You gave me a trite ad hominem.

You may want to rethink that one again.
________________________________________

Walt wrote:
You are such a deceiver when you have no serious biblical arguments as a Pastor.

Walt wrote:
There is nobody that can explain the doctrine of marriage and divorce in a single post. That is why excellent Sermons have addressed the subject in great detail, as well as excellent books covering these verses.

Now here is the biggest irony in this debate:

The Calvinist (Walt and Seaton) favor divorce which would mean that one can lose his salvation, while the full blown Arminian (Abigail and Spiritual) propose the opposite which would affirm eternal security.

Am I the only one that see the irony out of all this?

Try inviting the author of that website to come here and display what has been so easily refuted time and time again. The only thing that the website you reffer to prove is that he knows how to type.

lol

Walt, whatever God did with Israel it is certainly not what you are proposing. In Jeremiah 3, God asks Israel to turn back so that she can be restored. I doubt that that is the kind of reconciling divorce that you are suggesting.

If Walt is saying is true, then every one of us are in danger of losing our salvation, since marriage is a picture of savation.

Now here is the biggest irony in this debate:

The Calvinist (Walt and Seaton) favor divorce which would mean that one can lose his salvation, while the full blown Arminian (Abigail and Spiritual) propose the opposite which would affirm eternal security.

Am I the only one that see the irony out of all this?

John wrote:
I'll bet Yamil is also a literal 7-day creationist like myself,
which also seems to be getting more scarce in the increasingly
"high-brow" reformed circles I tend to frequent in my worship.

"

Spiritual wrote:
What troubles me, is that you claim these remarried adulterers are able to ask for and receive forgiveness while they remain in adultery and just "move on" with their raunchy lives. How can you justify this sentiment.

Even I and JD do not see eye to eye on everything. Yet you do not hear us calling each other Pharisees simply because we disagree.

You disappoint me Pathfinder. You have proven yourself to be no better than the others who preffer to hold to their theological bias rather than to what God clearly states.

I can even understand to some extent if you do not see it the way I do. But to reffer to me as a Pharisical judge just because I try to be true to the Scriptures is quite disingenous.

I have people in my church who have been divorced and remarried and they do not at all feel judged in my church. Just like any other sin, divorce can be forgiven and one can move on with his life. Noone in my church expects them to undo what has been done, but simply understand that it was sin, ask for forgiveness, and move on with their lives knowing that they have been forgiven.

Faithful Remnant wrote:
Not quite, Yamil. The Christian has a three-fold enemy this side of heaven: the world, the flesh and the devil. The Apostle Paul confessed his struggles, "the good I want to do, I do not." And "if we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive..." Jesus says "the Spirit is willing but the flesh is weak." Weakness of the flesh, not a blunder of "their holy spirit."

Somehow the lost sinner is unable to resist the Holy Ghost, but he who is sealed somehow is able to resist him.

Anyone who has not drunk the red-coolaid of Calvinism can only have one reaction to such a proposition:

THe verse that Michael uses does not even support his view. In fact, if you read my previous posts, it completely opposes it. Anyone with basic reading skills can discern that.

"But to the married I give instructions, not I, but the Lord, that the wife SHOULD NOT LEAVE her husband...that the husband SHOULD NOT DIVORCE his wife."

Since he does not have the Scripture to back him up, the only thing he has to turn to is this practical existential philosophy that states: it feels right so it must be right.

Folks, doint the Lord's will IS NOT easy. That is why he asks us "to take up our cross." I am afraid that to some this simply means "take up your splinter."

I rejoice with wife-for-life testimony. So sad that there are not many others rejoicing with her but trying to discourage her from doing what the Bible commands.

While her life will be a testimony of the power and grace of God. All you other one's that chose divorce, have no such testimony. I guarantee that her kids will have a better chance in making it for God with such a testimony than the others that decided to take the easy rode.

They are walking machines controlled by the Holy Spirit. Unfortunately, their holy spirit makes a blunder here and there. That's why they sin.

_________________________________________________

JD wrote:
I have a copy of Matthew Henry's commentary and would give it away if I could.

Like I said before, I never claim it to be easy. But I try to be consistent in my Bible interpretation. I am sorry if this offends you, but I know no other way to interpret the Scripture without having a bad conscience.

I am not sure what your point is in I Corinthians 7. The point of the passage is the pro's and con's of being married. I would assume that it would speak of widow's and virgin's.

It seems to me that since that you are succumbing to the logical fallacy of "I can't make sense of the obvious contradiction but I have faith that Paul believed just as I. You see. Here is my pet verse!"

Newsflash: Even your pet verse completely contradicts your position.

"But to the married I give instructions, not I, but the Lord, that the wife SHOULD NOT LEAVE her husband...that the husband SHOULD NOT DIVORCE his wife."

I am not sure how you can justify divorce with such a clear prohibition against it. Yes, even from a passage that somehow you think supports your view.

The root of false doctrine is sin. Any time one wants to justify his sin, he has to change his theology.

Scholia wrote:
Is this the Word of God?

Divorce has alway's been allowed before the act of marriage is performed. That's what the whole "defilement" clause is about. And that's why Jesus' said that putting her away after she has been defiled is causing her to commit adultery which he also condemns.

Matthew 19:9 wrote:
And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

Randy wrote:
Argue your points about divorce but please don't fall back on cliches and blanket statements that are simply untrue caricatures. You can do better than that.

Michael Hranek wrote:
These are of course things you should know and therefore in this matter of commitment to a wife for you life, Yes! that is the commitment one should make in marriage but if a man makes such a commitment and "his wife" is unfaithful, abandons him and their children and "marries" another don't you think you are going beyond what God Himself in His word instructs and commands to tell that man he is not free in Christ to remarry a believing sister in the Lord if God in His mercy would bring such a blessing into his life?

I just happen to believe that you are going beyond the Bible to justify divorce. There is nowhere in the Bible where divorce is justified. The best you can do is go to a pet verse and redefine words the way the Calvinists are use to.

I just happen to believe the Bible, although it is not always easy to do what it says. Divorce is nothing more than the easy way out------ typical of the Laodicean age we live in.

Now what part of this verse (among many) do you find hard to understand:

Romans 7:2 wrote:
" For the woman which hath a husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth..."