As Jesus said, you cannot serve two masters. We must accept Him as our highest or supreme master, if not we have not truly accepted Him. We might have other lesser human masters over aspects of our lives but Jesus must be supreme.
-
Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.
General Is the rejection of biblical beliefs such as polygyny a salvation issue?
- Thread starter Kai T
- Start date
The two people I am talking about are not the same people. The people who reject Christ are people who did so because of the people who will not have a lot of glory to show for their works, or whose glory will be tainted by the blood on their hands, because their dogmatic hold onto the monogamy only heresy, has lead to people rejecting Christ. I'm sorry I did not lay out my argument better for you to understand. I am not claiming that people who reject Christ will be in heaven. I am saying that there are people who will themselves be in heaven, but will be held responsible for the fact that other people are not.
You are making a false equivalence here between rejecting a tenant of the Christian faith that should be held by all, and rejecting Christ outright. You also ignored the underlying reasons given for why our message has been rejected. Our message has been rejected because our motives have been impugned. What people need to realize first, is that it makes no sense to call a polygamist "lustful", if the underlying desire to have a second wife is not sinful in the first place. Our effort needs to be focused on helping them to understand that until they establish the sinfulness of the behavior, the desires that we have, are done in the integrity of our hearts. (Gen 20:6) When I say that God has given me the desire for a second wife, they think I am blaming God for something, but it is to God's credit that He gives us the desire for a second or third wife. Again, we have to help them get past their false premises. That is an entirely different ballgame than where you have some people who will say that if God does allow polygamy, they want nothing to do with Christianity. Those would be people who have hard hearts and are not true followers of Christ, and they will most surely hear Him say, "I never knew you. Depart from Me you workers of iniquity." If you determine that this is the sort of individual whom you are dealing with, then indeed, you are on the right track, because they will not enter the kingdom of heaven.
Yes, that is exactly my point. I think many so-called Christians will say that if God does allow polygyny, they want nothing to do with Christianity.
Yes, I ignored that because I made an assumption that Christians will read and understand the Bible for what it is and not through the lens created by the messenger. This is similar to judging the value of an insurance policy by judging the motive of the insurance salesman. So that’s why many don’t buy insurance because they think all insurance salesmen are sleazy. Or getting a lawyer in a court case is not important because they think that all lawyers are crooks.
In that case, I suppose The Lord will find it almost impossible to bring forth any of His messages because the motive of the messengers will always be questioned. The truth of the Lord is most of the time very unpleasant to the worldly person and the motive of the messenger of God will almost always be questioned.
Therefore, I don’t understand why a Christian will judge the motive of a person without going back to the words of God. The truth of God should solely be judged through and by His words and Him alone.
I really like how you phrased that. I will use that some time, when I get a chance to talk to fellow believers. I will put it in my own words, of course, but I'll let you know how that goes.
In the news, the famous evangelist/preacher, Ravi Zacharias was found to have committed sexual abuses in the name of the Lord. https://www.christianitytoday.com/n...-investigation-sexual-abuse-sexting-rape.html
This person obviously had the knowledge and truth that sexual immorality is a grave sin - he committed it nonetheless. This is similar to a "Christian" being given the truth but rejected it. If he did not repent, he will not be saved and will be condemned to hell.
If a Christian is being given the truth and knowledge that polygyny is not a sin but yet still continues to persecute other Christians who do practice polygyny, that Christian I believe will not be saved.
This person obviously had the knowledge and truth that sexual immorality is a grave sin - he committed it nonetheless. This is similar to a "Christian" being given the truth but rejected it. If he did not repent, he will not be saved and will be condemned to hell.
If a Christian is being given the truth and knowledge that polygyny is not a sin but yet still continues to persecute other Christians who do practice polygyny, that Christian I believe will not be saved.
Wow! That is just sickening! I have always said that hypocrisy in the pews, is not the issue that concerns me so much as hypocrisy in the pulpit.
So now if Ravi is in hell right now, he is not saved and never was. The words of Scripture state "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved", but if he is in hell, he was not saved from anything. It says that "everyone who calls on the name of the Lord, shall be saved." Someone who languishes in the Lake of fire, has not been saved from anything. It's not like they were saved from a burning building, only to drown in a bathtub. They were not saved from hell, because that person IS in hell.
Now, no one knows whether he ever heard what Scripture has to say regarding polygamy. Clearly, he was not a one woman man, and none of us have an issue with that. CT, wants to point out that some of the women he assaulted, were decades younger than him, to which I give a shrug. The fact that age difference makes so many people revolt in shock and horror, is laughable. The issue is not the multiple women or the age difference, and I gotta believe his wife knew and was willing to allow him to have multiple "affairs". The issue we all can agree on here that was grotesque and immoral, is the fact that he compelled so many women to do these things against their will. We might argue that he didn't really commit to them in any meaningful way, but that is really only partially true, when you think about it.
Now the other issue, which CT doesn't address, is whether any of those women had husbands. Ravi watch, however does in the first entry:
well that right there, is looking at a gunaika with lust.
So now if Ravi is in hell right now, he is not saved and never was. The words of Scripture state "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved", but if he is in hell, he was not saved from anything. It says that "everyone who calls on the name of the Lord, shall be saved." Someone who languishes in the Lake of fire, has not been saved from anything. It's not like they were saved from a burning building, only to drown in a bathtub. They were not saved from hell, because that person IS in hell.
Now, no one knows whether he ever heard what Scripture has to say regarding polygamy. Clearly, he was not a one woman man, and none of us have an issue with that. CT, wants to point out that some of the women he assaulted, were decades younger than him, to which I give a shrug. The fact that age difference makes so many people revolt in shock and horror, is laughable. The issue is not the multiple women or the age difference, and I gotta believe his wife knew and was willing to allow him to have multiple "affairs". The issue we all can agree on here that was grotesque and immoral, is the fact that he compelled so many women to do these things against their will. We might argue that he didn't really commit to them in any meaningful way, but that is really only partially true, when you think about it.
Now the other issue, which CT doesn't address, is whether any of those women had husbands. Ravi watch, however does in the first entry:
well that right there, is looking at a gunaika with lust.
...and the other sickening thing, is how the ministry has responded to the accusations, and the subsequent revelations.
This truth is just very sad. There are too many wolves in sheep's clothings.
John 6:37, “All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out."
Many interpret "All that the Father gives Me" here to mean all Christians given by the Father to the Son and is usually taken to mean Christians' eternal security with Christ. However, when you check the the actual meanings of those words, "all" can also refer to both things and people; "that" could not be only referring to human beings; "will come" in Greek is hēkō as opposed to "who comes" in the second part of the verse which is erchomai, which means that hēkō also includes things and people but not exclusively be referring to people only.
In the second part of the verse, it is clear that this part refers to human beings because the word "who" is being used.
Therefore, John 6:37 could be saying that all the good and bad things, good people and bad people that the Father gave Jesus will come to pass or will come upon Jesus, but those Christians who literally come to Jesus will NOT be cast out. Christians have to "come" to Jesus by taking active action in order to not be cast out.
That is very interesting.
I'm not sure where you get the 'good and bad' concept from. May it not simply mean "Everything the Father intends to give me will be given to me", and be meaning that both the people and the land & physical possessions that He will rule as King will be given to Him? I think that is a more natural reading from your initial point that this refers to both things and people.
Sorry for not being specific enough.
Lamentations 3:38Is it not from the mouth of the Most High
That both good and ill go forth?
I would think "All" here would be quite general. In Lament 3, it says that God can ordain everything. It can also refer to the suffering and blessing that God would give to Jesus. By reading it as " both the people and the land & physical possessions that He will rule as King" might not be proper exegesis.
I agree that the word "All" would be quite general in John 6:37. So I don't see why it would have anything to do with Lamentations 3:38. Lamentations 3:38 says that both good and ill come from God, which is true. But Genesis 1 says that all creation comes from God, which is also true - and the more general meaning of "all". I could pick either option and say that "all" in this verse means that because of this specific proof-text - but both proof-texts give completely different readings, and neither has any direct connection to John 6:37. I still can't see any reason to read "good and ill" into John 6:37.
It feels like you've picked a meaning and then found a proof-text that aligns with it.
It feels like you've picked a meaning and then found a proof-text that aligns with it.
I might be wrong but through my own reading, I kind of felt the meaning to be so.
In John 6, Jesus was talking about the manna given by the Father and also in John 6:27-28, Jesus said "Do not work for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give to you, for on Him the Father, God, has set His seal. Therefore, they(Being the disciples) said to Him, 'What shall we do, so that we may work the works of God?'"
The disciples understood the Bread being the works of God that the Father gave.
Then Jesus mentioned "All that the Father gives Me" a few times. First in John 6:37. Then later in verse 39, "All that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day. In the word "All", I think it means the works of God which are given to the Son. Jesus loses nothing which God's works have done and given to Him. To limit the meaning of "all" to only people, land & physical possessions that will be given to Jesus would therefore not be proper exegesis because Jesus was talking about the Bread of Life and it being the works of God, the Father a few times before John 6:27.
Couldn't the works of God be also about the sufferings which Jesus would endure after John 6:37?
No, the "food which endures to eternal life" was what they were to "work for". It was not the work itself, but the reward for that work. The disciples then said "What shall we do, so that we may work the works of God", because by working the works of God they would receive the food which endures to eternal life. They did not understand the bread to be the works, but the reward for the works.
Yes, you might be right to say the disciples understood it to the reward for the works.
However, it still does not negate the understanding that Jesus in saying "all" in John 6:37 and verse 39 that "all" being the works of God because Jesus also said earlier in verse 29 that the work is "the work of God that you believe in Him who He has sent" and not the work on the part of the disciples. Therefore, in Jesus' mind, He was always referencing the works of God throughout His conversation with the disciples.
@FollowingHim
Furthermore, in John 6:37, “All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out."
and in John 6:39, "This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day."
In both verses, the word "all" is used in a general sense. If all the people that the Father gives will come to Him, why does Jesus need to say "I will certainly not cast out those who comes to Me"? It implies that Jesus has the right to cast out those people too and He could cast those people out. If Jesus said all that the Father has given me I lose nothing but raise it up on the last day, it has a few implications:
First, the "all" that the Father has given Jesus has not been raised up but will be raised up on the last day. It probably is still in hell or hidden at the moment. It might not be in existence at the moment.
Second, this only limits to what the Father has already given Jesus. The future Kingdom and lands are not included because those are not prepared or built yet as Jesus said after the resurrection that He went away to prepare the future Kingdom for us. Even if you disagreed with this, if you take His future Kingdom into consideration, the meaning of "all" can be even wider as it included the rights and glory of the King of kings.
Thirdly, when Jesus said He loses nothing that the Father has given Him, does it only mean those that are given to Him will definitely stay with or be loyal to Him? Or, is it possible that Jesus meant that He will not lose any authority over all that the Father has given Him? Since Jesus will be given the full and absolute ownership of everything by the Father, I think I meant He will never lose any authority over all of Creations (ie. the works of God) but raise the authority up on the last day.
Furthermore, in John 6:37, “All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out."
and in John 6:39, "This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day."
In both verses, the word "all" is used in a general sense. If all the people that the Father gives will come to Him, why does Jesus need to say "I will certainly not cast out those who comes to Me"? It implies that Jesus has the right to cast out those people too and He could cast those people out. If Jesus said all that the Father has given me I lose nothing but raise it up on the last day, it has a few implications:
First, the "all" that the Father has given Jesus has not been raised up but will be raised up on the last day. It probably is still in hell or hidden at the moment. It might not be in existence at the moment.
Second, this only limits to what the Father has already given Jesus. The future Kingdom and lands are not included because those are not prepared or built yet as Jesus said after the resurrection that He went away to prepare the future Kingdom for us. Even if you disagreed with this, if you take His future Kingdom into consideration, the meaning of "all" can be even wider as it included the rights and glory of the King of kings.
Thirdly, when Jesus said He loses nothing that the Father has given Him, does it only mean those that are given to Him will definitely stay with or be loyal to Him? Or, is it possible that Jesus meant that He will not lose any authority over all that the Father has given Him? Since Jesus will be given the full and absolute ownership of everything by the Father, I think I meant He will never lose any authority over all of Creations (ie. the works of God) but raise the authority up on the last day.
Last edited:
"For if you live according to the flesh you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live. For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God. "