new Testaments. Whether we should refer to the actions of David for a guide Jesus showed when he rebuked the Pharisees, saying, "Have ye not read what David did?" Saying that David was right in fighting Goliath, but wrong in marrying Abigail, is like saying, "Psalm 1 is of God, but Psalm 2 must not be of God, because I disagree with it."
The passages saying a deacon or bishop must be husbands of one wife were translated in a nation where there probably was not even one person who did not follow the Roman tradition of condemning multiple wives. Suffice it to say that the word translated "one" is also translated in other cases as "a" by the same translators, and they chose to translate it as "one" in this case no doubt because it bolstered their unscriptural tradition.
Basically, "Christian" doesn't necessarily mean "Post-Rome European". Rather, there have been Christians throughout the world who have never condemned multiple wives any more than the first Christians, and their culture is more in agreement with God than one that comes right out of pre-Christian Rome.
I would like to say that it is very good that, though embarrassed, you are wanting to talk about this. I think it is something that should be discussed in some way. It is not always about how often also, it is usually more complex. It is more responsible not to assume many things about someone else's private desires and dislikes.
Who here does not believe "Once Saved Always Saved"?
Posted : 4 Feb, 2019 11:02 PM
I know the idea is false, as Scripture teaches. It is clear that the idea came from ancient heretics simply because the idea has been around a long time, as we know from history. My impression was that it came from the ancient heretics to most of those who believe it today through Calvinism.
I mentioned this at first because I thought it was strange that people who would otherwise not associate themselves with the heresies of Calvinism yet seem happy to concur with them in this particular heresy. I have heard a Baptist preaching against Calvinism say: "This is one thing the Calvinists got right."
If you read Isaiah 64 you see it contrasts him that "worketh righteousness" with the nation of Israel, whose righteousnesses were as filthy rags. Ezekiel uses similar language when he says that Judah justified Sodom, in that even Sodom was more righteous than Judah.
The idea that God is disgusted with our righteousness, based mainly on the misapplication of this one phrase, contradicts God's Word. For example: "For God is not unrighteous to forget your work and labour of love" - Hebrews 6:10. It would be unrighteous for God not to regard our righteousness. "And whosoever shall give to drink unto one of these little ones a cup of cold water only in the name of a disciple, verily I say unto you, he shall in no wise lose his reward." - Matthew 10:42
Our righteousness cannot undo a single sin we have done, obviously. But this is not because we cannot do what pleases God, but because it is already due to him: "So likewise ye, when ye shall have done all those things which are commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants: we have done that which was our duty to do." - Luke 17:10
According to the Bible we are justified by works in one sense, and not by works in another sense, and it clearly states it is not by faith only. Yet there are those who teach that it is not by works in any sense, and define themselves as those who believe it is by faith only. It is my impression that this comes from Luther, who wanted to remove the book of James because it hindered his wresting of the words of Paul (as Peter warned that unstable people would).
It is clear that the sense in which we are justified by works is that it is the condition for justification by Christ. "Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you." - John 15:14. "If" is conditional.
When God says "righteousness" we cannot assume he is talking about imputed righteousness unless he says he is, otherwise we would be adding our own words to Scripture, especially when he specifically says otherwise: "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. For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven." - Matthew 5:19-20
Nothing can separate us from the love of God. But if a person thinks that God loves all people equally, then he would love those that he casts into hell, and so this passage says nothing of salvation to that person.
But if a person believes according to Scripture that God loves the righteous he again has his answer. God's love cannot be overcome, but this does not mean he gives it to all. "All that do unrighteously, are an abomination unto the Lord thy God." - Deuteronomy 25:16, "the abominable ... shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone." - Revelation 21:8.
I do not know what verses you mean, and it would be a vast task to list all verses that touch on this, so I will bring one up which I have not heard discussed before: "Ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him." - I John 3:15. So if a murderer had come to Christ before, one must either reject this Scripture, or reject that a person who comes to Christ is saved, or believe, as the Scripture says, that God will forsake those that forsake him.
Thank you for reading my long replies even when they are days behind!
Who here does not believe "Once Saved Always Saved"?
Posted : 28 Jan, 2019 09:38 AM
"Once saved always saved" is pretty self-explanatory: the idea that if at any point you are saved then at no point after that can you be not saved.
About the origins of the idea, what I meant was that its current presence today came from ancient heretics through the influence of Calvinism, but that is only my impression. It may have just come directly from the ancient heretics.
According to the Bible our receiving God's forgiveness is based on our works by condition, and by purchase is based entirely on the blood of Christ. The gift is offered to the unrighteous on condition that they turn to righteousness, and thereby the sins of the righteous are washed away by grace: "And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments." - Exodus 20:6
"When I shall say to the righteous, that he shall surely live..." He whom God calls righteous is truly righteous, not self-righteous, and he that God says will live will surely live. "if he trust to his own righteousness, and commit iniquity, all his righteousnesses shall not be remembered; but for his iniquity that he hath committed, he shall die for it." He who had eternal life, if he turns from God, shall die.
The righteousness required by God is clearly defined in Scripture, and this is by the overabundant mercies of God. According to Scripture we are without excuse, and have the Law of God written on our hearts.
For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven. - Matthew 5:20
If ye know that he is righteous, ye know that every one that doeth righteousness is born of him. - I John 2:29
Who here does not believe "Once Saved Always Saved"?
Posted : 27 Jan, 2019 12:21 AM
Oh, the above was my reply to LittleDavid, I will now see if I can maybe reply in brief to prophetic7744.
The short answer is that God gives the free gift to those that Paul and Ezekiel describe, those who, as Jesus said, "go to work in the vineyard". The gift he gives them is by his own mercy, not created by the righteousness of those he gives it to.
Those who had opened their heart to the Father, would hear his call to the Son. No man can come to Son but by the Father, and none can come to the Father but by the Son. In other words, the Father and the Son are one.
Those who turn to God already have the rewards prepared for them, and they are chosen beforehand for these rewards. But if God could make someone turn to him, everyone would.
Say unto them, As I live, saith the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel? - Ezekiel 33:11
Yes, eternal life will last forever. So will eternal damnation. If a person who was at one point headed for eternal death can turn and then be on the way to eternal life, he can also turn away from eternal life and again be on his way to eternal death.
Who here does not believe "Once Saved Always Saved"?
Posted : 27 Jan, 2019 12:00 AM
Hm, there is apparently no notification of there being a reply.
I did not think it would be likely that any who have escaped this wrong teaching would see this particular post, but I did not intend to ignore you: sorry I did not reply sooner to your questions.
In answer to your first question, I do realize that Calvinism received its teachings from previous heretical teachers: Augustine I believe was one.
I think Ezekiel 33 (10-20) makes itself very plain, which was its purpose: to spell out the simple gospel to the dull eared Israelites.
I find it concerning that to explain the gospel people not only skip to the writings of Paul, but directly to those parts which the apostle Peter warned of: those that are hard to understand. This they do when even Paul repeats the same simple terms of the gospel.
But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God; who will render to every man according to his deeds: to them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life: but unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath... - Romans 2:6-8
More than a happy balance I think what you want is simply the right attitude, since a happy balance of these wrong ideas would be pretty bad too.
I think where people don't care whether you are a Christian, or they want you to be a missionary, comes from the attitude that so many people have: if you care about what is right, you should be a pastor, or if you're not a pastor then you do not have to care. I think it comes from the Catholics, who are all too happy to have such a steep line between the laymen and clergy. I think there needs to be more morally passionate business men and reporters and mayors, etcetera.
