Arminius on the Law of God

DISPUTATION 12-THE LAW OF GOD

Respondent: Dionysius Spranckhuysen

I. Law in general is defined, either from its End, "an ordinance of right reason for the common and particular good of all and of each of those who are subordinate to it, enacted by Him who has the care of the whole community, and, in it, that of each individual." Or from its Form and its Efficacy, "an ordinance commanding what must be done, and what omitted; it is enacted by Him, who possesses the right of requiring obedience; and it binds to obedience a creature who abounds in the use of reason and the exercise of liberty, by the sacred promise of a reward and by the denunciation of a punishment." It is likewise distinguished into Human and Divine. A Divine law has God for its author, a Human law has man for its author; not that any law enacted by man is choice and good, which may not be referred to God, the author of every good; but because men deduce from the Divine law such precepts as are accommodated to the state of which they have the charge and oversight, according to its particular condition and circumstances. At present we will treat upon the Divine law.

II. The Divine law may be considered, either as it is impressed on the minds of men by the engrafted word; (Rom. ii, 14, 15;) as it is communicated by words audibly pronounced, (Gal. ii, 17,) or as it is comprised in writing. (Exod. xxxiv, 1.) These modes of legislation do not differ in their entire objects: but they may admit of discrimination in this way, the first seems to serve as a kind of foundation to the rest; but the two others extend themselves further, even to those things which are commanded and forbidden. We will now treat upon the law of God which is comprised in writing; and which is also called "the law of Moses"; because God used him as a mediator to deliver it to the children of Israel. (Mal. iv, 4; Gal. iii, 19.) But it is three-fold according to the variety of the object, that is, of the works to be performed. The first is called the Ethical, or Moral Law: (Exod. 20.) The second, the Sacred or Ceremonial. The third the Political, Judicial or Forensic Law.

III. The Moral Law is distributed through the whole of the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament, and is summarily contained in the Decalogue. It is an ordinance that commands those things which God accounts grateful of themselves, and which it is his will to be performed by all men at all times and in all places; and that forbids the contrary things. (1 Sam. xv, 22; Amos v, 21-24; Micah vi, 6-8.) It is therefore the perpetual and immutable rule of living, the express image of the internal Divine conception; according to which, God, the great lawgiver, judges it right and equitable that a rational creature should always and in every place order and direct the whole of his life. It is briefly contained in the love God and of our neighbour; (Matt. xxii, 36-39;) whether partly consisting of those services which relate to the love, honour, fear, and worship of God; (Mal. i, 6;) or partly consisting of those duties which we owe to our neighbours, superiors, inferiors, and equals: (Rom. 12,13, & 14;) in the wide circle of which are also comprehended those things which every man is bound to perform to himself. (Tit. ii, 11, 12.)

IV. The uses of the moral law are various, according to the different conditions of man. (1.) The primary use, and that which was of itself intended by God according to his love for righteousness and for his creatures, was, that man by it might be quickened or made alive, that is, that he might perform it, and by its performance might be justified, and might "of debt" receive the reward which was promised through it. (Rom. ii, 13; x, 5; iv, 4.) And this use was accommodated to the primitive state of man, when sin had not yet entered into the world. (2.) The first use in order of the moral law, under a state of sin, is AGAINST man as a sinner, not only that it may accuse him of transgression and guilt, and may subject him to the wrath of God and condemnation; (Rom. iii, 19, 20;) but that it may likewise convince him of his utter inability to resist sin and to subject himself to the law. (Rom. 7.) Since God has been pleased mercifully and graciously to treat with sinful man, the next use of the law TOWARDS the sinner is, that it may compel him who is thus convicted and subjected to condemnation, to desire and seek the grace of God, and that it may force him to flee to Christ either as the promised or as the imparted deliverer. (Gal. ii, 16, 17.) Besides, in this state of sin, the moral law is serviceable, not only to God, that, by the dread of punishment and the promise of temporal rewards, he may restrain men under its guidance at least from the outward work of sin and from flagrant crimes; (1 Tim. i, 9, 10;) but it is also serviceable to Sin, when dwelling and reigning in a carnal man who is under the law, that it may inflame the desire of sin, may increase sin, and may "work within him all manner of concupiscence." (Rom. vi, 12-14; vii, 5, 8, 11, 13.) In the former case, God employs the law through his goodness and his love for civil and social intercourse among mankind. In the latter case, it is employed through the malice of sin which reigns and has the dominion.

V. (3.) The third use of the moral law is towards a man, as now born again by the Spirit of God and of Christ, and is agreeable to the state of grace, that it may be a perpetual rule for directing his life in a godly and spiritual manner: (Tit. iii, 8; James ii, 8.) Not that man may be justified; because for this purpose it is rendered "weak through the flesh" and useless, even if man had committed only a single sin: (Rom. viii, 3.) But that he may render thanks to God for his gracious redemption and sanctification, (Psalm cxvi, 12, 13,) that he may preserve a good conscience, (1 Tim. i, 19,) that he may make his calling and election sure, (2 Pet. i, 10,) that he may by his example win over other persons to Christ, (1 Pet. iii, 1,) that he may confound the devil, (Job 1 & 2,) that he may condemn the ungodly world, (Heb. xi, 7,) and that through the path of good works he may march towards the heavenly inheritance and glory, (Rom. ii, 7,) and that he may not only himself glorify God, (1 Cor. vi, 20,) but may also furnish occasion and matter to others for glorifying his Father who is in Heaven. (Matt. v, 16.)

VI. From these uses it is easy to collect how far the moral law obtains among believers and those who are placed under the grace of Christ, and how far it is abrogated. (1.) It is abrogated with regard to its power and use in justifying: "For if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by that law." (Gal. iii, 21.) The reason why "it cannot give life," is, "because it is weak through the flesh": (Rom. viii, 3) God, therefore, willing to deal graciously with men, gave the promise and Christ himself, that the inheritance through the promise and by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe. But the law which came after the promise, could neither "make the latter of none effect," (for it was sanctioned by authority,) nor could it be joined or super- added to the promise, that out of this union righteousness and life might be given. (Gal. iii, 16-18, 22.) (2.) It is abrogated with regard to the curse and condemnation: For "Christ, being made a curse for us, hath redeemed us from the curse of the law"; (Gal. iii, 10-13;) and thus the law is taken away from sin, lest its "strength" should be to condemn. (1 Cor. xv, 55, 56.) (3.) The law is abrogated and taken away from sin, so far as "sin, having taken occasion by the law, works all manner of concupiscence" in the carnal man, over whom sin exercises dominion. (Rom. vii, 4-8.) (4.) It is abrogated, with regard to the guidance by which it urged man to do good and to refrain from evil, through a fear of punishment and a hope of temporal reward. (1 Tim. i, 9, 10; Gal. iv, 18.) For believers and regenerate persons "are become dead to the law by the body of Christ," that they may be the property of another, even of Christ; by whose Spirit they are led and excited in newness of life, according to love and the royal law of liberty. (1 John v, 3, 4; James ii, 8.) Whence it appears, that the law is not abrogated with respect to the obedience which must be rendered to God; for though obedience be required under the grace of Christ and of the Gospel, it is required according to clemency, and not according to strict legal rigor. (1 John iii, 1, 2.)

VII. The Ceremonial Law is that which contains the precepts concerning the outward worship of God; which was delivered to the Jewish church, and was accommodated to the times in which the church of God was "as a child" under "the promise" and the Old Testament. (Gal. iv, 1-3.) It was instituted not only to typify, to prefigure and to bear witness by sealing; (Heb. viii, 5; x, 1;) but likewise for the discipline, or good order which was to be observed in ecclesiastical meetings and acts. (Col. ii, 14; Psalm xxvii, 4.) Subservient to the former purpose were circumcision, the Pascal Lamb, sacrifices, sabbaths, sprinklings, washings, purifications, consecrations and dedications of living creatures. (Col. ii, 11; 1 Cor. v, 7.) To the latter purpose, that of church discipline, were the distinct functions of the Priests, the Levites, the Singers, and the porters, or door-keepers, the courses or changes in their several duties, and the circumstances of the places and times in which these sacred acts were to be severally performed. (1 Chron. 24, 25, & 26.)

VIII. The use of this ceremonial law was, (1.) That it might retain that ancient people under the hope and expectation of the good things which had been promised. (Heb. x, 1- 3.) This use it fulfilled by various types, figures and shadows of persons, things, actions, and events; (7, 9, & 10;) by which not only were sins testified as in "a hand-writing which was against them," (Col. ii, 14,) that the necessity of the promise which had been given might be understood; but likewise the expiation and promised good things were shewn at a distance, that they might believe the promise would assuredly be fulfilled. (Heb. ix, 8-10; Col. ii, 17; Heb. x, 1.) And in this respect, since the body and express form of those types and shadows relate to Christ, the ceremonial law is deservedly called "a school-master to bring the Jews unto Christ." (Gal. iii, 24.) (2.) That it might distinguish from other nations the Children of Israel, as a people sanctified to God on a peculiar account, and that it might separate them as "a middle wall of partition"; (Ephes. ii, 14, 15;) yet so as that even strangers might be admitted to a participation in it by circumcision. (Exod. xii, 44; Acts ii, 10.) (3.) That while occupied in this course of operas religious services, they might not invent and fabricate other modes of worship, nor assume such as were in use among other nations; and thus they were preserved pure from idolatry and superstition, to which they had the greatest propensity, and for which occasions were offered on every side by those nations who were contiguous, as well as by those who dwelt amongst them. (Deut. 12; xxxi, 16, 27-29.)

IX. The ceremonial law was abrogated by the cross, the death and the resurrection of Christ, by his ascension into heaven and the mission of the Holy Ghost, by the sun’s dispersion of the shadows, and by the entrance of "the body which is of Christ" into their place, (Col. ii, 11, 12, 14, 17,) which is the full completion of all the types. (Heb. viii, 1-6.) But the gradations to be observed in its abrogation must come under our consideration: In the first moment it was abrogated with regard to the necessity and utility of its observance, every obligatory right being at once and together taken from it: in that instant it ceased to live, and became dead. (Gal. iv, 9, 10; 1 Cor. vii, 19; ix, 19, 20; 2 Cor. iii, 13- 16.) Afterwards it was actually to be abolished. This was ejected partly, by the teaching of the Apostles among believers, who by degrees understood "Christ to be the end of the law," and of that which was then abolished; they abstained therefore voluntarily from the use of that law. Its abolition was also ejected in part, by the power of God, in the destruction of Jerusalem and of the temple, in which was the seat of religion, and the place appointed for performing those religious observances, against the contumacy of the unbelieving Jews. From this period the legal ceremonies began to be mortiferous, though in the intermediate space which had elapsed between the death of Christ and the destruction of Jerusalem, these rites, even in the judgment of the apostles themselves, might be tolerated, but only among the Jews, and with a proviso, that they should not be imposed on the Gentiles: (Acts xvi, 3; xv, 28; xxi, 21-26; Gal. ii, 3, 11, 12;) which toleration must itself be considered as being tantamount to a new institution.

X. The Judicial Law is that which God prescribed by Moses to the Children of Israel, of whom He was in a peculiar manner the king. (Exod. 21, 22, 23, &c.) It contained precepts about the form of the political government to be exercised in civil society, for procuring the benefit both of natural and spiritual life, by the preservation and exaction of the outward worship and of the external discipline commanded in moral and ceremonial law, such as concerned magistrates, contracts, division of property, judgments, punishments, &c. (Deut. xvii, 15.) These laws may appropriately be referred to two kinds: (1.) Some of them, with regard to their substance are of general obligation, though with regard to some circumstances they are peculiar to the Jewish commonwealth. (2.) Others belong simply to a particular right or authority. (Deut. xv, 1, 2; vi, 19.)

XI. The uses of this judicial law also were three: (1.) That the whole community of the Children of Israel might be regulated by a certain rule of public equity and justice; that it might be "as a city that is compact together," (Psalm cxxii, 3,) or as a body "which is knit together" according to all and each of its parts," "by the joints and sinews" of the precepts prescribed in this law. (2.) That the Israelites might, by this law, be distinguished from other nations who had their own laws. Thus was it the will of God, that this his people should have nothing in common with other nations, wherever this was possible according to the nature of things and of man himself. These two uses related to the existing condition of the Jewish commonwealth. (3.) It had reference to future things, and was typical of them For all that state, and the whole kingdom and its administration, the chiefs of administration, the judges and kings, prefigured Christ and his kingdom, and its spiritual administration. Psalm 2; Ezek. xxxiv, 23, 24.) In this respect also the judicial law may be called "a schoolmaster to bring the Jews to Christ."

XII. This law, so far as it had regard to Christ, was universally abrogated. No kingdom, no nation, no administration, serves now typically to figure Christ and his kingdom or administration. For his kingdom, which is the kingdom of heaven and not of this world, has already come, and he has come into his kingdom. (Matt. iii, 2; xvi, 28; John xviii, 36; Matt. xi, 11.) But with respect to its simple observance, this Judicial Law is neither forbidden nor prescribed to any people, nor is it of absolute necessity to be either observed or omitted. Those matters are accepted which are of universal obligation, and founded in natural equity. For it is necessary, that they be strictly observed, in every place and by all persons. And those things in the judicial law which relate to Christ as it respects the very substance and principal end, cannot be lawfully used by any nation.

COROLLARY

The doctrine of the Papists respecting Councils and of Works of Supererogation, derogates from the perfection of the Divine commands.

Alzheimer’s Disease and Our Christian Commitments

Listening to AM talk radio late one evening earlier this week, I tried dozing off to sleep as one of the shows had noted CBS correspondent Barry Petersen as a guest to discuss his recent book, Jan's Story. It is a hard to digest telling of his wife's ongoing struggle and fading of life with Alzheimer's disease. I suppose most of us are familiar with at least one person who has succumbed to this insidious disease. I lost my grandmother to it a few years ago after several years of diagnosis and my mother gave a considerable portion of her life to caring for her in those elder years. She lived into her early nineties before passing away with it but as with all cases of Alzheimer's, what is left at the end stages of such lives is really little more than an animated corpse of one's previous self.  Having conversations with the reflection of yourself in a mirror and having no idea that the person looking back at yourself is you is a frightening reality for many in such conditions. Add to that the lost communication or even the ability to acknowledge who and what you are and our comprehension of the devastation of Alzheimer's becomes a bit clearer albeit still beyond our own personal experience to grasp. Even the primary caretaker faces phenomenal life changes that are difficult to express appropriately. Mr. Petersen discussed several of these life changes and rather than drift off to sleep, I lay there thinking of this matter later into the evening.

It might have been the next day or two when I encountered a short article by Dr. Russell Moore of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary discussing recent controversial comments by Pat Robertson of the Christian Coalition and "700 Club" television program. Dr. Moore was presenting a Christian challenge to Robertson's comment approving of the divorce of spouses who suffer from advanced stages of Alzheimer's. Moore's rebuttal of Robertson's position reminded me of Barry Petersen's comments concerning his current personal relationships. With his wife institutionalized at this point, Petersen met another woman with whom he established a personal and intimate relationship with and in his words, are now a family of three. I don't know what to think of that other than to suggest it strikes me wrong on every front. Robertson viewed the patient as essentially dead and with regard to what and who that person was cognitively, I suppose he is right in a sense. As I note, I use the phrase animated corpse as well. However, there is something more at stake than just an intimate and acknowledged relationship. Marriage is, as Dr. Moore notes, a type of the relationship Jesus Christ has with His church and that relationship is not destroyed or cast aside when one member of the church becomes "less useful". In that sense I can only second Moore's rebuttal and certainly in my own case, were such to occur, I could not turn my back on "for better and for worse, in sickness and in health". It is not in my "Christian constitution" to do so.

The difficulty I have with this is that I can understand the frustration of spouses faced with these ordeals. My grandfather had passed away many years prior to my grandmother's diagnosis and death so that circumstance was not an issue. Mr. Petersen's wife, Jan, was diagnosed when she was fifty five years old. I can understand why Mr. Petersen chose his current path knowing as well that he has not forsaken the care of his wife in doing so. I might not agree with it but I understand it. What I cannot understand is how a Christian evangelist can offer such unbiblical advice and opinion. A lot has been written on this immediate controversy and it is an issue of great interest to me but I believe that  the commitment of one to the other regardless of health and illness means considerably more than the category of disease that some might use to qualify such commitments.

Normative Sin?

The subtly of antinomianism is such that it is easy to mistake it for something good. Perhaps we should examine our hearts to see our condition even though the heart, lacking the grace of God, is desperately wicked and none of us can know it. It sounds good but can we really do it? Add to that the idea that we are, still, wicked and perverse, totally depraved even as born again children of God and that self examination seems a defeatist endeavor. It strikes me as an antinomian admission of failure. ... The latter point I don't believe.  I do not believe the redeemed soul, with the new heart promised by the LORD, is still the same wretched, perverse, totally depraved soul he once was. The scriptures teach us we are new creations with newness of life. We are regenerated or recreated into something new. That rebirth is essentially a restoration effective and kept through faith. Let faith slip and that old man with his perverse nature stirs to life again. Perhaps those who still consider themselves to be perverse whores of the world while claiming the mantle of Christianity have grown accustomed to sharing their bed with the world thinking that is the normal Christian expectation. The scriptures tell us to go and sin no more. Christ and the Apostles did not tell us we are to be sinners so why should we walk around with piety while throwing dust in the air and tearing our clothes at how wicked we are and how sin has a lifelong stranglehold on us? From my perspective, such a person gives justification to his sins as the norm in his life. As such he lives the model.

What stirred these thoughts was a short commentary by R.C. Sproul Jr. on the Ligonier website entitled Consorting with Whores. It is a pious report, no question, and I have no reason to doubt the man believes what he wrote. I merely marvel at such expectations from somebody who had victory over sin given to him by the grace of God. Even the analogy of prostitution seems unfitting. I am not being prudish and I can fully understand the analogy of spiritual whoredom but the analogy is dispensed abundantly with almost relish like embrace. Mr. Sproul truly considers himself a whore of sorts, swallowed up in spiritual whoredom that require God to come in and clean him up on occasion. He expects himself to be no less. While I have never embraced sinless perfection as a doctrine of the church I also have disregard for the teaching that we are essentially the same after the Christian rebirth as before. It strikes me as an excuse, in this case, an excuse for sin. Maybe he means something different but I keep running into this expected state of sinfulness on the part of some, as if flesh and blood, skin and bones, is the cause of sin. Mr. Sproul can continue to regard himself as a normative whore. I'll continue to view the child of God as a washed and redeemed child of God who is not to be regarded as a sinner the likes of the reprobate.

Divorce & Remarriage Within the Church

C. Michael Patton wrote an interesting blog post the other day that reminded me of a similar exercise I went through with this same topic.  I posted the following here a few of years ago and Br Patton's inquiries into the same subject matter gave me enough incentive to resurrect it for another scripture study I am currently involved with. My opinions on the matter remain essentially the same although I think I am probably more accommodating for those who differ from my conclusions now than I was at the time even though I have never held this as a fellowship matter.

Reposted from 2007 …
From the start I acknowledge that I hold to a minority position in today's church regarding remarriage. However I do believe the body of scripture supports my opposition to Christian remarriage as long as the prior spouse is still alive. In any event, this is not considered an essential doctrine in my view and I would not let this interfere in my fellowship with the saints of God.

If I could identify any issue that offers widespread discomfort in the modern church that even pastors themselves shun from an honest and open dialogue it might be the issue of marriage and divorce in the church, especially the issue of remarriage. There are so many divorced and remarried people in society today that it is becoming very much the norm to be on a second or even a third marriage as opposed to the minority of couples who claim a lifelong bond to the same partner. This is especially true of the young and middle-aged and we find many of these same people turning to Christ. Looking at a ministry I once attended I can only guess unfairly at how many people among the congregation as well as among the elders and deacons have divorced and remarried. In all fairness I suspect many of them remarried before being saved. Yet, if I listen to the teachings among many churches today, what I hear is the justification of remarriage regardless of circumstances it seems.

Let's ask ourselves what marriage is from a biblical perspective. God demonstrates a fundamental purpose of matrimony in Genesis. It is not good for man to be alone, He tells us. So much so that God created woman from man to be a helpmate for him. Now if the relationship were to stop there we might suppose that there would be no great matter of concern which woman we have as a helpmate or when but the Lord reveals something more profound about this relationship. A man and a woman leave their parents and they become one with another. Once joined in this fashion, they are one in a spiritual union. In fact God shows us a wonderful revelation concerning this matrimony. What is the saint who is in Christ? Is he not one with the Lord in this sense? When we begin examining various words we take for granted in the bible sometimes we can marvel at what is revealed. Every child of God who walks faithfully in His light and in His truth has a fellowship with Him that cannot be understood by the world. "While fellowship is expressed in several different words throughout scripture I think one of the better choices is the Greek term koinonia which means the share which one has in anything, participation, intercourse, intimacy. It is used in 1 Corinthians 1:9 God is faithful, by whom ye were called unto the fellowship of his Son Jesus Christ our Lord. " That word koinonia means a lot. It even refers to intercourse which in a matrimonial relationship is an act or closeness that is about as personal as a relationship can be. Now I know some folks might squirm a bit to relate spiritual fellowship with Christ in such a manner but that is just the carnal man thinking in place of the spiritual. I am not referring to a physical act when I make mention of this in regard to fellowship, instead I am pointing out the degree or magnitude of the personal nature of this fellowship, this oneness with Jesus Christ. So in this sense, matrimony itself was established as not only a personal comfort for men and women with regard to companionship but also as a shadow of the relationship we are to have with Christ, with God Himself.

One of the most difficult things to settle amicably with regard to this issue is a proper understanding of God's desires. It is far easier to settle or reconcile our own desires especially when we view them from our fleshly or selfish motives. We all would like to believe that God wants us to have whatever makes us happy without realizing that sometimes to be happy in a carnal sense is to throw an incendiary upon a simmering fire. God desires that we have one wife or husband. That is what He desired from the very beginning. Matthew 19:8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. The scriptures also tell us Acts 17:30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent: While the excesses the Lord allowed under the law might seem reasonable even in this age, we are held to a higher spiritual standard, that found in the spirit of the law, the actual intent and purpose of God's law which is that a man and a woman come together and become one flesh. What is the mindset we face today among men and women both in circumstances associated with this quandary and as bystanders and observers of this theological question? Most often I hear the declaration that God would not want any of us to go through life without a spouse, that God would never want us to remain with a spouse who has abused us, that Jesus would never require a woman to remain with a husband who is not compatible. Yet when we test the Word, what do we find? Matthew 5:32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery. Not only do we find this, but we find it repeated elsewhere in scripture. Matthew 19:9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery. Usually when the Holy Spirit repeats something it is to be taken seriously. Now I don't see additional reasons for divorce granted here other than for fornication which in the context of the passage is referring to a lifestyle of specific sins. The Lord was not referring to specific individual acts of sin nor was He referring to a wide plethora of actions that could constitute fornication in a spiritual sense such as spiritual idolatry. The Lord was referring to a lifestyle of specific sins, sexual sins that would place a spouse in an impossible position of being one with a husband or wife AND a harlot or fornicator. This is spiritually unacceptable and therefore grounds for divorce. Now what are the circumstances of a woman who has divorced her husband due to a lifestyle of fornication?

Most modern pastors and teachers turn to the marriage chapter in the bible, 1 Corinthians chapter seven. I am not different in this case. It is a wonderful instruction and unsettling for those who preach remarriage to their congregations. In this chapter, Paul the Apostle is instructing on the position of marriage and it's expectations within Christian settings. Let me point out the obvious. It is not written to the unsaved. The unsaved are heavy duty sinners, expert fornicators and often remarried without so much as a second thought unless it crowds upon selfish motives. No, Paul is addressing saints in this instruction and these instructions are poignant. If a saved woman is married to an unsaved man who is inclined to live with her, then let her stay with him, Paul instructs. Otherwise she is free if the spouse departs. I don't think there is much disagreement with this teaching. The scriptures tell us 1 Corinthians 7:15 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. This where we run into trouble. The modern church is full of pastors and laity who have taken this "not under bondage' passage and given it license for remarriage. How they missed what came before that passage is bewildering. 1 Corinthians 7:10-11 And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife. What are the two choices the Lord has offered to a divorced woman? Remain unmarried or reconcile with her husband. What did Jesus say about divorce earlier? Matthew 5:32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery. Why would any pastor tell anybody to go ahead and remarry when it is so clear that doing so causes adultery? I suggest it is pure selfish motive. In the Old Testament we discover that even under the permissiveness of the law a husband could not remarry his former wife after she had joined to another man. Why? Because she had defiled herself (Deut 24:4). The difficult thing to grasp here is not the clear intention of scripture. Pastors and teachers have long misinterpreted scripture out of convenience or tradition or even ignorant haste. The difficulty here is explaining why God does not sanction remarriage. Perhaps it is best explained by stating a clear character trait of God. He hates divorce! Malachi 2:15-16 And did not he make one? Yet had he the residue of the spirit. And wherefore one? That he might seek a godly seed. Therefore take heed to your spirit, and let none deal treacherously against the wife of his youth. For the LORD, the God of Israel, saith that he hateth putting away: for one covereth violence with his garment, saith the LORD of hosts: therefore take heed to your spirit, that ye deal not treacherously. If God hates divorce, why does the modern pastor offer such a conciliatory mindset to it and it's cousin, remarriage?

The pastors and teachers who teach these things have a burden to bear but what of the young woman who loves the Lord whose husband has just left her for a harlot? As scripture states she is under no bondage in this case meaning she is free of that particular yoke. Does this mean she is free to yoke herself again? The teachings of Paul in 1 Cor. 7 seem to suggest otherwise with the statement by the Lord that she is to remain unmarried or reconciled with her husband. This is a hard thing yet our salvation was a hard thing. If this young woman loves the Lord, let her turn her mind to the things of God. This is why divorce is so wicked and why God hates it so. It robs both partners. If we think this is difficult, we are thinking correctly. Sin carries a high price even among the saved. Look at the example of Aaron, the priest and brother of Moses. He lost two sons after they offered unholy or "strange" fire to the Lord yet the Lords instructions were clear.Lev 10:6 And Moses said unto Aaron, and unto Eleazar and unto Ithamar, his sons, Uncover not your heads, neither rend your clothes; lest ye die, and lest wrath come upon all the people: but let your brethren, the whole house of Israel, bewail the burning which the LORD hath kindled. Aaron could not mourn nor grieve the loss of his sons. The Bible is full of examples where transgression is paid for with personal loss and grief, lifelong grief. Yet we listen and heed to calls for exception for young and middle-aged divorced who desire to mate again, to remarry, to become one with another. This is a church that needs to repent and understand that divorce is an expensive lifelong proposition that the Lord hates.

There is a particular area that I must address before concluding this letter. What of the saint who divorced prior to being saved? So far I have limited my comments to the actions and demands placed upon believers with regard to divorce and remarriage. The words Christ conveys to us are given to the body of Christ even though the penalty for disobedience will be fully borne by the unbelieving. The person who comes to Christ becomes a new creation in Christ. The old man, or person, is now dead. That person no longer exists. As such, we can apply the analogy the Holy Spirit used in the beginning of Romans chapter seven to that new creation in Christ. He or she has no past, no bondages, no chains which are carried over to the new creation. That person is certainly free to remarry so long as she does not yoke herself to unbelievers. I want to make this clear so that there is no mistaken belief that I am saying saints previously divorced in a sinful past are still obligated to law or the demands placed by the law. That is not the case. If you are a new saint in Christ who has divorced from a husband or wife while lost in the ways of the world, never despair. You are reborn. That old divorced you was buried with Him in crucifixion. Marry for the first time as a child of God if the Holy Spirit directs you. But bear in mind the lessons taught above regarding divorce and remarriage as it regards those in Christ. Those teachings then come into play.

When the Dirt Creeps up the Ankles

Not being able to speak for the experiences of other Christians, I can only relate to my own experiences regarding how and when we interact with the world we each came out of. I love to get in the trenches so to speak. The political battles and social commentaries intrigue me. They always have and I've been across the political spectrum over the years first being far to the left and now fiscally conservative and socially libertarian. Being quick to the political fight brings its own pratfalls as it is far too easy to get in the mud of the pit and at the end of the day look just like the opponent, sound like him and admittedly act like him. Christ gave us a heart and mind to do better and although having been washed by his grace and sacrifice, there are two feet that pick up a lot of debris. The scriptures teach us of foot washings but I don't know if a lot of Christians really contemplate the significance of it. Peter objected. Christ admonished him for it and in my case, with mud creeping up my ankles for the time spent in the pit, I do not want to make Peter's mistake. In David's case it took hyssop. With Peter, it was the very presence of Jesus Christ. With myself, it is to be my own repentance for allowing Christ to be second... and letting the muck cover my knees.

My Fifty Second Christmas

Christmas this year in the Mallett household is a little different than in past years. We have focused on giving gifts to the grandchildren within the family. A couple of reasons drove this decision. Certainly financial reasons come into play as my wife and I have three of our adult children and our youngest grandchild living with us this season. We have also made a particular decision to try to downsize our lives financially and bring a greater simplicity to our days here. The second driver for this is really simple on my part. Christmas with all its commercial trappings appeals less and less to me. The television starts before Halloween in some cases. The Christmas exploitation runs strong to the point of nausea. While I didn't this year, my inclinations are moving more toward pulling my pots and pans together and putting my modest culinary interests to work for those in greater need. I am not one to make New Year's resolutions but if I were that might be my focus for 2010.

Christmas is not grounded in scripture but in tradition and perhaps it is time to establish new traditions. Our children are grown now. The grandchildren are still sure to receive plenty from Papa and Nana but something is missing for me. There isn't a sense of contribution that settles my soul. I look out on my front lawn and I see a blowup tall toy soldier, lots of lights, strands wrapped around a Palm. We are baking in the kitchen today which is a joy for me. Three more of our grandchildren arrive tomorrow and we will enjoy a family get together. Yet … I want to do something different for next year and I think I'll enjoy the preparation.

Thinking of Dr. Albert Outler for a Moment …

The following is an interesting quote from the late theologian Albert C. Outler.

The happy dilettante, who believes in justification by faith and hope, prays to be judged by his intention as well as by his performance. He is as much concerned with what he can see as needful as with what he himself can provide. If I could choose my own epitaph I would want it to speak of one who was sustained in a rather strenuous career by the vision of a Christian theology that gives history its full due; that makes way for the future without having to murder the past; that begins and ends with the self-manifestation of God's Mystery in our flesh and our history; that binds itself to Scripture but also claims scriptural authority for a rational hermeneutics; that Opposes human pride and speaks of God's healing grace without despising or exalting the creature; that unites justice and mercy without resorting either to legalism or to antinomianism; that organizes the Christian life by the power of grace and the means of grace; that celebrates our redemption by the invincible love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord - in sum, a theology that does justice to the reality it reflects upon. It is enough for any man to believe that he has been called to labor in some such task as this, for he cannot doubt that whether it is given him to plant, to water or to harvest, God will give the increase. – from Ordeal of a Happy Dilettante

Another Take on Christian Perfection

I encountered this interesting discussion of Christian Perfection while thinking about Arminius' comments in the previous post. This is a Mennonite perspective bringing an Anabaptist view of Holiness that seems to address the issue with civility and maturity. While it is relatively short, the author, Robert Friesen, sums up his conclusions rather well. Following is his conclusion with a link to the full article.

Christian Perfection - Robert Friesen

The Scope of the Call To Be Teleios

The call to be teleios is addressed to all believers. With the call to enter the kingdom comes the call to be one of the teleioi. It is a call to discipleship. The teleioi are to be perfect as the heavenly Father is perfect. Jesus, who came to show us the Father, is the example to be followed. The perfect ones are willing to take difficult, radical steps to follow their Lord.

Characteristics of the Teleioi

The teleioi are wise and possess knowledge which the immature do not have. This wisdom is not equivalent to what the world considers wisdom nor is there knowledge based on superior intelligence. Because of the Holy Spirit's enlightenment they are able to receive and understand the kind of solid teaching which Paul calls meat as opposed to milk (the elementary principles of the Gospel).

The wisdom and understanding of the teleioi is evident in their actions. They are able to distinguish right from wrong and they live according to what is right. The wisdom of the teleioi is knowledge turned into proper action in life.

The teleioi are those who love God. This love is demonstrated in a life of discipleship. They love their brothers and sisters in the Church and desire to use their Spirit-given gifts to edify them. They also love those who are not in the Church. Their love, in fact, extends even to those who are their opponents.

The teleioi are not portrayed as those who have attained absolute perfection. They always strive toward perfection and are not content to settle for less. The English word "mature" is often a good translation, but even that word does not catch all the nuances of the Greek teleios. The English "perfect" may be too absolute, but "mature" may be too mild. Jesus did not call us simply to be 'mature' as our heavenly Father is 'mature'. We consider people mature even though they have many imperfections which need not necessarily be changed. The teleioi have never arrived at their goal. They are mature, but they are moving on to a greater maturity. Because of this problem of finding the best word, the new translations use both "perfect" and "mature" to render teleios in different contexts. {31}

The Process of Becoming Teleios

The New Testament is clear that the teleioi are involved in a process of growth. Tomorrow they should be more closely conformed to Jesus' example of perfection than they were today.

The teleioi are dependent upon the rest of the body of Christ for the process of growth. All the members of the body have responsibilities to have others to mature. They carry out this work with the enablement of the various gifts which the Holy Spirit gives to the Church.

Paul warns that the work of teaching may be hard, wearisome toil. It is not a small task. He also indicates that teachers need to be wise. But it is not the world's wisdom that is needed. In order to do the work of the Church and to bring people to maturity, teachers need God's wisdom. James indicates that when the teleioi feel a lack of wisdom they are to pray with perseverance to God who will give the required wisdom.

In Colossians 4 Paul indicates that prayer can help to bring people to maturity even when a person is absent from the ones he prays for. This labour of prayer is an important task in the work.

The New Testament indicates that trials and suffering may be the context in which maturity is produced. It is essential that a person recognize these situations as possibilities for growth and use them as such.

In answer to the question "Who are the teleioi?" we must conclude: The teleioi are obedient disciples of Christ. The process of becoming teleios is a divine (i.e., God-empowered) process mediated by the members of the body of Christ in the context of prayer and love.

Christian Perfection by Robert Friesen

My Steadfast Psalm

I have not engaged my thoughts as much as I might have preferred recently and in returning to this place of refuge, I feel led to focus only on the words of my favorite passage of the Psalms letting those words speak for my thoughts this afternoon.

"He that dwelleth in the secret place of the most High shall abide under the shadow of the Almighty. I will say of the LORD, He is my refuge and my fortress: my God; in him will I trust. Surely he shall deliver thee from the snare of the fowler, and from the noisome pestilence. He shall cover thee with his feathers, and under his wings shalt thou trust: his truth shall be thy shield and buckler. Thou shalt not be afraid for the terror by night; nor for the arrow that flieth by day; Nor for the pestilence that walketh in darkness; nor for the destruction that wasteth at noonday. A thousand shall fall at thy side, and ten thousand at thy right hand; but it shall not come nigh thee. Only with thine eyes shalt thou behold and see the reward of the wicked. Because thou hast made the LORD, which is my refuge, even the most High, thy habitation; There shall no evil befall thee, neither shall any plague come nigh thy dwelling. For he shall give his angels charge over thee, to keep thee in all thy ways. They shall bear thee up in their hands, lest thou dash thy foot against a stone. Thou shalt tread upon the lion and adder: the young lion and the dragon shalt thou trample under feet. Because he hath set his love upon me, therefore will I deliver him: I will set him on high, because he hath known my name. He shall call upon me, and I will answer him: I will be with him in trouble; I will deliver him, and honour him. With long life will I satisfy him, and shew him my salvation." (Ps 91:1-16 AV)

Our Words or Lack of Words Do Haunt Us

Have you wondered what significance a man's last words have? I cannot say that I have an answer to that question and here in this frenzied internet environment, our words can sometimes haunt us for their lack of reflection amidst this two dimensional simplistic realm. We cannot read the nuances private to a man's thoughts and we certainly cannot know a man's heart. In this scarred world of internet apologetics, we commit ourselves to what we fancy without knowing what the day will bring. One certainty pervades our very existence; The LORD knows the very number of our hairs and the days and minutes of our lives. For that reason alone our words should be carefully measured and our opinions kept as opinions and not dogmatic declarations. I have battled with a number of souls over these years in this world we log onto. For most of those battles, we picked up our marbles and returned to our "other" reality nonetheless for wear knowing each openly embraces Jesus Christ. Then there are those few souls who part with enmity of sorts against the other or a whole class of others having made judgments that were questionable. Of course we return to the fray and we make our points and our counterpoints until … there is no point or counterpoint or even a hand to guide one's thoughts to the page however ill advised those thoughts might be.

A man died on Wednesday and I cannot say that I knew him other than to state I did not like him. I cared nothing for his rhetoric, his ill advised opinions cast as certainties and his embrace of a sectarian schism in place of the truth. Even still he declared Jesus Christ as his savior and in spite of his rejection of the faith I and millions of others share, an Arminian faith, I kept him in mind as a brother in Christ. His last post on CARM was the following:

Arminianism is the antithesis of the gospel … Yeah...I believe that unregenerate man's religion is arminian or some form of arminianism. It is a self righteous religion just as all other religions of the world. Arminianism is the antithesis of the gospel. I know most would disagree with me, however most unbelievers would. – "Nicholas Heath"

My last post to him was a blank sheet. I did not bless him and that is to my discredit.

I came across another interesting quiz this evening that "tests" theological worldviews. I tried taking the 63 question test without reading my biases into the questions. It came out much as expected being a Wesleyan Arminian although Reformed Evangelical came in second. The results and link to the site are below.

Quiz results:

What's your theological worldview?

You scored as a Evangelical Holiness/Wesleyan

You are an evangelical in the Wesleyan tradition. You believe that God's grace enables you to choose to believe in him, even though you yourself are totally depraved. The gift of the Holy Spirit gives you assurance of your salvation, and he also enables you to live the life of obedience to which God has called us. You are influenced heavily by John Wesley and the Methodists.

Evangelical Holiness/Wesleyan 82% Reformed Evangelical 68% Emergent/Postmodern 64% Neo orthodox 64% Fundamentalist 57% Charismatic/Pentecostal 39% Classical Liberal 36% Roman Catholic 21% Modern Liberal 11%

Take this quiz here

I popped back into an old haunt last night just to take a look around. I found Paltalk several years ago after the demise of Firetalk and a growing disgust with the text chat of AOL Online. The funny thing about Paltalk is that it was just as bad if not worse than the theological neophytes fueling so many "cock fights" on AOL but like so many of my fellow internet addicts, I hung around, an observer and occasional commentator. I never did have much to say but I sure typed a lot! Well, last night was the advent of an epiphany of sorts. It's still the same as when I left! Imagine that. Willy 162, the Calvinist character that "woke up saved" was still there with his theological "no slop" room and the poor souls who don't realize that Jesus is the LORD were still trying to entice room numbers in competition with the Universalist All Paths To Jesus Eternity folks who have their own revised bible consisting of three verses. It was too late in the evening for Matt Slick to be there telling listeners that he knew what he was talking about because he has a Masters degree from Westminster Seminary and you don't! There was no James White aka Dr. Oakley chastising people for suggesting he debate people who do not have the theological pedigree he enjoys even though he acquired his out of the seminary equivalent of a large box of CrackerJack. Yet, there were several familiar names I had long forgotten. There was still the "kick back" Christian room with many new names and a smattering of old familiar ones. I did not see Gina Dee around who was one of the sane voices nor Potters Freedom, a reasonable Reformed pastor. Most disappointing was that I did not see any sign of that old curmudgeon Promoe conducting one of his infamously absurd circuses parodying Oneness Pentecostalism or some giant straw man construction of Calvinist doctrine. After a few minutes, I clicked Paltalk off and went to bed. I might return but now that I've had a vision of what Paltalk is still like, it might be a while.

Edited to add: I did run across Promoe on Paltalk last night and he has tamed himself somewhat. I enjoyed the brief discussion and he was quite cordial towards me and I wish him nothing but blessings in Christ. 2/8/08

Divorce & Remarriage Among Christians

From the start I acknowledge that I hold to a minority position in today's church regarding remarriage. However I do believe the body of scripture supports my opposition to Christian remarriage as long as the prior spouse is still alive. In any event, this is not considered an essential doctrine in my view and I would not let this interfere in my fellowship with the saints of God.

If I could identify any issue that offers widespread discomfort in the modern church that even pastors themselves shun from an honest and open dialogue it might be the issue of marriage and divorce in the church, especially the issue of remarriage. There are so many divorced and remarried people in society today that it is becoming very much the norm to be on a second or even a third marriage as opposed to the minority of couples who claim a lifelong bond to the same partner. This is especially true of the young and middle-aged and we find many of these same people turning to Christ. Looking at a ministry I once attended I can only guess unfairly at how many people among the congregation as well as among the elders and deacons have divorced and remarried. In all fairness I suspect many of them remarried before being saved. Yet, if I listen to the teachings among many churches today, what I hear is the justification of remarriage regardless of circumstances it seems.

Lets ask ourselves what marriage is from a biblical perspective. God demonstrates a fundamental purpose of matrimony in Genesis. It is not good for man to be alone, He tells us. So much so that God created woman from man to be a helpmate for him. Now if the relationship were to stop there we might suppose that there would be no great matter of concern which woman we have as a helpmate or when but the Lord reveals something more profound about this relationship. A man and a woman leave their parents and they become one with another. Once joined in this fashion, they are one in a spiritual union. In fact God shows us a wonderful revelation concerning this matrimony. What is the saint who is in Christ? Is he not one with the Lord in this sense? When we begin examining various words we take for granted in the bible sometimes we can marvel at what is revealed. Every child of God who walks faithfully in His light and in His truth has a fellowship with Him that cannot be understood by the world. "While fellowship is expressed in several different words throughout scripture I think one of the better choices is the Greek term koinonia which means the share which one has in anything, participation, intercourse, intimacy. It is used in 1 Corinthians 1:9 God is faithful, by whom ye were called unto the fellowship of his Son Jesus Christ our Lord. " That word koinonia means a lot. It even refers to intercourse which in a matrimonial relationship is an act or closeness that is about as personal as a relationship can be. Now I know some folks might squirm a bit to relate spiritual fellowship with Christ in such a manner but that is just the carnal man thinking in place of the spiritual. I am not referring to a physical act when I make mention of this in regard to fellowship, instead I am pointing out the degree or magnitude of the personal nature of this fellowship, this oneness with Jesus Christ. So in this sense, matrimony itself was established as not only a personal comfort for men and women with regard to companionship but also as a shadow of the relationship we are to have with Christ, with God Himself.

One of the most difficult things to settle amicably with regard to this issue is a proper understanding of God's desires. It is far easier to settle or reconcile our own desires especially when we view them from our fleshly or selfish motives. We all would like to believe that God wants us to have whatever makes us happy without realizing that sometimes to be happy in a carnal sense is to throw an incendiary upon a simmering fire. God desires that we have one wife or husband. That is what He desired from the very beginning. Matthew 19:8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. The scriptures also tell us Acts 17:30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent: While the excesses the Lord allowed under the law might seem reasonable even in this age, we are held to a higher spiritual standard, that found in the spirit of the law, the actual intent and purpose of God's law which is that a man and a woman come together and become one flesh. What is the mindset we face today among men and women both in circumstances associated with this quandary and as bystanders and observers of this theological question? Most often I hear the declaration that God would not want any of us to go through life without a spouse, that God would never want us to remain with a spouse who has abused us, that Jesus would never require a woman to remain with a husband who is not compatible. Yet when we test the Word, what do we find? Matthew 5:32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery. Not only do we find this, but we find it repeated elsewhere in scripture. Matthew 19:9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery. Usually when the Holy Spirit repeats something it is to be taken seriously. Now I don't see additional reasons for divorce granted here other than for fornication which in the context of the passage is referring to a lifestyle of specific sins. The Lord was not referring to specific individual acts of sin nor was He referring to a wide plethora of actions that could constitute fornication in a spiritual sense such as spiritual idolatry. The Lord was referring to a lifestyle of specific sins, sexual sins that would place a spouse in an impossible position of being one with a husband or wife AND a harlot or fornicator. This is spiritually unacceptable and therefore grounds for divorce. Now what are the circumstances of a woman who has divorced her husband due to a lifestyle of fornication?

Most modern pastors and teachers turn to the marriage chapter in the bible, 1 Corinthians chapter seven. I am not different in this case. It is a wonderful instruction and unsettling for those who preach remarriage to their congregations. In this chapter, Paul the Apostle is instructing on the position of marriage and it's expectations within Christian settings. Let me point out the obvious. It is not written to the unsaved. The unsaved are heavy duty sinners, expert fornicators and often remarried without so much as a second thought unless it crowds upon selfish motives. No, Paul is addressing saints in this instruction and these instructions are poignant. If a saved woman is married to an unsaved man who is inclined to live with her, then let her stay with him, Paul instructs. Otherwise she is free if the spouse departs. I don’t think there is much disagreement with this teaching. The scriptures tell us 1 Corinthians 7:15 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. This where we run into trouble. The modern church is full of pastors and laity who have taken this "not under bondage' passage and given it license for remarriage. How they missed what came before that passage is bewildering. 1 Corinthians 7:10-11 And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife. What are the two choices the Lord has offered to a divorced woman? Remain unmarried or reconcile with her husband. What did Jesus say about divorce earlier? Matthew 5:32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery. Why would any pastor tell anybody to go ahead and remarry when it is so clear that doing so causes adultery? I suggest it is pure selfish motive. In the Old Testament we discover that even under the permissiveness of the law a husband could not remarry his former wife after she had joined to another man. Why? Because she had defiled herself (Deut 24:4). The difficult thing to grasp here is not the clear intention of scripture. Pastors and teachers have long misinterpreted scripture out of convenience or tradition or even ignorant haste. The difficulty here is explaining why God does not sanction remarriage. Perhaps it is best explained by stating a clear character trait of God. He hates divorce! Malachi 2:15-16 And did not he make one? Yet had he the residue of the spirit. And wherefore one? That he might seek a godly seed. Therefore take heed to your spirit, and let none deal treacherously against the wife of his youth. For the LORD, the God of Israel, saith that he hateth putting away: for one covereth violence with his garment, saith the LORD of hosts: therefore take heed to your spirit, that ye deal not treacherously. If God hates divorce, why does the modern pastor offer such a conciliatory mindset to it and it's cousin, remarriage?

The pastors and teachers who teach these things have a burden to bear but what of the young woman who loves the Lord whose husband has just left her for a harlot? As scripture states she is under no bondage in this case meaning she is free of that particular yoke. Does this mean she is free to yoke herself again? The teachings of Paul in 1 Cor. 7 seem to suggest otherwise with the statement by the Lord that she is to remain unmarried or reconciled with her husband. This is a hard thing yet our salvation was a hard thing. If this young woman loves the Lord, let her turn her mind to the things of God. This is why divorce is so wicked and why God hates it so. It robs both partners. If we think this is difficult, we are thinking correctly. Sin carries a high price even among the saved. Look at the example of Aaron, the priest and brother of Moses. He lost two sons after they offered unholy or "strange" fire to the Lord yet the Lords instructions were clear. Lev 10:6 And Moses said unto Aaron, and unto Eleazar and unto Ithamar, his sons, Uncover not your heads, neither rend your clothes; lest ye die, and lest wrath come upon all the people: but let your brethren, the whole house of Israel, bewail the burning which the LORD hath kindled. Aaron could not mourn nor grieve the loss of his sons. The Bible is full of examples where transgression is paid for with personal loss and grief, lifelong grief. Yet we listen and heed to calls for exception for young and middle-aged divorced who desire to mate again, to remarry, to become one with another. This is a church that needs to repent and understand that divorce is an expensive lifelong proposition that the Lord hates.

There is a particular area that I must address before concluding this letter. What of the saint who divorced prior to being saved? So far I have limited my comments to the actions and demands placed upon believers with regard to divorce and remarriage. The words Christ conveys to us are given to the body of Christ even though the penalty for disobedience will be fully borne by the unbelieving. The person who comes to Christ becomes a new creation in Christ. The old man, or person, is now dead. That person no longer exists. As such, we can apply the analogy the Holy Spirit used in the beginning of Romans chapter seven to that new creation in Christ. He or she has no past, no bondages, no chains which are carried over to the new creation. That person is certainly free to remarry so long as she does not yoke herself to unbelievers. I want to make this clear so that there is no mistaken belief that I am saying saints previously divorced in a sinful past are still obligated to law or the demands placed by the law. That is not the case. If you are a new saint in Christ who has divorced from a husband or wife while lost in the ways of the world, never despair. You are reborn. That old divorced you was buried with Him in crucifixion. Marry for the first time as a child of God if the Holy Spirit directs you. But bear in mind the lessons taught above regarding divorce and remarriage as it regards those in Christ. Those teachings then come into play.