No, He did not. TOBY:
Who, in any church, puts their faith in their priest rather than in Jesus? What an absurd accusation 😂😂 #hotgarbage SKUNK: I've seen you use the passage regarding the qualifications of an elder in order to argue that polygamy (and whatever else sexual perversions you fancy) is not sinful. What it means to honour the seventh commandment is basic knowledge for believers, which you clearly refuse. You think you all of a sudden have the proper reasoning faculty to think correctly about the difference between the true and the counterfeit priesthoods (Ps 50:16)? #moralCarcass TOBY: That would indeed be a strange way to use that passage, and if that’s how you understood my argument then that’s on you. But all of this is simply a red herring. I’ll ask again. Who, in any church, puts their faith in their priest instead of in Jesus? I’ve never heard of such a thing. SKUNK: As for me, I've never heard of such a thing as a Christian who is so desperate to justify his heart of lust that he uses 1Ti 3 to do it. TOBY: Neither have I, like I said I agree that would be a very odd way to use that scripture, and I would call it out if I saw such an absurd take. It seems like you’ve misunderstood, or certainly choose to misrepresent, something that I did say about that particular passage. Sorry my meaning went over your head, but this is not a mature way to solve our discrepancies. False accusations have no place in Christian discussion. SKUNK: I've just read your post regarding 1Ti 3 more carefully. I sincerely apologize for the hasty accusation. So you do believe that polygamy is a sin then? TOBY: Apology accepted 🖤 I would have to say no, but it’s complicated: I believe that passage is not adequate nor intended to label it a sin. I believe the Bible has plenty of opportunity to condemn polygamy, but it doesn’t seem to. Indeed, the Bible has certain points where it would have been easy to condemn polygamy, but it seems to accept it in the culture. Consider when God sends a prophet to David, to convict him of his adultery: he says God gave him the wives he already had, and all his riches, and /would have given him more/ if it would have prevented his adultery. If we accept the traditional definition of adultery, as sex with someone other than one’s spouse, it then seems logical that God was more upset by David’s adultery with Bathsheba, than with David’s plural marriage. We see other Jewish patriarchs who practiced polygamy, and it is apparently not condemned as sinful, from what I can find in scripture. That being said, it seems both practical and likely that polygamy may not be the ideal. But I believe to truly label something sin, we should have a clear biblical precedent for that statement. So I’m likewise hesitant to label things like cannabis, tobacco, or cocaine sinful, even if I don’t believe they’re necessarily beneficial or practical for Christian life. hope that all makes sense. For what it’s worth, I have no intention of practicing polygamy, maybe I’ll decide I wanna be a deacon someday. SKUNK: Well, you've just made my apology of no account then, didn't you? The whole message of Nathan to David in 2Sa 12 is that David’s sin is exposed before God and that he will be punished; and the sin's heinousness is emphasized by comparing it to David's other everyday vices which themselves are sinful. So through Nathan, God says that it would have been more preferable for David to have committed the lesser evil of spending his lust on concubines, than to have done the greater evil of robbing another man of his wife; and God by virtue of His ownership of all things would have providentially provided more concubines. There is silence however as to whether or not God approves of having concubines. And God’s silence does not mean approval any more than David’s being spared from death penalty means that David has not committed adultery and assassination. But you know about the more ambiguous passage of 2Sa 12:8, and yet you willfully ignore the clear passages that upholds the sexual union of one man and one woman through monogamy as the only design of God. It is the Lord Himself you refuse to listen who sees monogamous marriage as the only lawful relationship before God (Mt 19). The apostles affirm that no Christian is characterized by any manner of sexual immorality including fornication and adultery (which certainly includes today's Internet pornography) (1Co 6), and they of course make as the first and foremost qualification of an elder or a deacon their sexual purity (1Ti 3) -- their being a "one-woman man." If you were living in Paul's Corinthian church, you would be excommunicated, because you wouldn't even be considered as a Christian believer, much less be qualified to be a deacon (1Co 5). TOBY: I just think it’s interesting that Nathan tells David God would have given him more: God, mind you, who does not tempt anyone to sin. Consider too Deuteronomy 25, where it describes the duty of a man to marry his brother’s widow, and have children with her, and the punishment and shame if he refuses to do so. It’s interesting to note that this passage doesn’t seem concerned with whether or not the man is already married, but the alternative to him doing his duty is that he just doesn’t wish to do it. God would never tempt any man to sin though. Are you saying I’d be excommunicated for simply having an unpopular opinion, yielding to scripture? Can a man not discuss what the Bible does and does not condemn, without being guilty of things he hasn’t even done? SKUNK: You are right in saying that God does not tempt anyone (Jas 1:13). And God is not tempting David in 2Sa 12, but judging him by saying that even his sexual sins with the concubines are insignificant compared to his violent sin with Bathsheba. All sins are heinous -- and it is already written in Dt 17:17 that kings should NOT have multiple wives -- and there are degrees of heinousness to God. Again, God's silence about David's polygamy (which is simply adultery) and his concubines (more adultery) SO OBVIOUSLY does not translate to approval, because God's entire purpose of sending Nathan was to confront David for ONE particularly heinous sin. The levirate marriage in Dt 25 assumes that the brother-in-law of a widow is unmarried himself. Again, you are using silence from a text to justify your willful rejection of the Bible's clear teaching on sexual purity. I'm saying that when the church finds out about your unwillingness to say that the only sexually pure relationship is between one man and one woman in a marriage, obviously they will know that the sexual immorality your brain has allowed is not just isolated to polygamy. Then they rightfully will have a disciplinary talk with you. And if you don't submit to Scripture, including Paul's own letter (1Co 5, 6, 7), then they will surely cast you out as Paul directed (1Co 5:11-13). TOBY: Why did God take credit for giving David the wives he had? SKUNK: Because God is the Owner of all things, and God is the one who destined David to be the king of Israel, and it is God who established him. At the same time, God does not approve of sin. And I've already shown you that God is against kings' having multiple wives.
0 Comments
Your comment will be posted after it is approved.
Leave a Reply. |
CategoriesAll Discourse Doctrines Gospel Humour NT Commentaries OT Commentaries Tactical Life Date
August 2023
|