Thinking Christian wrote:
Dr Phil
I would disagree on one point and question another. Faith is not a gift. Salvation is a gift, offered in grace and received by faith. Ep 2 v 8&9
Total depravity is accepted by everyone, I would hope. It suggests being morally corrupt, twisted or wicked. Thats fine but what I think what you are saying is different. Its Total inability you describe. I hope I taken you up right. Let me know. Total depravity is easy to prove from scripture, but total inability is not just so handy.

I suggest that you think again, because your arguments are fallacious and contradiction.

First, if justification is by faith, and one cannot be saved without justification, this makes faith a most important element of salvation. Therefore, if salvation is a gift as you say, then faith must be a gift as well since itself is a part of the saving work of God. Otherwise, faith is of your self and contradicts Eph. 2:8 which says that faith is not of yourselves, "it is the gift of God".

by faith wrote:
Faith is nothing more than receiving a gift. It is not a work. It is a response to the call of God. God warns depraved man and gives him the free will to accept or reject His gift. Saving faith looks away from self to Christ.
One example:
Romans 4:2 For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.
3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.

Loser wrote:
Is this a fest or a fester?

St Jeremiah wrote:
I was married twice and divorced twice. Long story....but I blame myself for what went wrong.
My last divorce was over 15 years ago. Cannot find a Christian lady to date in Utah. I cannot shake the stigma divorce has for me that hinders dating. I'm like a used car of another era that has too many miles that nobody is interested in.

Mike wrote:
Thumbs up to SA for closing the polygamy thread. Enough platform has been provided for this sad philosophy.

Adelphos wrote:
You don't have any reason to post anymore. You just want to argue. I asked you to prove me wrong with a online public debate, and you are unwilling. Some would call this an action of a "troll". I don't know! I do know that I am willing to debate your exegesis anytime!

"Troll"? Now that is sound apologetics. Forget about the debate. If from what we have given does not sink past your delusions, it would be a waste of time and effort to continue. All of the scripture and sound arguments thus far have only served to harden you further into your conceit. Why don't you look to your harem for consolation now? I am certain that the "objective" voices of the oppressed will tell the tyrant exactly what he wants to hear.

Born Again NT Bible Believer wrote:
Phil, stop mocking Biblical polygamy. God will judge you one day for it.
I'd be weary of accusing any polygamist of immorality when it is more rampant in monogamy. The fact is that most of the murder and sexual crimes are committed by monogamists.

Your judgment is not the same as God's judgment. Thank God. Moreover, there can be no judgment for mocking that which is not Biblical. Even "He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them derision." Ps. 2:4 In fact, he already has you bunch of polygamists in derision.

I have no problem mocking those who break the law, decieve the government with fraudulent welfare charges, and cause their illegimate wives and children they have sired to file for un-wed mother's compensation. Not to mention the sexual crimes against children, these polygamists are theives and robbers.

Born Again NT Bible Believer wrote:
"Monogamists murdered over 17,000 Americans last year and well over 300,000 people around the world. Practitioners of various sects of monogamy have left a wake of blood and violence throughout history. Monogamists such as Stalin to Hitler to Mao, have literally slain hundreds of millions of people...99 percent of all crimes committed in America are committed by self professing monogamists!"
http://marriage.blogtownhall.com/2007/11/13/monogamists_slay_millions.thtml
OP: Joseph was prepared to follow that betrothal custom no matter if it was wrong or not.

Michael Hranek wrote:
Truth Hurts
The sad reality is that a huge portion of evangelical celebrities (leaders) have already embraced this anti-Christ or have cowarded away in silence so why in the world would they raise any kind of out cry against a President that they did not hold to the fire (Truth) that Islam is not the religion of peace (worships the same god as the RCC - CCC 841)and he had no business missrepresenting it as such let alone joining in them in prayer meetings and the celebration of Muslim holidays and the same could be said regarding his empty lip service to being pro-life and his sorry embracing of the homosexual movement, and on and on...
Now what are we, genuine believers going to do about such things? Perhaps we might start with humbling ourselves before God and praying and asking Him to search us if there be any wicked thing in us, SEEKING HIS WILL FOR US, until He gives us His wisdon to do His will in the Power of the Holy Ghost.

Adelphos wrote:
You are the one that mentioned Justification by Faith and God ignoring sins of the Patriarchs - which there is not proof for, btw.
You assume so much. Why don't we have an official online debate, complete with rules, and a moderator. Since you engage in inconsistent hermeneutics, it would be nice to demonstate these inconsistencies. The way you wiggle out of consistent intepretation methods, it is like one trying to nail jellow to the wall.
My preference would be to debate passage by passage formally.

It is not I who is ignoring the sin of polygamy. Thou art the man!

It is not I who uses the sins of the Patriarchs to justify my sin. Thou art the man!

It is not I who assumes that because the Patriarchs sinned in committing polygamy that the Law says "Thou shalt have a multitude of wives". Thou art the man.

It is not I who assumes from the previous fallacious arguments that these constitute consistent interpretation methods. Thou art the man!

Adelphos wrote:
Do you know how to determine a "technicus terminus" for words or phrases?
The Law tells us that polygyny is allowed. The Law of the Lord is perfect, unless you deny that. Therefore, the practice of Abraham, etc... falls within this guideline.
Justification by faith does not mean ignore immorality, so if God was not pleased with their lifestyles, then He would have said so.. . .

Who said anything about Jusitification by faith means ignoring immorality besides you? Do you not know that is it justification by faith that sets a difference between the "spots of the Godly and the spots of the wicked" Deut. 32:5? Your comments illustrate that you fail to understand the doctrine of justification by faith alone.

Adelphos wrote:
Who exactly made Calvin the "keeper of the gate"? By mere calling people unchaste or sinners, does not make it so. Scripture affirms the righteousness of Abraham, Jacob and David. Futhermore, Calvin offers inconsistent logic concerning Genesis 2:24.
I suppose you automatically believe everything Calvin taught, which would be very unique, for even R.C. Sproul tries to get around the "Double Predestination" of Calvin in his teachings.

Adelphos wrote:
This is a textbook example of bad hermeneutics at work. It is called the "context" princple. I think I will put this one in my book about polygyny on how people take sentences out of context becasue they cannot reason out what was being said. You may want to reread what I wrote.

Mike wrote:
"For this cause" speaks of a reason why man goes into a women (the passage only allows the woman his wife) during sexual intercourse. That reason has to do with how the woman was created. Since the woman was taken from the man, . . .

Walt wrote:
Cont.

I find it interesting that those who so strongly argue in favor of polygamy are men (except for an occasional deluded female) for the purpose of having multiple wives. However, for polygamy to be indeed polygamy, and for the sake of the liberty for which they fight mightily, there should be provision in their arguments for women to possess multiple husbands especially since "in Christ . . . there is neither male nor female". Gal. 3:28

A lot of things you have already said, I was going to say. I could not have written it better than what some of you have done. Thanks for your comments on this subject.