[George]

Originally Posted by custer

"I believe the only "no condemnation" for saved people is conditional on not walking after the flesh (Romans 8:1.) How could one choose to have such an intimate union as marriage with a friend of the world (THE ENEMY OF GOD-James 4:4) and be walking after the Spirit?"

"As I stated in my last post, I don't see how I Cor. 7:39 could be any clearer!"

"And as far as being "unequally yoked," I looked up some English definitions... One of the definitions of "yoke" in an old (1828) and a new (1999) dictionary is "join," and BOTH of my dictionaries use MARRIAGE as an illustration under "yoke." (For "yoke," the newer Webster's says "TIE, LINK, esp. MARRIAGE." [The all-caps were in the dictionary!])"

"In First Corinthians 6:15-16, the "members of Christ" are (of course) the antithesis of the "members of an harlot." In a general sense, could not the "members of Christ" correlate to believers, while the "members of an harlot" would most likely be unbelievers? At the idea of joining them, Paul says "God forbid!"

"In our original example of marriage, God joined two "sons of God." (Luke 3:38 with Genesis 5:2) Saved people are "sons of God" (John 1:12 and I John 3:1 it is not consistent to assume that God would join his sons to the sons of Belial."

"In addition, there are numerous Bible principles that definitely can apply to a marriage relationship even if the word "marriage" is not in the passage:
Amos 3:3 "Can two walk together, except they be agreed?"
I Cor. 15:33 "Be not deceived: evil communications corrupt good manners."
I Timothy 6:1-5 (That's a lot of typing...look it up!) Lost people don't "consent to...the words of our Lord Jesus Christ," so the command is to "withdraw thyself," not "go ahead and hang around them...better yet, marry one too!"
"II Timothy 3:1-5 (Another long passage...) This one has the list of folks we're supposed to "turn away" from, and it includes "blasphemers," "unholy," and "lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God," terms that can obviously be applied to lost people!"

"How can you promote the idea that there are "NO PENALTIES" for acting in direct opposition to God's written word? How can you believe there are "NO PENALTIES" just because the Bible does not specify the consequences for every one of our actions? It's like God giving us his express desires and us saying "Or else, what?!?" Unthinkable!"


Pam
www.custerfamilyfarm.com

Pam,

Did you read my Post #51? If you did - can you quote one place WHERE I recommended that a Christian should marry a lost person? Just one place - maybe?

Did you SKIP that part where I said:

"Now, am I recommending that a Christian marry a lost person? Of course NOT! I always recommend that a Christian marry "in the Lord"; but if they have married "outside of the faith", there is NO "penalty" - it's NOT the "same" as in the Old Testament. And although I DO NOT RECOMMEND marrying a lost person, there is NO CONDEMNATION if you have."

What I am not going to do is "condemn" a Christian who HAS MARRIED a lost person, and put a STUMBLING BLOCK before them over the matter! And you had better be extremely careful that you don't either.

Read my Post - don't just proceed with your private opinion on this matter and disregard what I said in regards of the use of 2 Corinthians 6:1-18 as a prohibition to marriage; because I clearly demonstrated, from the Scriptures, that the verses cited have NOTHING to do with MARRIAGE - and everything to do with doing the "WORK" of God with unbelievers!

Can you not read English? I said: "I DO NOT RECOMMEND marrying a lost person". But if a Christian has already married a lost person, are you going to "CONDEMN" them? Hmmm? Are you going to claim that such a marriage is LESS PERFECT than the marriage of two saved people? I said: "I always recommend that a Christian marry "in the Lord". You completely MISSED MY POINT!

WHERE did I: "promote the idea that there are "NO PENALTIES" for acting in direct opposition to God's written word?" Hmmm? But IF a Christian is already married to a lost person we have NO BUSINESS "condemning" them - that's all there is to it!

You said:

"In a general sense, could not the "members of Christ" correlate to believers, while the "members of an harlot" would most likely be unbelievers?"

I don't deal in "In a general sense"; "could not" (?) or "most likely" - those terms involve "SPECULATION", and when it comes to the Holy words of God I try to avoid personal "SPECULATION" at all costs. Your personal concept of a marriage between a saved person and a lost person is a private interpretation and PERVERTS what God has said about them!"

1 Corinthians 7:12 But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away.
13 And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him.
14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.
15 But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace.

16 For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? or how knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife?

Do you understand these verses? An UNBELIEVING Husband is "SANCTIFIED" by his BELIEVING WIFE! An UNBELIEVING WIFE is "SANCTIFIED" by her BELIEVING HUSBAND (she is NOT considered a "HARLOT" as you have so "graciously" judged!)! Do you understand the meaning of the word "SANCTIFIED"? That marriage IS SANCTIFIED by God; and in God's eyes the UNBELIEVING SPOUSE is "SANCTIFIED" by the BELIEVING SPOUSE - whether you agree with God or not; and whether you like it or not!

You had better be REAL CAREFUL in CONDEMNING these marriages (or the people in them), because, according to God's Holy word - God makes them "right" (in His sight) - in spite of a believer's poor judgment!

I grow tired of people (like yourself) taking my words out of context. I grow weary of people taking my words and twisting them, and making them say something I DID NOT SAY! And I especially get upset when someone (like yourself) IGNORES most of what I have said and tries to put words in my mouth - which I never uttered!

As to the "DEFINITION" of the word "YOKE" in the Holy Bible. If you want the Bible "Definition" of a word in the Bible, you look up every single verse in the Bible where that word is USED, and get God's "DEFINITION" - NOT some man's personal "opinion" of what a word "means"!

There are 53 places in the Old Testament where the word "YOKE" is used; and there are 6 verses in the New Testament where it is used. In addition, in the New Testament, there is one place where the word "YOKED" is used and one place where the word "YOKEFELLOW" is used.

I am not going to list all 61 verses here, but I have READ them - and NO WHERE'S IN THE ENTIRE BIBLE is the word "YOKE" EVER USED TO DESCRIBE "MARRIAGE"! If you don't believe me - READ them (check them out), but if you refuse to READ them, then don't give us this HOGWASH of some "Dictionary" applying the word "YOKE" to marriage, when the Bible SAYS NOTHING OF THE SORT!

The Holy Bible is ALWAYS its own BEST DICTIONARY! But it takes WORK to read ALL of those verses, and it's so much EASIER just to go to some man (or men) and get their "OPINION" as to what a Bible word "means", rather than read through 50, or 100, or possibly hundreds of verses (such as the word heart, etc.) to find out what God has to say about it.

Is the "DICTIONARY" your "FINAL AUTHORITY" or is the King James Bible your FINAL AUTHORITY in ALL matters of faith and practice? Hmmm?

There are far too many saved people married to unsaved people in the world today, for us to go around and judge that all of those unsaved spouses are the equivalent to "HARLOTS"!

Let's be absolutely clear - I have never recommended (on the AV1611 Bible Forums) that a saved person marry a lost person. I do not recommend it; but IF a saved person IS MARRIED to a lost person I DO NOT CONDEMN them or their "Marriage", and neither does God - and neither should you!

John 7:24 Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.

[custer]

George,
As is obvious to anyone reading this thread, YOU are the one who has resorted to personal attacks and are twisting and ignoring MY words! Even a cursory reading of your post #71 reveals that your primary goal was to be inflammatory, not to discuss scripture as is supposed to be our purpose here! Of the dozen Bible references I gave in my post #63, I believe you only commented on ONE, and then you only mentioned it in order to fuss on my proposed correlation! Furthermore, why would you spend a third of your post railing on me for looking up an English word in an English dictionary but refuse to discuss the plain scriptural exhortations and commands that I listed?

By the way, YOU could benefit from the use of an English dictionary - When I said "In a general sense," the word "general" is defined as "concerned with universal rather than particular aspects," so my proposed correlation is legitimate! Also, I cannot understand why anyone would have a problem speculating that a harlot would "most likely" be an unbeliever ("Ye shall know them by their fruits." Matthew 7:16.) [I DID NOT say or speculate, as you slanderously reported, that all "unsaved spouses are the equivalent to harlots." While you're looking up "general," you should check out "correlate," too - "to bear mutually corresponding relations." This embodies exactly what I meant to say...that the harlot in that passage could represent a lost person!]

Now can we discuss scripture or not? And can you do it civilly?

Pam
www.custerfamilyfarm.com

[custer]

George,
After a few re-reads of these posts, I have come to a conclusion - that you and I are "not on the same page," not in regard to our belief system, but in what we are TRYING to discuss. It was my understanding that the original hijack of this thread had to do with a saved person currently choosing to marry a lost person, not (as I believe you are trying to defend) "what about if a saved and lost person are already married."

The fact remains that you slandered me (well, libeled me, because it's not oral,) and you strongly intimated that I couldn't even read and didn't hold the Bible as my "final authority." You don't even know me! I did not, as you claim that people "like [my]self do," take your words out of context, twist them, ignore them, or put words into your mouth; on the contrary, the only part of my post that had anything to do directly with YOU was the "NO PENALTIES" quote (and you DID state that quite emphatically!) But just to clarify, I am trying to discuss a saved person choosing to marry a lost person, not a saved and lost person already married; that may make a difference in what you were saying and/or in how I used your quote. Agreed? However, I still don't understand why you came out of the gate swinging!

Besides the inflammatory remarks, one thing that you asked did disquiet me - a question you asked in regard to a marriage between a saved and lost person..."Are you going to claim that such a marriage is LESS PERFECT than the marriage of two saved people?" I wouldn't just "claim" that, I would declare it unequivocably!!! The first thing that comes to mind is Amos 3:3, "Can two walk together, except they be agreed?" There is a myriad of things that a saved person and a lost person cannot agree on, so in order to keep the peace, they wouldn't be able to share those things...the fewer things you share, the greater the distance between you. How about a love for the King James Bible? There would be a great gulf between me and my husband if we did not share that conviction. Oh, but wait, MAYBE if you are talking about a saved but backslidden person I MAY be able to concede that that marriage MIGHT could be as satisfying (as "perfect," in your words) as any marriage between two LOST people...

I simply must go for now! I kind of hate that we hijacked this thread, because I am still working on a study of the original "love and race" topic! Oh well, maybe later...

Pam
www.custerfamilyfarm.com

[custer]

Originally Posted by George

Pam,

Can you not read English?

As to the "DEFINITION" of the word "YOKE" in the Holy Bible. If you want the Bible "Definition" of a word in the Bible, you look up every single verse in the Bible where that word is USED, and get God's "DEFINITION" - NOT some man's personal "opinion" of what a word "means"!

There are 53 places in the Old Testament where the word "YOKE" is used; and there are 6 verses in the New Testament where it is used. In addition, in the New Testament, there is one place where the word "YOKED" is used and one place where the word "YOKEFELLOW" is used.

I am not going to list all 61 verses here, but I have READ them - and NO WHERE'S IN THE ENTIRE BIBLE is the word "YOKE" EVER USED TO DESCRIBE "MARRIAGE"! If you don't believe me - READ them (check them out), but if you refuse to READ them, then don't give us this HOGWASH of some "Dictionary" applying the word "YOKE" to marriage, when the Bible SAYS NOTHING OF THE SORT!

The Holy Bible is ALWAYS its own BEST DICTIONARY! But it takes WORK to read ALL of those verses, and it's so much EASIER just to go to some man (or men) and get their "OPINION" as to what a Bible word "means", rather than read through 50, or 100, or possibly hundreds of verses (such as the word heart, etc.) to find out what God has to say about it.

Is the "DICTIONARY" your "FINAL AUTHORITY" or is the King James Bible your FINAL AUTHORITY in ALL matters of faith and practice? Hmmm?

In answer to your sarcastic, condescending (not to mention juvenile) question, yes, George, I CAN read English! For the record, I had a 4.0 in all my college English courses...and I have a greater-than-3rd-grade understanding of English parts of speech which means that I can see that when a word is used as a NOUN instead of a VERB, it sometimes has a VERY different meaning (Bible or dictionary!) as is the case with your pet word "YOKE!" I HAVE read ALL the verses in question, and I would LOVE to see you run the references and give me a BIBLE DEFINITION for the word "YOKED" in II Corinthians six because I have not been able to find that word (or "yoke" or "yokes" etc.) used as a VERB (which anybody who can "read English" knows has a completely different meaning than the word "yoke" as a NOUN) anywhere else in the Bible! In addition, anyone who read all the references to "yoke," etc., in the Bible, would come to the EXACT SAME CONCLUSION about the definition that Webster did...that to "yoke" (as a verb) is to "join!" (In the preface to his 1828 edition, Webster gives God the glory for his work, and the introduction and the dictionary itself are replete with Bible references.) The point is that the fact that a word is used "X number" of times in the Bible can be totally irrelevant to its actual meaning in a specific passage...

Pam
www.custerfamilyfarm.com

[George]

My "comments" in BLUE.

Partial quote from custer's Post #41

"I disagree with most of what has been posted on this thread, but I DON'T want to argue - I would like to try to understand where y'all are coming from!"

custer said:

"I DON'T want to argue". For a woman who claims: "I DON'T want to argue" - you sure have been doing a whole lot of it lately! Out of 73 Posts on the Thread "Love and Race" you have posted at least 11 of them! Lets see, that works out to about 15% of all of the Posts regarding this issue - NOT BAD for a woman who claimed: "I DON'T want to argue". {Especially since 9 of those 11 Posts were made AFTER YOU SPOKE THOSE WORDS!}

custer’s Post #37

“Maybe this is too simplistic, but...”

”How can "race" be a "Darwinian concept," when Noah Webster's 1828 dictionary defines race as {Does “Noah Webster's 1828 dictionary” = A Christian’s Final Authority in all matters of faith and practice? I trow NOT!}
"1. The lineage of a family, or continued series of descendants from a parent who is called the stock. A race is the series of descendants indefinitely. Thus all mankind are called the race of Adam; the Israelites are the race of Abraham and Jacob." ???
{Straining at “gnats” – a “device” used by sophists.}

custer’s Post #41

“I disagree with most of what has been posted on this thread, but I DON'T want to argue - I would like to try to understand where y'all are coming from!”

{For someone who claims that they “don’t want to argue” – you sure have done a whole lot of it in this Thread! Do you truly want “to understand where y'all are coming from!” or are you just saying it? Do you really “mean” what you say, or do you just say things for “effect”?}

“My point is that if we are not supposed to take any note of "race" now that we're in Christ, why are we to notice any PHYSICAL difference in male and female - the verse DOES say "there is neither male nor female!!!" So I just want to know how you reconcile that...”
{Disingenuous and straining at “gnats” (again), and not only that, a clever subterfuge to support a fallacious argument – another “device” used by sophists. The Sodomites use the same kind of “LOGIC” when comparing themselves to Blacks and demanding “EQUAL RIGHTS” when it comes to marriage! It's amazing what "schooling" can do for some people!}

And now we come to your disingenuous comments on my wife’s (Renee) Post #40.

custer’s Post # 62

{In your very FIRST comment in regards to my wife’s Post - You CHANGE my wife’s “words”! Did my wife say: “that it is fine for a saved person to marry a lost person”? You see, you have this nasty habit of taking someone else’s words and twisting them; and taking them out of context; and making them say something other than WHAT THEY SAID! My wife (Renee) DID NOT SAY: “that it is fine for a saved person to marry a lost person” – She said: “I see nothing in Chapter 7 of first Corinthians (where it deals with men and women) that has any forbidding of someone marrying an unbeliever.”}

Your partial quote of 1 Corinthians 7:39 DOES NOT say that a saved person is “FORBIDDEN” to marry a lost person:

1 Corinthians 7:39 The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord.]

Did the Apostle Paul FORBID a saved person from marrying a lost person in 1 Corinthians 7:39? Are you reading into the verse something other than what it said? (like you do with my wife’s words and with mine also) He said a saved widow is at liberty “to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord.” My wife clearly said: “I see nothing in Chapter 7 of first Corinthians (where it deals with men and women) that has any forbidding of someone marrying an unbeliever.”

Paul gave instructions to a believer to marry “only in the Lord”. He did not FORBID a saved person from marrying a lost person (Paul didn’t deal with that specific issue.)

And as I said in my Post #51 (and reiterated in my Post #71) - "I always recommend that a Christian marry "in the Lord". And "I DO NOT RECOMMEND marrying a lost person". But what you MISSED is that my Post #51 was dealing with “biblereaders” response to Renee’s Post #48, where “biblereader” claimed:

“Don't you agree that God was filled with wrath, when his people intermarried with non-Hebrews? God said NOT to marry anyone outside the faith.
It's all through the Old Testament. All through it. And, the penalties for disobeying God, by marrying someone NOT of their faith.”

”Same holds true today.” {UNTRUE!}

“A Christian has very little in common with a non-Christian.” {DUH!}

Since my wife (Renee quoted 2Corinthians 6:14 and “biblereader” was “taking issue” with her, I thought it would be proper to inform her that, in the context, the whole Chapter 6 of 2Corinthians had absolutely NOTHING TO DO WITH MARRIAGE - that is UNLESS someone takes the verses OUT OF CONTEXT and privately interprets them to prove a “theological point”!

Christians can “SPITITUALIZE” verses in the Bible to “MEAN” anything they want to (just like all Cults do), but “spiritualizing” Bible verses DOES NOT produce SOUND DOCTRINE. I want to know WHAT GOD SAYS; and I want to embrace and believe in “sound doctrine” – NOT what some woman “THINKS” a verse “MEANS”.

Your Post #63 in response to my Post #51 was more of the same, i.e. taking someone else’s words and twisting them; and taking them out of context; and making them say something other than WHAT THEY SAID (a bad habit)! For someone that said: “I DON'T want to argue”, WHY did you stick your nose into something that had nothing to do with you, (especially when you misrepresented what I said – just like you did with my wife before)?

I am going to say this for the last time: "I always recommend that a Christian marry "in the Lord". And "I DO NOT RECOMMEND marrying a lost person". Did you get that? Is that CLEAR NOW?

Both your Posts and “biblereaders”, in regards to this issue, are almost “infantile”. What Christian doesn’t know better than to marry a lost person? Hmmm? What Christian doesn’t know that the Lord would have a saved person marry “only in the Lord”? This is BASIC BIBLE KNOWLEDGE that almost all Christians know (or should know). I knew and understood it back in 1960, so you and “biblereader” aren’t telling us anything “new” or “earthshaking”.

What I was dealing with is IF a saved Christian man or woman HAS married a lost person, there is no “penalty” or “condemnation” of that marriage after it is consummated. The saved man or woman clearly was out of the will of the Lord in marrying a lost person, but once they are married, the lost spouse is “sanctified” by the saved spouse; and we Christians should NOT be looking down our noses at the marriage – because God has SANCTIFIED it.

You see God made a provision for a saved Christian (out of God's will), “else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.” [1Corinthians 7:14]

My point in all this is that we Christians better be circumspect when it comes to judging these matters. We had better be mighty careful (just because we may have “good” marriages), that we don’t go around judging Christians that may have ignorantly or willfully married a lost person. Once the “deed is done”, God “SANCTIFIES” the lost spouse – He makes that Marriage “legitimate”. If the saved spouse is “sanctified” already, and if God then “sanctifies” the lost spouse, then the marriage must be “SANCTIFIED”. So WHAT BUSINESS IS IT of ours to “CRITICIZE” these marriages, or the saved Christian who entered into such a marriage? IT'S STILL A MARRIAGE! Who knows? “For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? or how knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife?” [1 Corinthians 7:16]

All I have got to say is - we saved people better NOT be responsible for putting A STUMBLING BLOCK in the way of any saved person who has an unsaved spouse. We had better NOT be responsible for the “BREAKUP” of such marriages “God hath called us {a saved spouse} to peace” [1 Corinthians 7:15].

custer’s Post # 68
“It's me again! I had one more thought on Second Corinthians 6:14...”

{You said: "I had one more thought" - since you posted this you have had THREE MORE THOUGHTS! (Posts #72, #73, & #74) Do you ever "MEAN" WHAT YOU SAY? . Once you get "wound up", you just won't let go - will you? You did say near the beginning of this Thread: "I DON'T want to argue", didn't you?- I guess you really didn't "mean" it, did you? }

”I do acknowledge that "marriage" is not mentioned in the passage, but I do still hold that the principle of separation of lost and saved folks definitely applies to the marriage relationship. The word "fellowship" will reference over to Ephesians 5:11 - "And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them." Verse seven of the same chapter tells us not to be partakers with the "children of disobedience," which are lost folks according to chapter 2 verses 1-2. Ephesians 5 is, of course, a quintessential passage on marriage with no paragraph divisions (to mark a possible change of subject) in the whole chapter! So, "comparing spiritual things with spiritual" (I Corinthians 2:13,) the separation principles of II Corinthians chapter six are definitively applicable to marriage!”

You are “beating a dead horse” here. You already have my testimony (several times now) on this issue; and my wife’s testimony in regards to 1Corinthians Chapter 7. If you are wondering WHY I have sternly reproved and rebuked you - You TWISTED my words and my wife’s words; and CHANGED them to suit your purposes; and then SUBSTITUTED your own words in their place. I refuse to stand by and let another “Christian” get away with that - without at least letting them know that they are “out of order”.

You should have stuck with the subject at hand, and given us your “SCRIPTURAL” reasons WHY Christians shouldn’t marry someone of another "race" (whatever that is), culture, or color, rather than venturing into a side issue, which has demonstrated that you are disingenuous about what you say: “I DON'T want to argue”; imperceptive or careless to Scriptural exposition; and dishonest in dealing with other people’s WORDS!

Don't expect any more personal "replies" from me in regards to anything more you may have to say on this Forum. I refuse to have a "Cat Fight" with an emancipated Westernized "Christian" woman, who thinks she knows everything, and who refuses to receive instruction. There is NO PROFIT in it!

Proverbs 26:12 Seest thou a man wise in his own conceit? there is more hope of a fool than of him.

{The verse applies to women also.}

[Fredoheaven]

Bro. George, my brother in law married an American woman. The woman lived in West Virginia and they both are a missionary here in the Philippines. I know that they are in good terms and I don't see any problem with regards to their relationship. The only problem is that when a believer chosen to marry an unbeliever. It is not wrong at all to choose a helpmate of any background or race as long he/she is a beleiver in the Lord.

So, I see now that it was ma'am Renee that is your wife. God bless you sir and ma'am.

Madaydayaw ti nagan ni Hesu Kristo!!!

[custer]

Originally Posted by greenbear

1 Corinthians 7:39 obviously says that a believing widow can remarry but only to another believer. I think by extension we can say that a believer, whether male or female should only marry another believer, but maybe it's not a general principle. Considering what Paul writes earlier in the chapter, if a believer marries an unbeliever the believer has disobeyed God but is still bound by marriage to the unbeliever. We have forgiveness of our sins but that doesn't mean we don't suffer for them in this life.

Jennifer

Your last line there was a very good (and pertinent) point and is why I haven't understood George's "NO PENALTIES" assertion. I'm thinking Galatians 6:7, "...whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap." I am "speculating" (boy, is that gonna get me in trouble!) that others in this thread won't accept that clear verse because "marriage" is not in the passage!

Pam
www.custerfamilyfarm.com

[greenbear]

Originally Posted by custer

Your last line there was a very good (and pertinent) point and is why I haven't understood George's "NO PENALTIES" assertion. I'm thinking Galatians 6:7, "...whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap." I am "speculating" (boy, is that gonna get me in trouble!) that others in this thread won't accept that clear verse because "marriage" is not in the passage!

Pam
www.custerfamilyfarm.com

Pam,

Galatians chapter 6 has nothing whatsoever to do with whether a believer is allowed to marry an unbeliever. Neither do:

Ephesians :5:11
2 Corinthians 6:14
James 4:4
Amos: 3:33
I Corinthians 15:33
1 Timothy 6:1-5
2 Timothy 3:15

all of which you cited in defense of your argument.

You have twisted and misappropriated God's Word to try to support your opinion about something.

Less serious but still annoying, you also misrepresented what I have said in this thread. You zeroed in on my second to last post where I stated that Paul said that a believing widow is free to marry but only to a fellow believer. I said on that post that perhaps we could extend that to all believers but that I was not sure if that was a general principle. Then I simply acknowledged that when we make bad decisions we usually suffer for them.

Four hours later I posted again where I changed my position. After thinking about it I realized I was in error. My last post is my opinion. Did you read it? Just to be clear, I'll quote myself:

I have to back away from imposing rules of conduct upon individuals and circumstances when the scriptures don't explicitly say to. I think just one little error in interpretation today can cause bigger errors tomorrow. I think this is one reason for different sects and denominations, namely, not rightly dividing the Word and adding to or taking away from what it says because it seems right in our own eyes.

I'm not saying that I think its a good idea for believers to marry unbelievers and I'm not saying scripture doesn't teach that it shouldn't be done, I just don't see any of the verses that you've referenced that say so. 1 Corinthians 7:39 is the closest to doing that but really it only says that believing widows should marry a believer. Also, Paul says in 7:25 that he is not speaking by commandment of the Lord before he goes into whether it is better to marry or not to marry your virgins.

In 7:39 he may have been addressing a problem of lonely or destitute widows marrying unbelievers out of desperation with disasterous results. There may have been many more women believers than men believers, who knows? And women tend to live longer than men, and older men tend to marry younger women rather than the reverse.

I would recommend that you read a good, solid book on biblical exegesis. I would also recommend you read Galatians chapter 6 and apply it to yourself, as we all should do.

In Christ,
Jennifer

[custer]

Originally Posted by greenbear

Pam,

I'm not saying that I think its a good idea for believers to marry unbelievers and I'm not saying scripture doesn't teach that it shouldn't be done, I just don't see any of the verses that you've referenced that say so.

Jennifer

What is going on? I was SOOOO trying to SUPPORT you! And the above quote (from your second post) says that you are still "not saying scripture doesn't teach that it shouldn't be done..." (How does that constitute changing your opinion?) The fact that you don't believe my scripture references back it up is not related to that statement!

I apologize profusely for making you feel that I misrepresented what you said; I sincerely hope that it is obvious from this post that that was not my intent! And if I've misunderstood and commented out-of-line on this post, I apologize in advance!

I cannot for the life of me understand, though, why everyone that has posted on here believes that all the clear scripture passages that teach that saved people should separate from lost people can apply to friend relationships, work/business relationships, etc. but cannot apply to the most intimate human relationship of all - marriage! CAN ANYONE PLEASE ADDRESS THAT???

Pam
www.custerfamilyfarm.com

[custer]

[QUOTE=George;21953]

Paul gave instructions to a believer to marry “only in the Lord”. He did not FORBID a saved person from marrying a lost person (Paul didn’t deal with that specific issue.) [QUOTE]

Since y'all don't know me, let me preface this post by telling you:
THESE ARE SINCERE QUESTIONS/STATEMENTS! Hopefully that cannot be misunderstood!

Aren't those first two sentences (in George's quote above) completely contrary to each other? Or, does the Bible give us "instructions," and we get to choose whether or not to follow those "instructions," as long as the word "FORBID" is not in any way connected with the issue?

Seriously, if the above quote is at all coherent, SOMEBODY PLEASE TELL ME WHAT I AM MISSING!!!

Pam
www.custerfamilyfarm.com

Edit: I just saw that somehow I goofed up the quote thing...sorry, hopefully it's still understandable!