Forum for ex-members of Revival Churches
Revival_Centres_Discussion_Forums > Bible, Beliefs, Scriptures and 'The Word' > Revival Doctrines we 'USED TO BELIEVE' Go to subcategory:
Author Content
Stripes
  • Rank:Noobmeister
  • Score:420
  • Posts:15
  • From:Australia
  • Register:16/06/2008 9:42 AM

Date Posted:22/06/2008 9:29 AMCopy HTML

RCI morals policy of expelling fornicators and adulterers for EVER, is a policy of condemnation.

For starters consider these scriptures:
James 5:19-20 "brethren, if any of you (Spirit filled) do err (sin - any sin) from the truth, and one converteth (bring him back) him; Let him (the  converter) know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from DEATH, and shall hide (cover) a multitude of sins."

How can RCI even try to bring back a sinner if they have expelled him/her for ever?

Ex_Member Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #1
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:21/09/2018 12:36 AM

Re:RCI Members Consider (Fornication doctrine)

Date Posted:24/06/2008 11:11 AMCopy HTML

Hello stripes,

What's worse is that they used to take them back so at least they had a chance.  Now they are someone elses problem.
Fancy telling the poor soul who happened to make a mistake to go and "take a backseat in a church somewhere" as LRL used to say from the platform.  Hypocrates.  Where I fellowship, we have seen a number of folk being "shown the love and the grace of Jesus" from RCI and RF's.  Thier policy is being noted all over the orthodox arena.  At least these sinners find love and grace and forgiveness outside of RCI, so in hindsight it is in fact the best thing they can do!?
Stripes Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #2
  • Rank:Noobmeister
  • Score:420
  • Posts:15
  • From:Australia
  • Register:16/06/2008 9:42 AM

Re:RCI Members Consider (Fornication doctrine)

Date Posted:25/06/2008 5:49 AMCopy HTML

Cont. from 22/6/08

The main scriptures that RCI oversight uses to justify the permanent expulsion of fornicators/adulterers are:
1 Cor: 5:5 " To deliver such a one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit (soul) may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus."
1Cor 5:13 "But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from amomg yourselves that wicked person."

There is no doubt that from these scriptures such a sinner must be placed outside of the church for a time. However there is not a shred of evidence that this person should never be able to find his/her way back to fellowship. Quite the opposite!
While this person is out and shows repentance and remorse, what are we his Spirit filled brothers and sisters to do? According to RCI...HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH HIM!
What does the Bible say? After all is not what the Bible says more important than what man says?

James 5:20 " Let him know, that he which converteth (brings back to righteous living) the sinner from the error of his ways shall save a soul (spirit) from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins." Is not this the answer to
1 Cor. 5:5 ?
This is the Bible way of dealing with a repented sinner. Does this reflect RCI policy?
Glawrey Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #3
  • Rank:Noob
  • Score:280
  • Posts:14
  • From:Australia
  • Register:04/10/2007 8:10 AM

Re:RCI Members Consider (Fornication doctrine)

Date Posted:25/06/2008 6:04 AMCopy HTML

Reply to misterkilometres (24/06/2008 05:11:16)
Hello stripes,

  Where I fellowship, we have seen a number of folk being "shown the love and the grace of Jesus" from RCI and RF's. 

Where do you fellowship MrK ??

Ex_Member Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #4
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:21/09/2018 12:36 AM

Re:RCI Members Consider (Fornication doctrine)

Date Posted:25/06/2008 10:34 PMCopy HTML

  Where I fellowship, we have seen a number of folk being "shown the love and the grace of Jesus" from RCI and RF's. 
Where do you fellowship MrK ??

Hello Glawrey,

I fellowship at All Saints Anglican Church in Greensborough.  It is part of the Evangelical Anglican movement.

Regards Mr Kilometres.
Stripes Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #5
  • Rank:Noobmeister
  • Score:420
  • Posts:15
  • From:Australia
  • Register:16/06/2008 9:42 AM

Re:RCI Members Consider (Fornication doctrine)

Date Posted:07/07/2008 7:34 AMCopy HTML

Cont. from 24/6/08

If expelling fornicators for ever is true according to the Bible then:
1Cor. 5:11 "But now I have written unto you not to keep company, (for ever?) if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such a one, no not eat". (for ever?) If a constant line of reasoning is to be maintained, then all committing any of the sins mentioned in vs.11 should be expelled for ever. Vs.13 " But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person. (For ever?)
Here Paul is referring to any that have committed any of the sins in vs.11.
Why then does RCI not expel drunkards for ever?
Why not covetous persons for ever?
What about extortioners for ever?
What about idolaters for ever?
This is and has always been a selective condemning policy, that finds no Biblical justification.
Ex_Member Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #6
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:21/09/2018 12:36 AM

Re:RCI Members Consider (Fornication doctrine)

Date Posted:08/07/2008 1:23 PMCopy HTML

In the eyes of the leadership at RCI ( and RF ), people who intentionally withdraw from their fellowship are worse than a fornicator.....


..... but the real truth is that the RCI leaders are blind leaders of the blind.. so blind in fact that they fail to realize that it is God Himself that is leading the people out of the mess that goes by the name of Revival Centres International..

Disciple 

Stripes Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #7
  • Rank:Noobmeister
  • Score:420
  • Posts:15
  • From:Australia
  • Register:16/06/2008 9:42 AM

Re:RCI Members Consider (Fornication doctrine)

Date Posted:17/07/2008 10:12 AMCopy HTML

Cont. from 7/7/08
One of the most debated scriptures is in;
2Cor.2:7 "So that contrariwise ye ought rather to forgive him, and comfort him, lest perhaps such a one should be swallowed up with overmuch sorrow". Is this the man expelled in 1Cor.5 or not?
This scripture in inconclusive. However in His infinite wisdom, God new all along that Bible "students" would have debated this point at infinitum. So what God has done is to introduce us to;
VS10 " To whom ye forgive ANYTHING (even fornication or adultery) I forgave also: for if I forgave any thing, to whom I forgave it, for your sakes forgave I it in the place of Christ". (So says Paul)

RCI members can you believe what you are reading from your own Bible?
Your leaders have for years preached that they (or you) cannot forgive a sin against the body of Christ. Well can you see how they are continuing to deceive you? There are conditions attached to bringing a sinner back into fellowship, we will discuss this aspect next time. The important truth is that sinners, any sinner can find his way back into fellowship.
James 4:17 "Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, (the right thing) and doeth it not, to him it is sin." (Guilty by wilful association)
RobertFlanders Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #8
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Australia
  • Register:22/07/2008 7:39 AM

Re:RCI Members Consider (Fornication doctrine)

Date Posted:22/07/2008 7:43 AMCopy HTML

The word of God states that if a couple cannot contain then they are to marry. 1Cor 7 v 9. God gave the parents and in particular the father of the bride authority in the situation. But in many cases the father has not taken up his God given authority in the situation and the Christian Church has done little help and guide "fatherless" young people into marriage.

The Church and parents in some circumstances wipe their hands with young people who have found a partner, particularly if they are teenagers. Paul prophesied this about the last days; 1 Tim 4 v 1-6. This is not about a change in food laws as some people interpret but Paul was speaking to Timothy about the young people and marriage.

It is our responsibility that Christians have an easy path to marriage but that is not always the case. Paul warned us of this in the latter days in Timothy 4 v 1-5 of this problem. We read; Now the Spirit speak expressly, (take note of these words) that in the latter times (the last days) some shall depart from the faith (their trust in God) paying heed (paying attention) to seducing spirits (some of the things a seducing spirit would say- "your too young to get married", "marriage will spoil your life", "if you marry your partner it will end in divorce", "you have nothing in common with your partner", "kids will ruin your life", "you need to have an education before you get married", "enjoy life before you get married", "you will never have any money" etc) and doctrine of devils (miss leading teaching) Speaking lies (falsely/not from Gods word) in hypocrisy (acting/guilty of the same conduct) having their conscience seared with a hot iron. (Not able to distinguish what is lawful and unlawful for a Christian) Forbidding (denying/refusing/hindering) to marry, and commanding (coming from a higher office) to abstain (kept from) from meats (Gods instructions/promises) which God has created to be received (Gods blessings to us) with thanksgiving (our praise to God) of them which believe (rely) and know (recognise/know accurately) the truth (nature of God). For every creature (new born soul) of God is good. (beautiful, handsome, excellent, surpassing, precious, useful, suitable, commendable, admiral, shapely and magnificent) and nothing to be refused (neglected, despised) if it be sanctified (made holy, purified, guided by) by the word of God and prayer. (Communion/relationship/friendship with God).


The Jewish culture has a better understanding about fulfilling a marriage than do many Christians allowing their children to marry if necessary once they have completed their Bar Mitzvah or Bit Mitzvah. Boys at 13 y.o. and Girls 12 y.o.


King Josiah was married and had two children by the time fifteen years old. Historical records would also show that Mary was pregnant with Christ in her teenage years maybe in her early to mid teenage years.


Regarding customs or laws of the land, if they contradict the Word of God then we obey the Word of God and not man's law. The Jew's followed God's law on marriage and do not put obstacles in the way of their children getting married if they cannot contain them selves nor does God discriminate on a person's age when it comes to marriage. "Render unto God what is God's render unto Caesar what is Caesar's". Marriage was created by God not Caesar. Your concordance will show you that fornication represents unlawful sex. You need to look in your Bible to find what God deems unlawful sex. Lev 26 would be a good start.

If a young couple cannot contain them selves sexually God simply tells them to marry Ex 22 v 16. There is no condemnation and God never called it fornication.

In some KJV scriptures the word "fornication" is used along side words such as adultery and idolatry such as in 1 Cor 6 v 9 & Gal 5 v 19-20, in which the translator has used the word "fornication" to cover the other sexual acts God has no tolerance for, such as prostitution, sex with no intention of marriage, homosexuality, laying with a beast, incest, and marriage to an unbeliever. In Jewish law some scriptures such as Matt 1 v 18-19 "fornication" meant that one of the couple had had a sexual relationship with a third party before a marriage which resulted in a cancellation of engagement and marriage. In other scriptures in the KJV the translator the translator has used the word "fornication" to represent one or a number of sex acts God has no tolerance for. For example Matt 5 v 32, "fornication" represents adultery. 1 Cor 5 v 1-2, "fornication" was representing incest and adultery. Acts 5 v 20, 1 Cor 12 v 21, Eph 5 v 3, Col 3 v 5, 1Thess 4, Jude 1 v 7, "fornication" represented all sexual acts God had no tolerance for. Rom 1 v 29 "fornication" represents homosexuality, 1 Cor 10 v 8, fornication represents sexual relationships with the unbeliever. Rev 2 v 14, 9 v 21, 14 v 8, 17 v 2-4, 18 v 1-9 19 v 2, "fornication" represented spiritual adultery, prostitution and/or idolatry which also manifested in the natural.

Other translations such as The Amplified Bible will use words such as impurity, immorality and indecency to cover all the sexual acts God has no tolerance for, rather than the words "adultery" or "fornication".

The English dictionary translation on "fornication" is "sex outside marriage" as you translate it but the translators of the bible have used an inappropriate English word and have corrected this in more modern translations of the bible and use words such as immorality.

The use of the word "fornication" in the bible has never been used to describe a couple who have had a sexual encounter between each other before their marriage ceremony or signing of a State marriage certificate. There was no such thing as a State marriage certificate as such when the scriptures were written. The first recording of a census was for taxes. (Luke 2 v 1-5)

One of the most miss interpreted scriptures on "fornication" would be (1 Cor 7 v 2) To avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, let every woman have her own husband. Paul was saying to find a life long partner (in the Lord) to avoid the temptation of a relationship God has no tolerance for, such as; man with man, woman with woman, man or woman with beast, prostitution, sex with no intention of marriage, relationship with an unbeliever and incest.

Shechem and Dinah's experience (Genesis 34) is parallel to what leaders in the Church are doing today, using false doctrine condemning young couples who may have had sex before their "legal" marriage. Using terms against them such as "fornicators" or "sex that is not sacred" is taken out of context with the scriptures. Jesus spoke against the Scribes and the Pharisees. They are alive today and still doing the same.

Simeon and Levi were God's chosen people who took God's word out of context using false doctrine to condemn Shechem and his family and tribe. Shechem did not rape Dinah but seduced her. (Ex 22 v 16)

Shechem loved Dinah and would do anything to marry her even to he extent of believing in Jacob's, Simeon's and Levi's God. Shechem, the male members of his family and tribe were circumcised to become as them. (This was no party trick at a buck's party.) Shechem and the other males knew the significance of circumcision, that this was the sign that that they would be worshiping the God of Jacob. All was in order to marry Dinah but instead Simeon and Levi used the situation using false doctrine to condemn Shechem, Hamor and his tribe.

Shechem and Hamor were known to be honourable men even after Shechem slept with Dinah. Simeon and Levi and their descendants were cursed by God. There is no evidence that what Shechem did was fornication, immorality or against the word of God. In actual fact Shechem wanted to fulfil the Word of God by marrying Dinah. (Ex 22 v 16)

God only used this term when a person was not loyal to their partner and had sex with another partner. If they were betrothed it was known as fornication or if they were married it was known as adultery.

Leaders of the Church you are deceived by false doctrine. You are like a dog barking up the wrong tree.

God is only interested in partners being loyal to one another and fulfilling their marriage. God only condemns couples who find other partners. The Church needs to spend its valuable time supporting couples fulfil their marriage. We have a fight against the enemy who is using false doctrine through parents, government laws and Church leaders denying young people to marry.


I would like to hear some feedback on this.


God Bless,

Robert.

Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #9
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re:RCI Members Consider (Fornication doctrine)

Date Posted:22/07/2008 12:34 PMCopy HTML

Hi, Robert.

I've read (and re-read) your post a few times now, and I have to admit I'm not completely sure just what the point(s) was that you were trying to make. Were you advocating marriage at an early age? That churches should take a more active role in preparing people for marriage? Or something altogether different?

In any case, 1 Timothy 4:16 isn't so narrowly defined to young people and marriage at all. Paul was actually discussing the issue of ascetism; that it didn't automatically make one a more "spiritual" Christian.

But if, as I think is the case, you're suggesting that two young people who have sex before (or outside of) marriage somehow doesn't constitute fornication, and that somehow the action isn't sinful in and of itself, then it's clearly you who is "barking up the wrong tree". The fact remains that there are many forms of behaviour which the Bible labels "immoral" -- pre-marital sex -- or "fornication", being numbered among them. Oh, and so as to provide a little balance to this discussion, Scripture nowhere prescribes that marriage, post illicit coitus, is the necessary solution that "tidies up" the former sin. This Revivalist practice, like many others, is without biblical warrant.

The point I am making is the miss use of the word “fornication.” The word fornication was never used Biblically to describe a couple who had sexual relations before a legal marriage. There was no penalty involved. The couple were simply to be engaged, then married at an appropriate date.Do you honestly believe the Bible supports this view? If you do, then I'd suggest that you do a quick check of how a variety of English versions render the Greek word "porneia"! Would you be so bold as to suggest that all those Greek-trained scholars got the meaning of the word wrong?!

The word “fornication” was only used if one of the parties had a relationship with a third party or if someone committed homosexuality, prostitution, bestiality, incest or spiritual idolatry.'Nope'. To begin with, I reckon you may have confused the related lexeme "porneuo" for "porneia". The former better lends itself to the concept of "adultery" then does the latter, and further, it's original meaning related to transactions with a prostitute (and which was, of course, the principle form of adultery that occurred in the 1st century Greco-Roman world). Anyway, in the NT "porneia" is used to describe sexuality immorality, immorality more generally, and sexual sin a total of 16 times. It's also used to describe adulteries/marital unfaithfulness a scant 7 times, with the individual contexts making plain the legitimacy of such usage (see Matthew 5:32 and 19:9 for "marital unfaithfulness", and Revelation 14:8; 17:2, 4; 18:3 and 19:2 for "adulteries", a word which is of course, a plural). In short, you're quite off-track with what you profess.

One of the terms commonly used in the churches is “Flee fornication.” This actually meant “Flee Porneia.” Porneia was a place where the heathens visited prostitutes thus the term “Flee Porneia.”Fascinating. Wrong, of course, but still fascinating. The word 'porneia' appears in non-NT Greek sources to describe various kinds of "unsanctioned sexual intercourse" (such as in Demosthenes' writings, for example). But germane to our discussion is that the word group "porne" in the Greek OT (the Septuagint) was used to translate the Hebrew "zanah", which meant to have sexual relations outside the bounds of marriage; whilst the Greek term "moicheuo" was used to translate "na'ap", which specifically meant adultery. And, of course, the Septuagint was the Bible of the original Church so it's rather unlikely that Paul would have confused his terms!

It was not used as a term to describe a couple who have had sex before a “legal wedding”. Actually, it was used to describe any form of sexual relationship that took place outside the constraints of a "legally enacted marriage". If a couple were caught in a sexual relationship at a young age they were engaged then married at a date deemed appropriate to the Father of the bride. (when they could provide for themselves) The Jews practice this tradition still today but this was never called fornication. Remember when the Bible was written there was no registration for marriage with the government so this term “fornication” was not talking about sex before a “legal wedding.” Unfortunately, Robert, in your haste to defend your rather idiosyncratic position on this subject (which is a little like Bill Clinton's denial of having sex with "that woman" because he defined the word "sex" a wee bit too narrowly), you've failed to consider the matter from a "full-orbed" perspective. You've failed to research how the Greek word was used to translate the underlying Hebrew in the OT, or how it was understood in common, everyday speech, and further how it was specifically applied in the Greek NT.

Your understanding of Greek simply isn't up to par. Learn the language sufficiently, or stop "dabbling" and thereby reaching untenable theological conclusions.

Blessings,

Ian

email: didaktikon@gmail.com
Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #10
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re:RCI Members Consider (Fornication doctrine)

Date Posted:22/07/2008 12:45 PMCopy HTML

Hi, Ralph.

There is always a lot of talk about pre-marital sex, whether that means fornication or not. Strangely enough I've found this to be the case only among people who can't read Greek! A question I always have asked and nobody has given an answer; What is and what does constitute  marriage? Simple answer: a legally, formally and publicly declared union recognised by the State, and or the Church.

Where in scripture does it say  a couple  has to go through a ceremony, or sign a document or whatever to deem them married.? I'll answer your question with a question: where in Scripture is marriage presented as being anything but the outcome of the definition that I provided, above? Isn't it enough that a man and women live together in a monogamus state and remain faithfull to each other forever? What you suggest, a.k.a. the modern concept of the "common-law"/de facto relationship, is described in Scripture as "porneia". I personally find it a little peculiar that people who would like to promote de facto relationships as a valid alternative to traditional marriage, seem to have a real problem with the traditional concept of marriage! This, of course, gets me to thinking, "why?"

Blessings,

Ian
email: didaktikon@gmail.com
Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #11
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re:RCI Members Consider (Fornication doctrine)

Date Posted:22/07/2008 9:32 PMCopy HTML

Ralph,

Gen. 2: 24. tells us that a man and woman commit themselves to each other as a covenant for life and become one flesh. This doesn't tell us unless you go through a tradional ceremony your, NOT married. Isn't it a matter of both parties committing themselves to God in a vow? Why go through man? Also Matt. 2: 4-6. You're kidding, right?! Genesis 2 refers back to the marriage between the man (Adam) and the woman (Eve) that was instituted by God.The references described in scripture, "porneia" don't cite up with the point of view I am making. Ralph, the word "porneia" wasn't invented by Paul. It was a common enough Greek word, and its meaning describes perfectly the point of view that you have sought to make: any sexual relationship that takes part outside the bounds of marriage.

It has been said "Intimacy in it's deepest dimension is possible, only when the partners are united in faith". It appears to me that marriage described in the Bible is more of a spiritual nature than natural. But then, I could be wrong. You are.

Blessings,

Ian
email: didaktikon@gmail.com
RobertFlanders Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #12
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Australia
  • Register:22/07/2008 7:39 AM

Re:RCI Members Consider (Fornication doctrine)

Date Posted:23/07/2008 3:59 AMCopy HTML

Reply to Didaktikon
Hi, Robert.

The point I am making is the miss use of the word “fornication.” The word fornication was never used Biblically to describe a couple who had sexual relations before a legal marriage. There was no penalty involved. The couple were simply to be engaged, then married at an appropriate date.

Do you honestly believe the Bible supports this view? If you do, then I'd suggest that you do a quick check of how a variety of English versions render the Greek word "porneia"! Would you be so bold as to suggest that all those Greek-trained scholars got the meaning of the word wrong?!

The word “fornication” was only used if one of the parties had a relationship with a third party or if someone committed homosexuality, prostitution, bestiality, incest or spiritual idolatry.

'Nope'. To begin with, I reckon you may have confused the related lexeme "porneuo" for "porneia". The former better lends itself to the concept of "adultery" then does the latter, and further, it's original meaning related to transactions with a prostitute (and which was, of course, the principle form of adultery that occurred in the 1st century Greco-Roman world). Anyway, in the NT "porneia" is used to describe sexuality immorality, immorality more generally, and sexual sin a total of 16 times. It's also used to describe adulteries/marital unfaithfulness a scant 7 times, with the individual contexts making plain the legitimacy of such usage (see Matthew 5:32 and 19:9 for "marital unfaithfulness", and Revelation 14:8; 17:2, 4; 18:3 and 19:2 for "adulteries", a word which is of course, a plural). In short, you're quite off-track with what you profess.

One of the terms commonly used in the churches is “Flee fornication.” This actually meant “Flee Porneia.” Porneia was a place where the heathens visited prostitutes thus the term “Flee Porneia.”

Fascinating. Anyway, the word appears in non-NT Greek sources to describe various kinds of "unsanctioned sexual intercourse" (such as in Demosthenes' writings, for example). But germane to our discussion is that the word group "porne" in the Greek OT (the Septuagint) was used to translate the Hebrew "zanah", which meant to have sexual relations outside the bounds of marriage; whilst the Greek term "moicheuo" was used to translate "na'ap", which specifically meant adultery. And, of course, the Septuagint was the Bible of the original Church so it's rather unlikely that Paul would have confused his terms!

It was not used as a term to describe a couple who have had sex before a “legal wedding”.

Actually, it was used to describe any form of sexual relationship that took place outside the constraints of a "legally enacted marriage".

If a couple were caught in a sexual relationship at a young age they were engaged then married at a date deemed appropriate to the Father of the bride. (when they could provide for themselves) The Jews practice this tradition still today but this was never called fornication. Remember when the Bible was written there was no registration for marriage with the government so this term “fornication” was not talking about sex before a “legal wedding.”

Unfortunately, Robert, in your haste to defend your rather idiosyncratic position on this subject (which is a little like Bill Clinton's denial of having sex with "that woman" because he defined the word "sex" a wee bit too narrowly), you've failed to consider the matter from a "full-orbed" perspective. You've failed to research how the Greek word was used to translate the underlying Hebrew in the OT, or how it was understood in common, everyday speech, and further how it was specifically applied in the Greek NT.

Your understanding of Greek simply isn't up to par. Learn the language sufficiently, or stop "dabbling" and thereby reaching untenable theological conclusions.

Blessings,

Ian



(Message edited by Didaktikon on 22/07/2008 06:36:25)

Ian,

The translators used the English word “fornication” which translates in an English dictionary as “sex outside marriage.” Your Bible Concordance will show the meaning as “unlawful sexual intercourse” which is a totally different meaning. Latter translations of the Bible use words such as immorality instead of the Word “Fornication.”

 

Yes the RCI and most other denominations have it wrong.

The Word of God never commanded a wedding ceremony or a government marriage certificate. If that is however appropriate to your culture or traditions then do so, but neither of these should stop a marriage between two eligible Christians. (Matt;19 v 4-6)

Regarding customs or laws of the land, if they contradict the Word of God then we obey the Word of God and not man's law. The Jew's followed God's law on marriage and do not put obstacles in the way of their children getting married if they cannot contain them selves nor does God discriminate on a person's age when it comes to marriage. "Render unto God what is God's render unto Caesar what is Caesar's". Marriage was created by God not Caesar.

1- If you look in your Bible Concordance you will see that “fornication” means unlawful sex.

2- Read from Genesis to Revelation and find all the sexual acts God deems unlawful. Your interpretation is not there.

3- You will also find that God did not forbid marriage or was prejudice against anyone who believed in Him regardless of age.

4- You will find there was no Government marriage certificates given however on some occasions there was a dowry between families. If two non betrothed believers lay with each other they were engaged and married at the time schedule of the Father of the Bride. This was not called fornication nor was there any penalty imposed. There may have been a dowry but the dowry was the same as if it were an arranged marriage.  Exodus 22 v 16 If any man entice a maid that is not betrothed and lie with her he shall surely endow her to be his wife. If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him (for no money), he shall pay the money according to the dowry of virgins. (and then marry her)

5- The NT has the same parallel as the OT.

6- Paul was saying to find a Christian partner rather than falling into the temptation of an unlawful sexual act that God condemns.

 




Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #13
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re:RCI Members Consider (Fornication doctrine)

Date Posted:23/07/2008 4:15 AMCopy HTML

Robert,

Are you personally familiar with biblical Hebrew and koine Greek? In other words, can you pick up a book written in either language and read it with the same level of facility as you would an English book? Further have you personally studied (in excrutiating detail) the cultures, histories and theologies of the OT and NT people groups? Next, are you in a position to speak authoritatively about the complex of issues that directly (and indirectly) relates to the subject matter currently under discussion in this thread? If not, then I must forthrightly state that you're not in any position to be lecturing me on the proper meanings or nuances of the respective terms that we have discussed thus far.

My thoughts.

Blessings,

Ian
email: didaktikon@gmail.com
Ex_Member Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #14
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:21/09/2018 12:36 AM

Re:RCI Members Consider (Fornication doctrine)

Date Posted:24/07/2008 2:58 AMCopy HTML

 Hello Robert,

Long time no see - at least 6 years.   It would be good to catch up one day.

Now to the subject of fornication and young peoples, and the marriage thereof.

So as to understand your position on this, are you saying that if my daughter should not be able to contain herself and be seduced by a young fella, that I should advise them or coerce them to get married no matter what age or level of maturity these kids are, and if they are too young to be legally married, then they should live de-facto until such times as they can be married, and that as a father one could give some kind of consent or blessing on this arrangement and that there would be no sin imputed to any parties?

If this is not what you are saying then can you correct my supposition above and re-present it so that I understand the question and point that you are making?

Regards Paul.

BTW: I do not hold any fear about these issues because I know that no matter what the future holds for anyone, it is about faith and grace, and not about legalism and self works. If my daughter does end up making mistakes ( not that I am wanting this to be the case ) there is still only one answer - Faith and Grace. 






Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #15
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re:RCI Members Consider (Fornication doctrine)

Date Posted:24/07/2008 7:40 AMCopy HTML

Robert,

The Westminister Confession is a good example of a marriage union. You are correct these are the things that should be taught, rather than the false condemnation on whether some one has a marriage licence or not. 


You're showing your ignorance again, and completely misrepresenting the position of the divines who drafted the Westminster Confession of Faith. I can tell you now, these men did not believe the absence of a marriage license to be a small thing should two parties be cohabiting as man and wife.


Blessings,


Ian

 

email: didaktikon@gmail.com
RobertFlanders Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #16
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Australia
  • Register:22/07/2008 7:39 AM

Re:RCI Members Consider (Fornication doctrine)

Date Posted:24/07/2008 7:46 AMCopy HTML

Reply to Didaktikon

Robert,

Are you personally familiar with biblical Hebrew and koine Greek? In other words, can you pick up a book written in biblical Hebrew or koine Greek, and read it with the same level of familiarity as you do in English? Have you studied in excrutiating detail the cultures, histories and theologies of the OT and NT people groups? Can you speak authoritatively on the complex of issues that directly (and indirectly) relate to the subject matter currently under discussion in this thread? If not, then I must forthrightly state that you're not in any position to be lecturing me on the proper meanings or nuances of the respective terms that we have discussed thus far.

My thoughts.

Blessings,

Ian
 

Ian,
The information has been studied and revealed by the Holy Spirit. I am not wanting this to look as if I am lecturing you or anybody else. I have simply copied information I have used in other discussions on this subject. You can make your own conclusion on what I have said and use the Word of God to reply.


Robert.

Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #17
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re:RCI Members Consider (Fornication doctrine)

Date Posted:24/07/2008 8:27 AMCopy HTML

Hi, Robert.

The information has been studied and revealed by the Holy Spirit. I am not wanting this to look as if I am lecturing you or anybody else. I have simply copied information I have used in other discussions on this subject. You can make your own conclusion on what I have said and use the Word of God to reply. Well such an admission places you in something of a quandry. You see, from the Christian perspective God (through his Spirit) superintended the authors of Scripture as they wrote, guiding even the very choices of lexemes from within the languages that they used! So for you to claim that the Holy Spirit "revealed" the position that you currently follow to you, is to infer that he very possibly misled the original authors, given that what they wrote reveals a completely contrary position when read without presupposition in the original! Further, how would you defend your "revelation" position were I to claim that the Holy Spirit revealed the posture that I adopt to me? We can't both be correct in what we profess, can we?

Blessings,

Ian
email: didaktikon@gmail.com
RobertFlanders Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #18
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Australia
  • Register:22/07/2008 7:39 AM

Re:RCI Members Consider (Fornication doctrine)

Date Posted:24/07/2008 9:14 AMCopy HTML

Reply to misterkilometres

 Hello Robert,

Long time no see - at least 6 years.   It would be good to catch up one day.

Now to the subject of fornication and young peoples, and the marriage thereof.

So as to understand your position on this, are you saying that if my daughter should not be able to contain herself and be seduced by a young fella, that I should advise them or coerce them to get married no matter what age or level of maturity these kids are, and if they are too young to be legally married, then they should live de-facto until such times as they can be married, and that as a father one could give some kind of consent or blessing on this arrangement and that there would be no sin imputed to any parties?

If this is not what you are saying then can you correct my supposition above and re-present it so that I understand the question and point that you are making?

Regards Paul.

BTW: I do not hold any fear about these issues because I know that no matter what the future holds for anyone, it is about faith and grace, and not about legalism and self works. If my daughter does end up making mistakes ( not that I am wanting this to be the case ) there is still only one answer - Faith and Grace.  

 

Hi Paul,

I wonder whether you have the right Robert. I did leave RCI about 6 years ago and now go to CityLife in Wantirna.


On the fornication issue. Yes I think you understand what I am saying but I will clarify this again so there is no confusion. As you know RCI and a lot of other denominations are quick to condemn the young adults who get sexually involved before actually being legally married. If you look in the OT and NT you will see that that they have it wrong;

Exodus 22 v 16 If any man entice a maid that is not betrothed and lie with her he shall surely endow her to be his wife.

This was never called fornication, a sin nor had a penalty. They were simply engaged and married at an appropriate date. The marriage date was set by the Father of the bride and this was when the groom had prepared a place for them usually near the groom's father's home or an extended part of the home. The couple were not allowed to live together until the new residence was prepared. The marriage was in many cases just and agreement by the parents and perhaps a dowry from the groom's father. There was never a marriage licence from Caesar. The Jews still carry this direction today (Australia included) if a couple get involved sexually and will allow the marriage then when of legal age get the marriage certificate from the government.

The same parallel is in the NT.

(1 Cor 7 v 9) However if you cannot contain your desires you should get married, it is better for you to get married than to burn with sexual  desire.

Regarding a situation with a daughter. The rule still applies whether the couple are 16 or 26 years old. They are engaged and then married at the time appointed by the Father of the Bride. If the couple are immature and irresponsible the Father would not allow them live together or a marriage take place until the groom showed they were capable of a responsible marriage. Off course the parents spent time with their children before the marriage to guide them and help fulfil the marriage. Marriage licences and age was not a requirement.

Biblically fornication was when one of the engaged couples got involved sexually with a third party and was not loyal to their first partner. This was revealed by the blood at intercourse. If my daughter wanted to live with her life long chosen partner before a marriage license I would allow this provided they were responsible and got the marriage licence when they were legally old enough. This would be the Biblical direction. God is not about splitting responsible Christians apart nor am I.

Paul I hope this gives some clarification.

 

God Bless,

Robert.

 







Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #19
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re:RCI Members Consider (Fornication doctrine)

Date Posted:24/07/2008 1:19 PMCopy HTML

Hi, Robert.

I did leave RCI about 6 years ago and now go to CityLife in Wantirna.

Sure. Your current church has an interesting history. CityLife was once known as Waverly Christian Fellowship, founded by Richard Holland and more recently pastored by Kevin Connor (Mark's dad). Did you know that Waverly Christian Fellowship
(under both Holland and Connor senior) was a part of the rather notorious Australian Christian Fellowship movement? The Brisbane branch of which (i.e. Brisbane Christian Fellowship) recently featured in exposes on both television and in the newspapers.

Incidently, Mark Connor was one of the driving forces behind the founding of the AOG-led Australian Christian Churches "coalition" (alongside Brian Houston of Hill$ong fame). The ACC is pretty much the backbone from which the Family First political party draws its strength and membership.

But I've been told that CityLife has left most of its former baggage behind in recent years. Which is, of course, a good thing.

But moving on to address one of your more quotable comments.

You inferred in your previous post that modern Jews (including Australian Jews) don't ascribe sin towards a couple engaging in pre-marital sexual acts, but the reverse, that no sin is imputed, that everything is "a-ok" so long as the couple enters into some form of "extended engagement". Yet again your assertion simply isn't true. From the early 2nd century onwards Judaism was "Mishanaic" in character: the rabbinical Mishna (and later the Talmud) formed the basis for Jewish practice, laws and proscriptions. The Mishna expressly forbids fornication. Sanhedrin 8:75 discusses at length a situation of a man burning in lust for a woman. The punishment for the sin is prescribed as being death. The Rabbans then begin to debate the severity of the sentence; some suggesting it was because the woman was married. This position is summarily dismissed: the woman is taken as being unmarried, the severity of the sentence being explained by Rabban Papa, "...because of the disgrace to her family". The tractate continues, " Rabban Aha, the son of Rabban Ika said, 'that the daughters of Israel may not be morally dissolute.' Then why not marry her?--Marriage would not assuage his passion, even as Rabban Isaac said, 'since the destruction of the Temple, sexual pleasure has been taken (from theose who practice it lawfully) and given to sinners.'

Did you note the following points? The man was unmarried. The woman was unmarried (no adultery here); the issue was described as one of being sexual pleasure taken from those who practice it lawfully (i.e. in marriage) and given to sinners. Note the word, "sinners". Once again, your assertions have been shown to be wrong.

Blessings,

Ian
email: didaktikon@gmail.com
Ex_Member Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #20
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:21/09/2018 12:36 AM

Re:RCI Members Consider (Fornication doctrine)

Date Posted:24/07/2008 11:34 PMCopy HTML

 Hello Robert,

Yes I do know yourself and your wife and family, and I do have the right Robert.  You just don't remember me!

Now that I understand your position on the subject a little more clearly I can at least make a comment.

I can see how you have come up with your conclusions on the matter, about perhaps what could be at least a tenable scenario should young peoples find themselves in that sort of difficulty.  It would be nice to think that both parents of the young peoples, and the young peoples themselves could get together and make a long term descision to progress the situation into a legally recognised marriage, and repent and turn back to the Lord.  That is one of many scenario's that do already take place, but really cannot be a one size fits all solution to the problem. 

What if the parents of the young fella are totally against such an idea?
What if the young peoples themselves hate each others guts afterwards?
What if the young people were both under 16 years of age and less than 8 years in age difference?
What would then become of the spiritual state of both these young people?
How could they all be reconciled to God and man?

And what of these horrible marriages that happen in Africa and other heathen places where girls very young are given in marriage and end up being pregnant at 12 years old and such - they are taken to hospitals for horrendous surgery because their bodies have not yet fully developed for child birthing.

So Robert - would it be fair to say that perhaps your solution to the problem of young peoples under this kind of dillemma may be ok as long as all parties agree, and that there is repentance and turning back to God, but also that if there is no such agreement between all parties or any other issue that gets in the way of that, then it is best to just confess before God and allow all parties to continue on in Grace and Faith?

Or do you think there will be eternal damnation if the young people cannot get married?

Regards Paul.


RobertFlanders Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #21
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Australia
  • Register:22/07/2008 7:39 AM

Re:RCI Members Consider (Fornication doctrine)

Date Posted:25/07/2008 2:40 AMCopy HTML

Ian,

Like all denominations they are not perfect nor have I ever seen the perfect Church as yet. I do not see eye to eye on some issues. One is the issue on fornication I bring up on this post but at least I have provoked them into doing a study on the subject and await their reply. At least we have some sort of communication there and not forced into confessing their doctrine and are open to change. I have leant a lot there on other gifts of the Holy Spirit rather than completely focused on the ‘Speaking in Tongues' subject although I still believe the RCI message on the Holy Spirit. There have been and still are a number of ex RCI people there who have been able to move on after their experiences in RCI.

 

Regarding "fornication" you need to study what I have said more closely and also the Jewish direction on marriage. Biblically when two non endowed persons got together sexually they were endowed (engaged) and then married for life at a latter time scheduled by the Father of the Bride. They were not allowed to continue in sexual involvement until after the marriage. The marriage took place once the groom had prepared a place for the bride to live. You will find Biblically and in Jewish culture today that is the direction taken and without a marriage certificate if under legal age. It only became fornication if one of the parties had sexual encounter with another party. There may be however Jews that do not follow the Word of God the same as many Christians and go some other direction.

Robert.

Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #22
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re:RCI Members Consider (Fornication doctrine)

Date Posted:25/07/2008 2:58 AMCopy HTML

G'day, Robert.

Like all denominations they are not perfect nor have I ever seen the perfect Church as yet. I do not see eye to eye on some issues. One is the issue on fornication I bring up on this post but at least I have provoked them into doing a study on the subject and await their reply. At least we have some sort of communication there and not forced into confessing their doctrine and are open to change. I have leant a lot there on other gifts of the Holy Spirit rather than completely focused on the ‘Speaking in Tongues' subject although I still believe the RCI message on the Holy Spirit. Right. Concentrating for the present moment on the most salient point in the paragraph, above, are you admitting, here, that you still believe what the RCI teaches concerning the necessity of "tongues", and its supposed linkage to be the "evidence" of having received the Holy Spirit?

There have been and still are a number of ex RCI people there who have been able to move on after their experiences in RCI. Sure. But there are probably many more still who haven't been able to move from doctrinal nonsense (a la Revivalism) to biblical orthodoxy. And I'm starting to worry that you might be one of them. Regarding "fornication" you need to study what I have said more closely and also the Jewish direction on marriage. I've studied what you've written in detail, and I've studied the issue from a Jewish perspective in considerable detail (from the primary sources). I'm a little funny that way!

Biblically when two non endowed persons got together sexually they were endowed (engaged) and then married for life at a latter time scheduled by the Father of the Bride. So you keep saying (and then in spite of evidence to the contrary). They were not allowed to continue in sexual involvement until after the marriage. According to the tractate that I quoted from the Jewish Mishna, they were'nt even allowed to get as far as the marriage ceremony!

The marriage took place once the groom had prepared a place for the bride to live. You will find Biblically and in Jewish culture today that is the direction taken and without a marriage certificate if under legal age. It only became fornication if one of the parties had sexual encounter with another party. I think I've more than adequately refuted this view. Answer me this: are you in a position to provide references to the sources that you believe supports your position? I'd love to know what they are.

There may be however Jews that do not follow the Word of God the same as many Christians and go some other direction. Sorry, but such just doesn't wash. What you've alleged to be the case (even among Australian Jewry) simply isn't the case at all. If you still aren't prepared to accept what I say, then by all means visit a local Jewish Temple and speak to the Rabbi. I'm certain that he'll set you straight.

Ian

email: didaktikon@gmail.com
RobertFlanders Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #23
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Australia
  • Register:22/07/2008 7:39 AM

Re:RCI Members Consider (Fornication doctrine)

Date Posted:25/07/2008 3:51 AMCopy HTML

 

Paul,

I do recognize you and maybe you knew my wife more than me. I will show my wife your picture when she comes home and S. will tell me all about you. I am sure it will be all good.

I understand exactly what you are saying. There is no black and white solution as each situation is different. Sometimes the parents are not following the Lord and may not agree in marriage or hate the son in law or daughter in law. There is also this false condemnation from Religion when couples get together and rather help them fulfil the marriage they condemn them. And there are other situations as you say where young people are forced into unreasonable heathen marriages. Our children as you know can also turn away from the Lord and Godly direction and have to learn the hard way. In all these circumstances God is greater and can forgive and put us back on track.

Will there be eternal damnation to all young people who did not get married? To some yes and to some no. God knows the situations better than we do and He will be the judge in these matters.

 

God Bless,

Robert.

Reply to misterkilometres

 Hello Robert,

Yes I do know yourself and your wife and family, and I do have the right Robert.  You just don't remember me!

Now that I understand your position on the subject a little more clearly I can at least make a comment.

I can see how you have come up with your conclusions on the matter, about perhaps what could be at least a tenable scenario should young peoples find themselves in that sort of difficulty.  It would be nice to think that both parents of the young peoples, and the young peoples themselves could get together and make a long term descision to progress the situation into a legally recognised marriage, and repent and turn back to the Lord.  That is one of many scenario's that do already take place, but really cannot be a one size fits all solution to the problem. 

What if the parents of the young fella are totally against such an idea?
What if the young peoples themselves hate each others guts afterwards?
What if the young people were both under 16 years of age and less than 8 years in age difference?
What would then become of the spiritual state of both these young people?
How could they all be reconciled to God and man?

And what of these horrible marriages that happen in Africa and other heathen places where girls very young are given in marriage and end up being pregnant at 12 years old and such - they are taken to hospitals for horrendous surgery because their bodies have not yet fully developed for child birthing.

So Robert - would it be fair to say that perhaps your solution to the problem of young peoples under this kind of dillemma may be ok as long as all parties agree, and that there is repentance and turning back to God, but also that if there is no such agreement between all parties or any other issue that gets in the way of that, then it is best to just confess before God and allow all parties to continue on in Grace and Faith?

Or do you think there will be eternal damnation if the young people cannot get married?

Regards Paul.


 

Paul,

I do recognize you and maybe you knew my wife more than me. I will show my wife your picture when she comes home and S. will tell me all about you. I am sure it will be all good.

I understand exactly what you are saying. There is no black and white solution as each situation is different. Sometimes the parents are not following the Lord and may not agree in marriage or hate the son in law or daughter in law. There is also this false condemnation from Religion when couples get together and rather help them fulfil the marriage they condemn them. And there are other situations as you say where young people are forced into unreasonable heathen marriages. Our children as you know can also turn away from the Lord and Godly direction and have to learn the hard way. In all these circumstances God is greater and can forgive and put us back on track.

Will there be eternal damnation to all young people who did not get married? To some yes and to some no. God knows the situations better than we do and He will be the judge in these matters.

 

God Bless,

Robert.

RobertFlanders Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #24
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Australia
  • Register:22/07/2008 7:39 AM

Re:RCI Members Consider (Fornication doctrine)

Date Posted:25/07/2008 4:21 AMCopy HTML

Reply to Didaktikon

G'day, Robert.

Like all denominations they are not perfect nor have I ever seen the perfect Church as yet. I do not see eye to eye on some issues. One is the issue on fornication I bring up on this post but at least I have provoked them into doing a study on the subject and await their reply. At least we have some sort of communication there and not forced into confessing their doctrine and are open to change. I have leant a lot there on other gifts of the Holy Spirit rather than completely focused on the ‘Speaking in Tongues' subject although I still believe the RCI message on the Holy Spirit.

Right. Concentrating for the present moment on the most salient point in the paragraph, above, are you admitting, here, that you still believe what the RCI teaches concerning the necessity of "tongues", and its supposed linkage to be the "evidence" of having received the Holy Spirit?

There have been and still are a number of ex RCI people there who have been able to move on after their experiences in RCI.

Sure. But there are probably many more still who haven't been able to move from doctrinal nonsense (a la
Revivalism)
to biblical orthodoxy. And I'm starting to worry that you might be one of them.

Regarding "fornication" you need to study what I have said more closely and also the Jewish direction on marriage.

I've studied what you've written in detail, and I've studied the issue from a Jewish perspective in considerable detail (from the primary sources). I'm a little funny that way!

Biblically when two non endowed persons got together sexually they were endowed (engaged) and then married for life at a latter time scheduled by the Father of the Bride.

So you keep saying (and then in spite of evidence to the contrary) Surprised

They were not allowed to continue in sexual involvement until after the marriage.

According to the tractate that I quoted from the Jewish Mishna, they were'nt even allowed to get as far as the marriage ceremony!

The marriage took place once the groom had prepared a place for the bride to live. You will find Biblically and in Jewish culture today that is the direction taken and without a marriage certificate if under legal age. It only became fornication if one of the parties had sexual encounter with another party.

I think I've more than adequately refuted this view. Answer me this: are you in a position to provide references to the sources that you believe supports your position? I'd love to know what they are.

There may be however Jews that do not follow the Word of God the same as many Christians and go some other direction.

Sorry, but such just doesn't wash. What you've alleged to be the case (even among Australian Jewry) simply isn't the case at all. If you still aren't prepared to accept what I say, then by all means visit a local Jewish Temple and speak to the Rabbi. I'm certain that he'll set you straight.

Ian


 

Ian,


Here is your scripture in the OT and the same parallel is in the NT.

Someones age and whether they have a marriage license from the government has no bearing on a marriage or the Word of God. No where was this called fornication, a sin or a penalty imposed.

(Exodus 22 v 16) If any man entice a maid that is not betrothed and lie with her he shall surely endow her to be his wife.

(1 Cor 7 v 9) However if you cannot contain your desires you should get married, it is better for you to get married than to burn with sexual  desire.

Ian if you believe that if some one had a sexual encounter with their life time partner before a marriage certificate was fornication then show me the scripture and the penalty imposed.

Robert.

Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #25
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re:RCI Members Consider (Fornication doctrine)

Date Posted:25/07/2008 4:50 AMCopy HTML

Robert,

Perhaps you haven't been taking notice? I have explained to you what the definition of "fornication" properly means, how the respective Hebrew words for fornication and adultery were translated into Greek dress in the Septuagint, how Paul understood the meaning of the respective terms and so forth. I even conclusively demonstrated what the Jews of roughly the same time period as the NT understood pre-marital sex to be, and what they thought of it.

Why is it that you keep struggling with this issue? Really, I'd like to know. After all, I'd be very interested to discover just how it is that both Church and Synagogue got matters so terribly wrong.

Ian

email: didaktikon@gmail.com
RobertFlanders Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #26
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Australia
  • Register:22/07/2008 7:39 AM

Re:RCI Members Consider (Fornication doctrine)

Date Posted:26/07/2008 3:01 AMCopy HTML

Reply to brolga

Brolga,

The Westminister Confession is a good example of a marriage union. You are correct these are the things that should be taught, rather than the false condemnation on whether some one has a marriage licence or not.

Robert.  

Hi Robert,

You have read into my post something that I wasn't actually refering to.
I was mainly pointing out the fact that if I had had a better understanding of the position of marriage, my situation may have been different.
I have to lean toward Ian's position on matters. Even though it doesn't appear directly from scripture what being married is, in the sight of God, I can see that the Holy Spirit has moved to show the church by the writings of the Apostles etc, that marriage has a special formula (for the want of better words) that needs to be performed other  than cohabitation without it. I'm sure that if it was not neccassary in God's sight, it would not come across in scripture as much as it does.
I hope this makes sense.

brolga

 

Hi Brolga,

I am not saying "do not get a marriage certificate," if it is possible to do so but this is not always possible if the couple are under the legal age or there may be other interference by ungodly parents.

Religion is quick to condemn a young couple who have engaged in sexual activity with each other calling them "Fornicators" before a "Marriage certificate." The Bible does in no way called them "Fornicators" but the direction is for them to be engaged and then married at a date which is determined by the Father of the Bride. (Which would be when the Father is satisfied that the groom is able to provide for the bride) Biblically marriage never had anything to do with some ones age or a marriage certificate from the government. Religion uses the "Fornication" out of context to the Word of God. Biblically the Word "Fornication" in used in the context of prostitution. Incest, beastiality, marriage to the unbelievers, adultery, partner to partner and idolatry. But never to a young couple who had sex before their government marriage certificate unless one of the couple was not loyal to their fiancé and engaged in sexual activity with another party. The direction for the Church is to support the couple to ensure a successful marriage and not this demonic condemnation.

 

God Bless,

Robert.

 

RobertFlanders Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #27
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Australia
  • Register:22/07/2008 7:39 AM

Re:RCI Members Consider (Fornication doctrine)

Date Posted:26/07/2008 3:15 AMCopy HTML

Reply to Didaktikon

Robert,

Perhaps you haven't been taking notice? I have explained to you what the definition of "fornication" properly means, how the respective Hebrew words for fornication and adultery were translated into Greek dress in the Septuagint, how Paul understood the meaning of the respective terms and so forth. I even conclusively demonstrated what the Jews of roughly the same time period as the NT understood pre-marital sex to be, and what they thought of it.

Why is it that you keep struggling with this issue? Really, I'd like to know. After all, I'd be very interested to discover just how it is that both Church and Synagogue got matters so terribly wrong.

Ian


 

Ian,

I have read your posts and you have a lot to say about nothing. You sound bitter and twisted and haunted from demons of the past. Call me what you want as this does not faze me one bit. If you want deliverance from your demons I can help you there if you want. But at the moment your comments are not constructive and vindictive against a lot of people. If you want me to answer your posts then let them be constructive and from the Word of God or else you are wasting my time and your time.


God Bless,

Robert.

Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #28
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re:RCI Members Consider (Fornication doctrine)

Date Posted:26/07/2008 3:42 AMCopy HTML

Hi, Robert.

I have read your posts and you have a lot to say about nothing. Okay.

You sound bitter and twisted and haunted from demons of the past. Do I? Well ... okay.

Call me what you want as this does not faze me one bit. If you want deliverance from your demons I can help you there if you want. At this point I could simply call you biblically and theologically naive, but that probably wouldn't help matters too much. So I guess I'll have to make do with responding to your quip, above: you consider yourself to be something of an 'excorcist', huh?

But at the moment your comments are not constructive and vindictive against a lot of people. Actually, my comments are full of 'meaty' bits of biblical exegesis, and are offered freely to those who have the apetite to 'chew'. But for those who aren't yet ready to be weaned, for those who think more highly of their interpretative skills than is actually warranted, I suppose my comments might not be overly constructive. Pity I'm not in the business of 'tickling ears', isn't it?

If you want me to answer your posts then let them be constructive and from the Word of God or else you are wasting my time and your time. Let's be honest for a moment, you've not engaged with a single point that I've raised thus far, nor have you answered the questions that I've previously put to you. So I reckon it boils down to this: from my perspective, you're about as useful and competent a guide as is Lloyd R. Longfield when it comes to making sense of this issue.

God bless,

Ian

email: didaktikon@gmail.com
Stripes Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #29
  • Rank:Noobmeister
  • Score:420
  • Posts:15
  • From:Australia
  • Register:16/06/2008 9:42 AM

Re:RCI Members Consider (Fornication doctrine)

Date Posted:26/07/2008 10:27 AMCopy HTML

Cont. from 17/7/08
A few weeks ago I was talking to a member of RCI (some still talk to me) and the topic of conversation was the RCI "property investment scandal" and RCI eternal expulsion of fornicators and adulterers. This person agreed that both of these issues had been handled badly and that the morals policy was at best "questionable" from a Biblical view.
I asked him what he intended to do about it, considering that his church was exibiting a woeful testimony.
"God will fix it" was his answer. (In essence he will continue to defend his pastors even though he does not agree or believe they are obeying the word of God.)
God does fix most things, however God also expects all Spirit filled people to "take up the cross and follow me" Mark 10:21.  Elijah-David-Daniel-Philip...many more can be added. These men withstood the enemies and deceivers of God's word, and they overcame victoriously.
Rom. 8:14 "For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God."
God's Spirit does not lead anyone to follow iniquity. No one will be saved simply because they are Spirit filled.
Receiving the Holy Spirit is fundamental for salvation, however if you do not allow the Spirit to lead you. you are not a son of God.
James 4:17 " Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin" He or she is wilfully sinning.
1 Cor 15:34 " Awake to righteousness, and sin not; for some have not the knowledge of God: I speak this to your shame.
RobertFlanders Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #30
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Australia
  • Register:22/07/2008 7:39 AM

Re:RCI Members Consider (Fornication doctrine)

Date Posted:27/07/2008 4:41 AMCopy HTML

Reply to Stripes

Cont. from 22/6/08

The main scriptures that RCI oversight uses to justify the permanent expulsion of fornicators/adulterers are:
1 Cor: 5:5 " To deliver such a one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit (soul) may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus."
1Cor 5:13 "But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from amomg yourselves that wicked person."

There is no doubt that from these scriptures such a sinner must be placed outside of the church for a time. However there is not a shred of evidence that this person should never be able to find his/her way back to fellowship. Quite the opposite!
While this person is out and shows repentance and remorse, what are we his Spirit filled brothers and sisters to do? According to RCI...HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH HIM!
What does the Bible say? After all is not what the Bible says more important than what man says?

James 5:20 " Let him know, that he which converteth (brings back to righteous living) the sinner from the error of his ways shall save a soul (spirit) from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins." Is not this the answer to
1 Cor. 5:5 ?
This is the Bible way of dealing with a repented sinner. Does this reflect RCI policy?

 

Hi Stripes,

In 1 Cor 5 v 11. RCI and many other denominations have also miss interpreted the scripture.

When interpreting the Bible many people interpret fornication as "sex before marriage" which is incorrect and quickly condemn any one who is in this situation. We do not know the reason why some people have not had a marriage ceremony. Many young adults have not been able to marry because they are deemed too young by Government laws or their unbelieving parents do not want them to marry. I see to many people condemned unjustly with this wrong interpretation. When a couple got together sexually the Bible direction was for them to be engaged (as not to be involved with a third party) and then married at an appropriate time. There was no penalty, no sin and was not called "fornication."

Fornication does not mean "sex before marriage." The word "fornication" comes from the word "porneia" which was a district where the heather visited prostitutes thus the term "flee fornication" or "flee porneia" as we read in 1Cor 6 v 18. Two Christian people who have slept together are not prostitutes unless they have slept with another party before. The Bible direction is for them to get married.

When the Bible refers to "fornication" it can also be referring to either man with man, woman with woman, man or woman with beast, prostitution, sex with no intention of marriage, relationship with an unbeliever, incest and idolatry and not someone who may have slept with their lifelong partner before a marriage certificate

Your Bible concordance will also show you that fornication represents "unlawful sex". (prostitution, sex with no intention of marriage, homosexuality, laying with a beast, incest, idolatry and marriage to an unbeliever.) You need to look in your Bible to find what God deems "unlawful sex". Lev 20 would be a good start.  The English dictionary translation on "fornication" is "sex outside marriage" as many Church Leaders translate it but the translators of the bible have used an inappropriate English word and have corrected this in more modern translations of the bible and use words such as immorality or indecency.

The use of the word "fornication" in the bible has never been used to describe a couple who have had a sexual encounter between each other before their marriage ceremony or signing of a State marriage certificate. There was no such thing as a State marriage certificate as such when the scriptures were written. The first recording of a census was for taxes. (Luke 2 v 1-5)

Paul's Prophesy

The Apostle Paul prophesied about young adults and marriage on this problem to those in the "Faith" that departed from His Word.

It is our responsibility that Christians have an easy path to marriage but that is not always the case. Paul warned us of this in the latter days in Timothy 4 v 1-5 of this problem. Paul was not talking about a change in food laws but rather young adults and marriage. We read; Now the Spirit speak expressly, (take note of these words) that in the latter times (the last days) some shall depart from the faith (their trust in God) paying heed (paying attention) to seducing spirits (some of the things a seducing spirit would say- "your too young to get married", "marriage will spoil your life", "if you marry your partner it will end in divorce", "you have nothing in common with your partner", "kids will ruin your life", "you need to have an education before you get married", "enjoy life before you get married", "you will never have any money" etc) and doctrine of devils (miss leading teaching) Speaking lies (falsely/not from Gods word) in hypocrisy (acting/guilty of the same conduct, allowing marriage for themselves but not for others) having their conscience seared with a hot iron. (Not able to distinguish what is lawful and unlawful for a Christian) Forbidding (denying/refusing/hindering) to marry, and commanding (coming from a higher office) to abstain (kept from) from meats (Gods instructions/promises) which God has created to be received (Gods blessings to us) with thanksgiving (our praise to God) of them which believe (rely) and know (recognise/know accurately) the truth (nature of God). For every creature (new born soul) of God is good. (beautiful, handsome, excellent, surpassing, precious, useful, suitable, commendable, admiral, shapely and magnificent) and nothing to be refused (neglected, despised) if it be sanctified (made holy, purified, guided by) by the word of God and prayer. (Communion/relationship/friendship with God).


Robert.

 

Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #31
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re:RCI Members Consider (Fornication doctrine)

Date Posted:27/07/2008 5:34 AMCopy HTML

Robert, Robert, Robert ...

Repeating the same nonsense over and over (and over) doesn't: (a) imbue it with authority, and (b) make it true.

Just a thought.

Ian

email: didaktikon@gmail.com
Ex_Member Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #32
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:21/09/2018 12:36 AM

Re:RCI Members Consider (Fornication doctrine)

Date Posted:27/07/2008 12:18 PMCopy HTML

Robert,

As a theme - Mathew5 v 28, gives us a general theme that if we even look at a woman lustfully we have commited sin.

Lust is lust - and is sin, no matter if it is unmarried people or not.  It is quite clear to me that if two young people who were unmarried had sex, it is a result of lust - sin.  So whether or not a church would call them fornicators or not really doesn't make a difference because it all falls under the sin of lust.  It does not matter the size of the sin.  It does not matter even if it was not a sexual act that was the result of lust, for example lusting after a sportscar, it is still the outcome of lust, then it is sin.

How can you say there is no sin imputed to an unmarried couple who have had sex?  It just doesn't matter what label you put on it or not put on it - it is sin and needs to be repented of.

As I said in my previous post - I can understand how you may have come up with your conclusions, but I cannot agree with them myself.  I certainly do think we ought to deal with pre-marital sex in a biblical way, and not the way RCI and other errant theologically unsound churches do.

In the end of the day, I hope that you will reconsider and re-clarify your position on this issue, and back it up other material that is quotable. 

Robert, I have recently had the pleasure of stripping back my beleifs back to Jesus Christ and Him crucified.  Then I had a look at the basics of theology, and building up a set of beleifs that are well founded in a theology that I agree with, and is a result of higher learning.   Can I suggest you do the same?   You have been grappling with this issue for how many years now? 

Robert, I really want you to have peace on this issue.

This was not intended a a negative cop out, but I understand if you are not in agreeance with me - you don't have to be.

Best regards,

Paul Miles.
Talmid Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #33
  • Rank:Regular Rookier
  • Score:5980
  • Posts:293
  • From:Australia
  • Register:21/04/2008 10:04 PM

Re:RCI Members Consider (Fornication doctrine)

Date Posted:27/07/2008 11:35 PMCopy HTML

Robert

If you *really* believe the interpretation of 1 Ti 4:1-5 that you present here, I'd suggest you do some (humble and prayeful) research into exegesis and hermeneutics (I know they're big words) ie understanding and interpreting the bible. You seem to be carrying on with the Revivalist principles of proof-texting and eisegeis instead of seeking to understand what the author intended. "How to read the bible for all its worth" by Fee and Stuart would be a good place to start. Even 'new agers' find support in the bible for their beliefs when they use your approach to reading it.

Frankly, the 'sight-impaired' approach displayed here is leading you well and truly off the road and into the drainage channel. Wink
The evidence for Mann-made global warming is unequivocal.
Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #34
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re:RCI Members Consider (Fornication doctrine)

Date Posted:28/07/2008 2:38 AMCopy HTML

Robert,

Well, there you have it. A range of Christians have found your arguments on this issue wanting. In fact, a couple of the respondents have even accused you of Scripture wresting (the technical term, which Talmid pointed out to you, being eisegesis) and rightly so! Further, your obstinency doesn't speak well of your teachability, and man, you clearly need to be teachable!

Given the fervency with which you've attempted to defend your POV, I can only assume that you've been dealt with WRT "fornication" yourself (or perhaps someone close to you?). Whether such is the case or not understand this: marriage doesn't "cover the sin". Only repentance does.

Repent, ponder and pray.

Ian
email: didaktikon@gmail.com
Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #35
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re:RCI Members Consider (Fornication doctrine)

Date Posted:28/07/2008 3:08 AMCopy HTML

Ralph,

If culture and times  has to do with how  one should interpret and follow instruction in the Bible, then why is living together as man and wife  outside of marriage  today, considered as fornication when it is now our culture of this century that has made it legal (defacto)? I don't believe you're thinking enough before you start typing. Exegesis, the thing I constantly 'harp' on about, involves us seeking to understand what the biblical message meant to the biblical audience, i.e. to the original recipients intended by the original author. And the biblical message was given within a specific cultural context. But it doesn't simply end there! Once we've worked out what the writing meant, we have to work out what the writing means: we have to decipher the current relevance of that message, for/to us, today: from sense to significance.

Modern ethical theory would have us believe that ethics are 'situational', i.e. that 'right' and 'wrong' are constructs that are to be determined by the particulars of the situation: by-and-large through pragmaticism. This theory is frequently superimposed atop the biblical record as well, to the effect that 'absolutes' are reinterpreted to be 'relativities'. But Scripture is not so easily constrained to whatever might be the dominant social theory of the day. Consider Paul. His world was principally that of Judaism; his ethics were built around Torah. However, as a Christian he was a cross-cultural missionary: he applied the principles that underpinned his ethical system into the practicalities of the Greco-Roman culture in which he missioned. But he didn't do so 'situationally'. Paul 'exegeted' Scripture to derive the timeless, a-cultural message that God intended to be 'absolute'/'universal'. It's just that we're 2,000 years further removed from Paul!

'Common law' marriage has a long history; it isn't simply a product of the 20th and 21st centuries! Whether or not our culture 'legitimises'/legalises de facto relationships, or abortion-on-demand, or euthenasia, or active homosexually isn't the issue. The issue for Christians is this: in God's moral schema such matters are just as wrong today as they were 2,000 years ago (in a Greco-Roman context), or 3,500 years ago (in a Canaanite context).

My recommendation is that Christians should take the time to read the short, post-Apostolic writing known as the Epistle of Mathetes to Diognetus (you should be able to find it on-line, somewhere). It pretty much sums up some ageless Christian ethical truths, and then from an author who lived in a culture very much like our own!

You can probably say that to any situation now, gay marriage and etc., It's even happening in church circles as well. Yes, but only in circles where God's Word and Church teaching are deemed to be largely irrelevant.

Blessings,

Ian

email: didaktikon@gmail.com
RobertFlanders Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #36
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Australia
  • Register:22/07/2008 7:39 AM

Re:RCI Members Consider (Fornication doctrine)

Date Posted:28/07/2008 4:21 AMCopy HTML

Hi Epi,

I will respond to your post as you seem to be the only one who actually searches and studies the scriptures.

Here are some scriptures OT and NT regarding sexual intimacy between a couple. You will see that there is no penalty nor has it been called "fornication."

Exodus 22 v 16 If any man entice a maid that is not betrothed and lie with her he shall surely endow her to be his wife. If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him (for no money), he shall pay the money according to the dowry of virgins. (and then marry her)

Deut 22 v 28-29 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her and lie with her and they be found; Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's  father fifty shekels of silver and she shall be his wife because he has humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.

1 Cor 7 v 9 However if you cannot contain your desires you should get married, it is better for you to get married than to burn with sexual desire.

1 Cor 7 v 36 But if any man think that he behaveth himself uncomely toward his virgin, if she pass the flower of her age, and need so require, let him do what he will, he sinneth not, let them marry.

The Biblical direction is for the Father and the Church is for the couple to be engaged and married at an appropriate time and not condemn the couple. It would only become fornication if one of the couples was not loyal to their partner and found another partner rather than fulfilling the marriage. (This would have been revealed by the blood on the wedding night) The couple were not to continue in sexual activity until after the marriage. The groom was to go and prepare a home for the bride and once this was done the father of the bride allowed the marriage. Sometimes a dowry would be paid also before the marriage took place.

 

Epi if you have some scriptural examples on your interpretation then please show them to me. Or if anybody else reading this post wants to show me their scriptural examples on their interpretation without negative, baseless talk then show them to me.

 

Robert.

RobertFlanders Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #37
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Australia
  • Register:22/07/2008 7:39 AM

Re:RCI Members Consider (Fornication doctrine)

Date Posted:28/07/2008 5:00 AMCopy HTML

Reply to misterkilometres
Robert,

As a theme - Mathew5 v 28, gives us a general theme that if we even look at a woman lustfully we have commited sin.

Lust is lust - and is sin, no matter if it is unmarried people or not.  It is quite clear to me that if two young people who were unmarried had sex, it is a result of lust - sin.  So whether or not a church would call them fornicators or not really doesn't make a difference because it all falls under the sin of lust.  It does not matter the size of the sin.  It does not matter even if it was not a sexual act that was the result of lust, for example lusting after a sportscar, it is still the outcome of lust, then it is sin.

How can you say there is no sin imputed to an unmarried couple who have had sex?  It just doesn't matter what label you put on it or not put on it - it is sin and needs to be repented of.

As I said in my previous post - I can understand how you may have come up with your conclusions, but I cannot agree with them myself.  I certainly do think we ought to deal with pre-marital sex in a biblical way, and not the way RCI and other errant theologically unsound churches do.

In the end of the day, I hope that you will reconsider and re-clarify your position on this issue, and back it up other material that is quotable. 

Robert, I have recently had the pleasure of stripping back my beleifs back to Jesus Christ and Him crucified.  Then I had a look at the basics of theology, and building up a set of beleifs that are well founded in a theology that I agree with, and is a result of higher learning.    Can I suggest you do the same?    You have been grappling with this issue for how many years now? 

Robert, I really want you to have peace on this issue.

This was not intended a a negative cop out, but I understand if you are not in agreeance with me - you don't have to be.

Best regards,

Paul Miles.

Hi Paul,

My wife S. knows you and N well when she saw your picture. S and N apparently have known each other for some time. S sends her best to both of you. Yes I have been on this message for some time because of the baseless condemnation of the youth. At times sex can be a lust with no intent of marriage which is a sin and condemn but in many cases it also can be the part of the intimacy of love between two people and should be responded with support for marriage by the Church and parents and not this baseless condemnation.

 

Here are some scriptures OT and NT regarding sexual intimacy between a couple. You will see that there is no penalty nor has it been called “fornication.”

Exodus 22 v 16 If any man entice a maid that is not betrothed and lie with her he shall surely endow her to be his wife. If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him (for no money), he shall pay the money according to the dowry of virgins. (and then marry her)

Deut 22 v 28-29 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her and lie with her and they be found; Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel’s  father fifty shekels of silver and she shall be his wife because he has humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.

1 Cor 7 v 9 However if you cannot contain your desires you should get married, it is better for you to get married than to burn with sexual desire.

1 Cor 7 v 36 But if any man think that he behaveth himself uncomely toward his virgin, if she pass the flower of her age, and need so require, let him do what he will, he sinneth not, let them marry.

The Biblical direction is for the Father and the Church is for the couple to be engaged and married at an appropriate time and not condemn the couple. It would only become fornication if one of the couples was not loyal to their partner and found another partner rather than fulfilling the marriage. (This would have been revealed by the blood on the wedding night) The couple were not to continue in sexual activity until after the marriage. The groom was to go and prepare a home for the bride and once this was done the father of the bride allowed the marriage. Sometimes a dowry would be paid also before the marriage took place.

 

Paul I respect your thoughts on this and maybe we cannot see eye to eye on this but thanks for your dignified response to this subject. As you can see this forum is a mind field when you have something to say. I am also happy where I am and the approach I am taking.

 

God Bless,

Robert.




Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #38
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re:RCI Members Consider (Fornication doctrine)

Date Posted:28/07/2008 5:16 AMCopy HTML

Buenos dias, Roberto.

I will respond to your post as you seem to be the only one who actually searches and studies the scriptures. Or, perhaps it's more a case that you simply refuse to accept the advice previously provided to you by me?

The Biblical direction is for the Father and the Church is for the couple to be engaged and married at an appropriate time and not condemn the couple. Really? Would you please show me a single Scripture that says a Christian couple needs to become engaged and married after engaging in illicit coitus. I can find several that provide advice of this sort prior to the sin, but can't find any that take effect after the act.

It would only become fornication if one of the couples was not loyal to their partner and found another partner rather than fulfilling the marriage. (This would have been revealed by the blood on the wedding night). Ah, but we've already addressed what the appropriate Hebrew and Greek words mean, haven't we?

The couple were not to continue in sexual activity until after the marriage. The groom was to go and prepare a home for the bride and once this was done the father of the bride allowed the marriage. Sometimes a dowry would be paid also before the marriage took place. You've said this several times now, but as I requested previously, I'd like for you to quote for me the references that support the above contention. After all, I've already shown you what the Jews of Jesus' day thought, taught and practiced. Oh, and BTW, the Jewish custom was for the young groom to move in and live with the brides's parents during the first year of the marriage. The custom with the Greeks was for the bride and groom to move into the groom's father's house after the marriage. Yet again you've demonstrated that your opinions simply idea aren't supported by the facts of history. We should be surprised?!

Epi if you have some scriptural examples on your interpretation then please show them to me. Or if anybody else reading this post wants to show me their scriptural examples on their interpretation without negative, baseless talk then show them to me. I suppose we could could start with 1 Corinthians 7:1(b)-2, which actually introduces the context of the passage you've proof-texted for us previously. '"...It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman." But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband.' (ESV). The word translated "sexual immorality" in our passage is porneias, the accusative plural form of porneia, the proper meaning of which I addressed in an earlier post on a different thread.

'Man' and 'woman'; not 'husband/betrothed' and 'another woman'. 'Sexual immorality' (i.e. fornication); not adultery. Are you getting any of this yet?

You're wrong. Accept it, repent, and move forwards.

Ian 

email: didaktikon@gmail.com
Talmid Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #39
  • Rank:Regular Rookier
  • Score:5980
  • Posts:293
  • From:Australia
  • Register:21/04/2008 10:04 PM

Re:RCI Members Consider (Fornication doctrine)

Date Posted:28/07/2008 6:49 AMCopy HTML

Yo Robert,

First let me be clear that as far as I can see forgiveness and restoration is available to any one who confesses and repents of any sin.

Or if anybody else reading this post wants to show me their scriptural examples on their interpretation without negative, baseless talk then show them to me.

You actually provide your own counter-example viz, Ex 22:16-17. Your parenthetical additions (a somewhat bold move given how carefully God regards His word), which quite change the meaning of the verses, are unwarranted as far as I can see. You'll see it clearly for yourself when you look at translations closer to today's English than the AV e.g., Msg, Amp, NLT, ESV, NIV. I'd be interested to know if there are any translations by people who can actually read the ancient Hebrew which support your 'additions'.

The text actually gives the father the option of refusing to give his daughter to the 'seducer'. Also, a penalty is imposed here. The seducer is required to pay an amount equivalent to the dowry even if he isn't given the daughter.

.
.
.

On a more serious note, did I understand correctly your comments in another thread that you still believe the RCI link between tongues and the Holy Spirit - that glossolalia/tongues are the sign that one has received the Spirit?
The evidence for Mann-made global warming is unequivocal.
Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #40
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re:RCI Members Consider (Fornication doctrine)

Date Posted:28/07/2008 7:35 AMCopy HTML

Hola, Talmid.

I think Robert's probably exhausted himself, biblically-speaking, with his three or four frequently misquoted proof-texts. FWIW I don't think I'll continue to humuour his profound (but willful) ignorance for very much longer. As the old apophthegm goes: "...you can hold a horse's head under water, but even then he probably won't drink"!

Rob's just another re-badged Revivalist who thinks more highly of his "doctrine" than is warranted.

Blessings,

Ian
email: didaktikon@gmail.com
Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #41
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re:RCI Members Consider (Fornication doctrine)

Date Posted:29/07/2008 1:42 AMCopy HTML

Robert,

I thought it best to briefly summarise the reasons why your understanding of this subject is not only deficient but wrong.

1. Lexical errors. Quite simply you don't understand the languages concerned, or how they work. You've consistently sought to 're-interpret' the proper meanings of the Hebrew and Greek words used in Scripture to describe adultery and fornication so that they better conform to your preferred position. Further, your error extends to not properly discerning certain rhetorical features employed within Hebrew and Greek. In short, armed with nothing more substantial than an active imagination and a Strong's Concordance you've effectively claimed that every biblical scholar from both Jewish and Christian traditions, has misunderstood the languages in which they work daily. Quite the claim from a person who wouldn't know how to differentiate a Hebrew waw consecutive from a Greek second class condition!

2. Cultural errors. You've consistently trotted out nonsense along the lines of: (a) a young 'groom-in-waiting' needed to establish a home (after doing the 'deed') before his future father-in-law would release his daughter into his care. And, (2) that modern Jews follow the practice that you outlined WRT the lengthy 'engagement' post illicit intercourse between underaged children. None of your claims can be supported by the slightest shred of historical or sociological evidence; and when presented with the same, you cavalierly dismiss it as of no consequence! Add arrogance to your ignorance, bro'.

3. Contextual errors. In typical Revivalist fashion you've done nothing more than trawl through Scripture to try to find passages that you believe supports your POV. And when you came across something that looked 'promising', you simply lifted a verse from here, and a verse from there, completely ignoring the contexts in which such verses fitted. "A text without its context is a pretext for a proof-text", as I'm so fond of saying.

4. Theological errors. You clearly have no understanding of the various branches of theology, whether systematic (dogmatic) or biblical. Consequently, you've no personl grid through which to (a) make sense of the biblical data, or (b) to test your theories against. In short, you clearly believe yourself to be much smarter than the facts actually warrant. But you're not. You're simply another misguided soul who has gone astray by following tangents rather than the one true and straight path.

The RCI is guilty of error at one extreme, and you're guilty of the same error at the other extreme!

Repent, dude.

Ian

email: didaktikon@gmail.com
RCI prophesies
Copyright © 2000-2019 Aimoo Free Forum All rights reserved.