While It Is Yet Called Today...

[Oscar]

Hopon,

You said:

The Bible calls remarriage adultery. In Malachi, it is mentioned that God hates divorce, which is one issue, but the issue of remarriage seems to go beyond that to a point of adultery, which was punishable by death in the OT.

Death separated the person from God, so, bringing the issue to NT times, might suggest that the remarried person, considering that they are in the constant state of adultery, have removed themselves from the presence of God.

Your assertion that "death separated the person from God" seems problematic to me.  Everyone dies, so physical death alone does not separate us from God.  Adam died spiritually on the day he rebelled, but he continued in bodily life for many years.  There is physical death, and there is spiritual death.  It seems to me that you are confusing the two.

If you mean that a person executed under the law was in a state of spiritual death, then that would mean that he was unsaved.  If so, this certainly is not analogous to a born-again Christian who commits the sin of adultery.  So "bringing the issue to NT times" can't be done. 

Blessings,

Thomas Maddux

[vernecarty]

You are saying that if sin is fully atoned for, that there are no consequences for it in the next life?

Can anybody show me in Scripture what those consequences will be?
I am told that we will all give an account at the judgement seat of Christ.
This in no way changes the fact that the destiny of each child of God is one of glory.
The way some people talk about what others are going to experience in eternity you would think they had been there and back with detailed report in hand.
The fact is hopon, we do not know the answers to many of these questions and what is often asserted with great confidence is nothing more than rank speculation and a sloppiness in the handling of what is revealed.
Christ paid for the sin, and sins of every believer who places faith in him - sins present past and future!
At the time He died for your sins, they were all future.
He paid the price in full, or God could not possibly redeem you, or could at best do so only conditionally.  This is critical!! This is fundamental!!!
I am probably flogging a dead horse here but I find it astonshing how this simple doctrinal tenet escapes so many otherwise insightful folk.
None of us have any warrant for pompous statements about what the Lord Jesus Christ is going to do about the partucular sins of any believer. It seems some people are going to have to throw king David right out of the kingdom...

Surprised? More like dismayed.

It is indeed troubling. I shake my head in amazement as I now see ministries galore springing up for "blended" families...how sad...!
Verne

[vernecarty]

Hopon,

You said:
Your assertion that "death separated the person from God" seems problematic to me. 
Blessings,

Thomas Maddux

More precisely, sin is what actually separates from God. That separation is what issues in death and is in fact an accurate definition of the state. For example, physical death is separation of soul and body...
Verne

[Oscar]

If Christ has paid the penalty for someone's sin, clearly that sin cannot be basis for exclusion from God's kingdom.
Verne
p.s Obviously this discussion is about a very fundamental question of how we view the nature/extent of the doctrine of atonement...

Amen!

 The answer to the question, "what about this or that sin" is that Christ bore it on the cross.  Legalists who demand that we bear our own sins, (who apparently feel that they are in a position to demand it of us), have forgotton that a just punishment has already been inflicted for those sins.

Isaiah 53:5, "But he was pierced for our transgressins, he was crushed for our iniquities.  The punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed."

Blessings,

Thomas Maddux


 

[vernecarty]

Amen!

 The answer to the question, "what about this or that sin" is that Christ bore it on the cross.  Legalists who demand that we bear our own sins, (who apparently feel that they are in a position to demand it of us), have forgotton that a just punishment has already been inflicted for those sins.

Isaiah 53:5, "But he was pierced for our transgressins, he was crushed for our iniquities.  The punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed."

Blessings,

Thomas Maddux


 

In view of how absolutely fundamental this is Tom, I must say I am more than a bit surprised at some of the commentary and queries that have arisen...
Is it possible that some of us just do not understand what it means to be saved, and from what??!!!
Verne

[hopon]

In view of how absolutely fundamental this is Tom, I must say I am more than a bit surprised at some of the commentary and queries that have arisen...
Is it possible that some of us just do not understand what it means to be saved, and from what??!!!
Verne

Then it's not possible to lose our crowns?

[Joe Sperling]

Hopon---

I'm not sure why you ask the question "Then it's not possible to lose our crowns?" Tom and Verne are speaking of salvation, not "rewards". Tom is referring to the fact that Jesus has born ALL of our sins and paid the price forever for all who receive him and are born-again. When one receives Christ they are translated from the Kingdom of darkness to the Kingdom of Light. They are saved forever and to the utmost because "it is finished". The born-again believer is placed "in Christ" and becomes
part of his body. The believer "in Christ" can live godly ("Yea, and all who will live godly IN CHRIST JESUS shall suffer persecution" 2 Tim 3:12) but they can also backslide, and as Peter states "they cannot see afar off having forgotten that they were purged of their old sins"--but they are still IN CHRIST
as his children. They will be chastened and brought back to the Lord.

The crowns are awards that will be given for your service "In Christ". Crowns can be lost(or never obtained), but crowns have nothing to do with salvation. The crowns are for works done in the body after one has been saved--crowns are not some reward of salvation BECAUSE OF your works.

--Joe

[hopon]

It seems some people are going to have to throw king David right out of the kingdom...

David repented from his adultery and since Uriah was killed in battle, David was free to marry Bathsheba, who was no longer considered to be in a married state.

Is there no one who will answer Chuck's question below?

Verne,
Since you contradict yourself in subsequent posts on the same day. I'm having a difficult time determining exactly what it is that you believe. 

I'll repeat my original question and perhaps someone else will be able to answer it. I asked:

In light of the discussion on this BB and others under the subjects "Forget and Forgive"  and "Traversing Purgatory" - is the Christian who divorces and remarries living in adultery?

Chuck Miller

[hopon]

Hopon---

I'm not sure why you ask the question "Then it's not possible to lose our crowns?" Tom and Verne are speaking of salvation, not "rewards". Tom is referring to the fact that Jesus has born ALL of our sins and paid the price forever for all who receive him and are born-again. When one receives Christ they are translated from the Kingdom of darkness to the Kingdom of Light. They are saved forever and to the utmost because "it is finished". The born-again believer is placed "in Christ" and becomes
part of his body. The believer "in Christ" can live godly ("Yea, and all who will live godly IN CHRIST JESUS shall suffer persecution" 2 Tim 3:12) but they can also backslide, and as Peter states "they cannot see afar off having forgotten that they were purged of their old sins"--but they are still IN CHRIST
as his children. They will be chastened and brought back to the Lord.

The crowns are awards that will be given for your service "In Christ". Crowns can be lost(or never obtained), but crowns have nothing to do with salvation. The crowns are for works done in the body after one has been saved--crowns are not some reward of salvation BECAUSE OF your works.

--Joe

I never brought up the issue of salvation. If you look back at my first post, you will notice that I mentioned that the remarriage of a divorced Christian is not an issue of heaven or hell.

[vernecarty]

Then it's not possible to lose our crowns?

Your question illustrates the kind of conditioning that has taken place as a resut of listening to false  teachers. I will freely confess that I myself have been such a victim.
Show me one verse of Scritpture that makes any reference whatsoever to anyone's losing a crown.
I suspect you are thinking of revelation 3:11 where the Lord exhorts the church of Philadelphia that they see to it that no man take their crown.
A few quick questions hopon.
Many crowns are referred to in Scripture.
Exactly which of the ones referenced are you of the opinion that anyone is at risk of loosing?
There are also two words used in the Greek text - diadem and stephanos and there is a difference, one being of royalty, the other of victory. do you think a diadem can be forfeited?

David repented from his adultery and since Uriah was killed in battle, David was free to marry Bathsheba, who was no longer considered to be in a married state.

Is there no one who will answer Chuck's question below?

There is something petulant about your and Chuck's repeated suggestion that this question has not been answered. It goes without saying that Christians commit this as well as many other sins, and if Scripture is violated when a Christian engages in divorce, Scripture considers him or her still married and this is what makes remarriage an adulterous act! This is a simple fact that you both seem unable to acknowledge.
If the divorce is Scripturally warranted - REMARRIAGE IS NOT ADULTERY!

Am I still being too subtle?   

The contention that adultery on the part of a believer will keep him out of the kingdom betrays a complete lack of understanding of what it means to be saved.
Your point about David's repentance is well taken - what does it tell you about judging other people's sin?

Verne

[Oscar]

Then it's not possible to lose our crowns?

Hopon,

If the "loss" of crowns by Christians is a possibility, then there should be a place in the Bible where this is clearly taught.  Do you know of such a place?  If so, please quote it and tell us why you have come to this conclusion.

If you do not know where this is taught, why does it concern you?

Blessings,

Thomas Maddux

[Jem]

Whoa, did I miss something in the I & II Samuel?

I can see how the death of Uriah would put Bethsheba in an unmarried state, but David? Had all his wives died?

I think the spirit of the story is David's repentence and the grace that followed not the letter of his legal standing under the law.

[hopon]

Whoa, did I miss something in the I & II Samuel?

I can see how the death of Uriah would put Bethsheba in an unmarried state, but David? Had all his wives died?

Multiple wives doesn't seem to be an issue with God in the OT. It is not addressed as sin for David. They were his wives and always had been.

I think the spirit of the story is David's repentence and the grace that followed not the letter of his legal standing under the law.

And David suffered tremenous consequences afterwards because of his sins with Bathsheba and Uriah: The death of the infant of Bathsheba, the behavior of his son Absalom in response to his father David's behavior, and his ability to build the temple taken from him by God

[hopon]

Hopon,

If the "loss" of crowns by Christians is a possibility, then there should be a place in the Bible where this is clearly taught.  Do you know of such a place?  If so, please quote it and tell us why you have come to this conclusion.

If you do not know where this is taught, why does it concern you?

Blessings,

Thomas Maddux

Revelation 3:11  Behold I come quickly, hold fast which thou hast, that no man take thy crown.

If someone takes your crown, you no longer have it.

[Elizabeth H]

Is there no one who will answer Chuck's question below?

Chuck's questions have been answered multiple times! Mark answered him, Verne answered him, Tom answered him, Joe answered him. I answered him.

But Chuck doesn't like the answers. Or he doesn't agree. So he gets ever more abrasive and starts backing people into corners, throwing out personal jabs (questioning people's spirituality, etc.) & generally playing dirty. Not cool.

We don't agree but we have answered.
E.