Posted on 01/28/2013 10:46:27 AM PST by Laissez-faire capitalist
Perhaps we could rephrase the question as “How close can I get to the sin without being guilty?” Or maybe “How far can I get from my wife without it being actual adultery?”
Seems to me that’s the very point Jesus was addressing - that the problem is found in the question.
Sounds like she was in a program that was run by a feminist, where they indoctrinate the women in the idea that they "can do better" than their current relationship. Then the women (particularly after 40) discover that they can't, and then themselves become bitter feminists.
Did your wife find a new husband?
Did your wife find a new husband?
Learning to live, Learning to love is not a bad program in the way a hammer is not bad at pounding in nails. Problem is that when you try to use it as a saw, a screwdriver or sander, it kinda sucks. It can do more harm than good (obviously). The program should ONLY be used with relationships that are physically abusive.
It was also taught by lay-people. After one session, the leader took me in the hall and told me he was very concerned about me supressing memories about certain events in my childhood (spanking, parental arguments, etc.). He had me very concerned as well - until I talked to my mother and got the full skinny. There was nothing to supress. She remembered, independently, the same single event I remembered.
Ah, but I am getting us into the weeds. It’s old news. Like WWII. I moved on and love my current relationship more than I ever thought it was possible.
Chick films are NOT science fiction. That stuff actually happens. It did with my wife and me.
So how do you get ‘marriage is a requirement for bishops’? Out of that. It’s not and never has been.
Simple - it ought not to have been done to you because that’s contrary to what Christian marriage ought to be. The same ban that would prevent you from remarrying would be the same ban that would prevent her from divorcing you in the first place.
That’s where the problem arises. Sure, the pastor can provide you small comforts by offering you remarriage, but they are also the ones sanctioning divorce in the first place.
“I think we should judge actions.”
Are you Jesus? Like the Rock says, “It doesn’t matter what you think”.
Jesus is very clear - the man who looks upon a woman in lust has committed adultery with her in his heart.
The requirements for bishops can be found in 1 Timothy 3.
Yet Paul himself was unmarried. So bishops can be unmarried too.
I’m saying that you’ve incorrectly interpreted his instructions as barring unmarried men from becoming bishops. Paul himself was unmarried, ergo, unmarried men could no more be barred from becoming Bishops than if Paul were to step down himself.
Paul needn’t have stepped down from his office. The qualifications of apostleship are not the same as those of bishopric.
Paul wasn’t a husband, yet his instructions to husbands in Ephesians are still from God. He wasn’t a wife either, yet he gave instructions to wives. He needn’t be a bishop for his instructions regarding them to be understood and obeyed.
As for “interpreting his instructions”...I’m merely reading the plain language.
As I posted earlier, “the husband of one wife” could have one of two possible meanings. But there’s one meaning it can’t have, and that’s “the husband of NO wife”. Otherwise Paul is speaking nonsense.
“The qualifications of apostleship are not the same as those of bishopric.”
Indeed, the qualifications for apostleship are superior.
“Paul wasn’t a husband, yet his instructions to husbands in Ephesians are still from God. He wasn’t a wife either, yet he gave instructions to wives. He needn’t be a bishop for his instructions regarding them to be understood and obeyed.”
He could instruct the bishops because his authority was superior to them. Ergo, if the superior position permits unmarried men, then so should the inferior one.
“As I posted earlier, “the husband of one wife” could have one of two possible meanings. But there’s one meaning it can’t have, and that’s “the husband of NO wife”. Otherwise Paul is speaking nonsense.”
The husband of but one wife - if you are married, you can only have one. It does not say that marriage is required. Don’t you think that Paul would have made it explicitly clear, if this were, in fact the case, by saying “unmarried men are forbidden to enter the episcopy?”
1 Corinthians 7:32-3 is very clear. Paul argues for the superiority of celibacy over the married life.
“One who is unmarried is concerned about the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord; but one who is married is concerned about the things of the world, how he may please his wife, and his interests are divided.”
Now, how can one read this and reach the conclusion that marriage is required for the episcopy?
[Are you Jesus? Like the Rock says, “It doesn’t matter what you think”.
Jesus is very clear - the man who looks upon a woman in lust has committed adultery with her in his heart.]
You are not taking this comment in the proper context. stuartcr and I have been chatting about grounds for divorce/remarriage. I’m not arguing that having lust in your heart (but not acting on it) is not a sin. But I don’t think its the same as actually committing adultery: It is not grounds for a divorce to simply have lust in your heart imo.
“Now, how can one read this and reach the conclusion that marriage is required for the episcopy?”
“Why, nobody can.”
Then this issue is settled, by Paul himself.
“No, my FRiend, he could instruct the bishops (or rather, Timothy and Titus and, through his letters, all of us) because he was speaking for Jesus.”
So you deny that the Apostles were given authority, by Jesus, over the Church? Jesus himself gave this authority to them.
“Where can I find that in the Bible? Cite the Scripture and that’ll settle the matter.”
I might ask you the same. Cite the scripture forbidding unmarried men as Bishops.
“It is not grounds for a divorce to simply have lust in your heart imo.”
Ah. Forgive me then. For sinning, yes it doesn’t matter. For divorce, requires the act of will. And even then - divorce is still the decision of the faithful party, not of the adulterer. If the faithful party chooses to forgive, then the adulterer is bound.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.