kevin.carroll
Puritan Board Junior
They headed that direction in an awful hurry. Read them.
I'm not discounting them, just pointing out a matter of historical fact.
1 Cor 7:15 "But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bonda
- Thread starter Dan....
- Start date
- Status
They headed that direction in an awful hurry. Read them.
I'm not discounting them, just pointing out a matter of historical fact.
kevin.carroll
Puritan Board Junior
Hmmmm I wonder why a non-offensive word that is a given title for naughty pictures was censored. Ah well...
biblelighthouse
Puritan Board Junior
It would certainly qualify as a sexual sin, but it certainly would not be grounds for divorce, would it? (I hope that was not the implicit intention of your statement.)
After all, if divorce were permissible on the grounds of lust, then what wife wouldn't have grounds for divorce? What husband has not had to wrestle with lust at some point or another?
If a person seeks a divorce because of "adultery", but his/her spouse did not engage in sexual relations with another person (or animal), then I think that person is seeking an unbiblical divorce. Raising the sins of lust and/or frigidity to the level of divorce-permission is a huge stretch and cop-out. It is nothing more than an example of a person LOOKING for ANY reason to get out of his/her marriage. Only actual physical infidelity involving another person qualifies as "adultery" in regards to grounds for divorce.
Would you agree, Kevin? Or do you think that every woman whose husband has looked at something inappropriate on the internet has grounds for divorcing her husband?
kevin.carroll
Puritan Board Junior
Yes, I agree with you. As I said, I was only pointing out the semantic range of the Greek word, porneia. That is not to say, however, that adultery was the only sexual sin that Jesus was referring to. As you point out, what man has not lusted in his heart? That's a far cry, however from certain forms of deviance that can truly wreck a marriage.
kevin.carroll
Puritan Board Junior
Originally posted by LadyFlynt
Originally posted by kevin.carroll
They headed that direction in an awful hurry. Read them.
Question for you...personally, what makes one a legalist?
Adding anything to grace as a pre-requisite for salvation. The traditional use of the word. And, as I said, the Fathers veered that direction very quickly. Again, that is not to discount everything they have to say, but it should cause one to view their remarks with a theological grain of salt at times.
kevin.carroll
Puritan Board Junior
I'm not sure I understand the words you are trying to put in my mouth!
biblelighthouse
Puritan Board Junior
At times, yes, but certainly not in regard to their views on D&R . . .
Do you really want to argue that ALL the early church fathers were legalists, and that NONE of them really understood "grace"? Nonsense. The church did not disappear for centuries. If there was no real consensus on divorce and remarriage in the early church, then you might have a point to dismiss the ones you disagree with. But there was SO MUCH error in the early church, that it is truly STAGGERING to see such unanimity among them on this subject!
But let some Arminian tell you that no one believed in Calvinism until John Calvin, and watch you run to quote Augustine!
We can't just pick up the early church fathers when we happen to like them, and then discard them when they rub us the wrong way. Should we take some of their sayings with a grain of salt? Of course . . . especially since there was disagreement over things then, just as there is now.
But whenever they had virtual unanimity on a particular subject, that should really get our attention!!!
biblelighthouse
Puritan Board Junior
Originally posted by kevin.carroll
I'm not sure I understand the words you are trying to put in my mouth!
You already put the words there . . . she's just spooning them in for you
First, you said that we might not want to listen to the Fathers' beliefs about D&R, because they were "legalistic".
Then she asked you to define "legalistic", and you said that it is "Adding anything to grace as a pre-requisite for salvation".
So her last question was merely a logical question based on your previous comments.
kevin.carroll
Puritan Board Junior
Originally posted by biblelighthouse
At times, yes, but certainly not in regard to their views on D&R . . .
Do you really want to argue that ALL the early church fathers were legalists, and that NONE of them really understood "grace"? Nonsense. The church did not disappear for centuries. If there was no real consensus on divorce and remarriage in the early church, then you might have a point to dismiss the ones you disagree with. But there was SO MUCH error in the early church, that it is truly STAGGERING to see such unanimity among them on this subject!
But let some Arminian tell you that no one believed in Calvinism until John Calvin, and watch you run to quote Augustine!
We can't just pick up the early church fathers when we happen to like them, and then discard them when they rub us the wrong way. Should we take some of their sayings with a grain of salt? Of course . . . especially since there was disagreement over things then, just as there is now.
But whenever they had virtual unanimity on a particular subject, that should really get our attention!!!
Ad populum. They also were in virtual agreement that sins committed after baptism were unforgivable.
I'm not discounting the Fathers...just advising caution in their use. That's all.
kevin.carroll
Puritan Board Junior
Originally posted by biblelighthouse
Originally posted by kevin.carroll
I'm not sure I understand the words you are trying to put in my mouth!
You already put the words there . . . she's just spooning them in for you
First, you said that we might not want to listen to the Fathers' beliefs about D&R, because they were "legalistic".
Then she asked you to define "legalistic", and you said that it is "Adding anything to grace as a pre-requisite for salvation".
So her last question was merely a logical question based on your previous comments.
No I didn't. I merely, correctly, observed that they headed in that direction very quickly. Moralism (leading to full blown legalism) replaced grace very early in church history. My ONLY point is that we need to take that into consideration before using the Fathers as the crucial proof of this particular discussion.
biblelighthouse
Puritan Board Junior
Ad nonsensicum.
Are you seriously suggesting that you couldn't come up with a list of several fathers who did not believe that? There was nowhere near the unanimity regarding that doctrine as there was on the impropriety of D&R.
So, your logic here seems faulty to me.
Here is just a sampling of early church quotes to consider:
"God gives forgiveness of past sins. However, as to future sins, each one procures this for himself. He does this by repenting, by condemning past deeds, and by begging the father to blot them out." (Clement of Alexandria, A.D. 195)
"He who sins after baptism, unless he forsakes his sins, will be condemned to Gehenna." (Apostolic Constitutions, A.D. 390)
"No one can boast of being so free from sin as to not even have an evil thought." (Methodius, A.D. 290)
"No one can be so prudent and so cautious as not at sometime to slip." (Lactaintius, A.D. 304)
I'm sure I can drill up more examples if you need them. The early church fathers were FAR from unanimous regarding the unforgivability of post-baptismal sins.
Originally posted by kevin.carroll
I'm not discounting the Fathers...just advising caution in their use. That's all.
I agree we should be cautious with them, and that is exactly what I'm doing. I am being cautious not to rely on them for "solid evidence" except where I see virtual unanimity . . . and that is exactly what we have here!
You say you are "not discounting the Fathers", but I disagree. If you don't "count" them when they are virtually unanimous, then when will you "count" them? Sounds to me like you have no use for them except for where they already happen to agree with you. If you want to approach them that way, at least admit it. There are some people who openly do just that.
[Edited on 7-13-2005 by biblelighthouse]
These threads were merged, so I will avail myself of my earlier comment:
There may be no way to prove this scientifically, but I do know this: that when God's ways are not followed, the result is not less sin, but more. It sounds really good that we can be "more spiritual" if we forsake all worldy attachments, and go live in monastaries and convents. Or if we become priests/bishops and have no wives. But did this attitude, bolstered by misunderstanding God's ways, result in less sin or more? The same is true of Marriage & Divorce itself. It may have taken centuries to get to the point of the medieval corruptions, but the corruptions were there, all over the place. And the Reformers had to address that. How? By appealing to the errors of the Fathers? No. By an appeal to Scripture. If the Fathers (who, as the Reformers liked to point out, were always contradicting themsleves) could be enlisted on the side of the Reformers, great. The issue was to deny Rome the leverage of "what in all times and in every place has been believed by all."
The argument of those here who believe God's way (according to our biblical interpretation) allows for certain cases of divorce and remarriage, is this: more sin, more kinds of sin, more wounds and misery occur if evil situations are not resolved God's way. This too is the argument of the other side. But no appeal to experience or history is going to change most people's minds one way or the other.
What saith the Scriptures, is the only question worth addressing.
I don't think anyone here is advocating trotting out one church father, or 101 when it suits their case to do so. Were their biblical doctrines that were essentially lost, "misplaced", or misapplied within two or three centuries of the apostles? Yes, there were. Does near unanimity (at least as far as the father's we know of) speak strongly toward extra-careful consideration being given to their position? Yes, it should and it does. However, even total unanimity does not guarantee that a doctrine is in fact biblical. That must be determined by exegiesis.
There may be no way to prove this scientifically, but I do know this: that when God's ways are not followed, the result is not less sin, but more. It sounds really good that we can be "more spiritual" if we forsake all worldy attachments, and go live in monastaries and convents. Or if we become priests/bishops and have no wives. But did this attitude, bolstered by misunderstanding God's ways, result in less sin or more? The same is true of Marriage & Divorce itself. It may have taken centuries to get to the point of the medieval corruptions, but the corruptions were there, all over the place. And the Reformers had to address that. How? By appealing to the errors of the Fathers? No. By an appeal to Scripture. If the Fathers (who, as the Reformers liked to point out, were always contradicting themsleves) could be enlisted on the side of the Reformers, great. The issue was to deny Rome the leverage of "what in all times and in every place has been believed by all."
The argument of those here who believe God's way (according to our biblical interpretation) allows for certain cases of divorce and remarriage, is this: more sin, more kinds of sin, more wounds and misery occur if evil situations are not resolved God's way. This too is the argument of the other side. But no appeal to experience or history is going to change most people's minds one way or the other.
What saith the Scriptures, is the only question worth addressing.
kevin.carroll
Puritan Board Junior
Originally posted by biblelighthouse
Ad nonsensicum.
There was nowhere near the unanimity regarding that doctrine as there was on the impropriety of D&R.
So, your logic here seems faulty to me.
Here is just a sampling of early church quotes to consider:
"God gives forgiveness of past sins. However, as to future sins, each one procures this for himself. He does this by repenting, by condemning past deeds, and by begging the father to blot them out." (Clement of Alexandria, A.D. 195)
"He who sins after baptism, unless he forsakes his sins, will be condemned to Gehenna." (Apostolic Constitutions, A.D. 390)
"No one can boast of being so free from sin as to not even have an evil thought." (Methodius, A.D. 290)
"No one can be so prudent and so cautious as not at sometime to slip." (Lactaintius, A.D. 304)
I'm sure I can drill up more examples if you need them. The early church fathers were FAR from unanimous regarding the unforgivability of post-baptismal sins.
Originally posted by kevin.carroll
I'm not discounting the Fathers...just advising caution in their use. That's all.
I agree we should be cautious with them, and that is exactly what I'm doing. I am being cautious not to rely on them for "solid evidence" except where I see virtual unanimity . . . and that is exactly what we have here!
You say you are "not discounting the Fathers", but I disagree. If you don't "count" them when they are virtually unanimous, then when will you "count" them? Sounds to me like you have no use for them except for where they already happen to agree with you. If you want to approach them that way, at least admit it. There are some people who openly do just that.
[Edited on 7-13-2005 by biblelighthouse]
You and I are both a little given to inflammatory rhetoric, aren't we?
biblelighthouse
Puritan Board Junior
Originally posted by kevin.carroll
You and I are both a little given to inflammatory rhetoric, aren't we?
Yes, that appears to be the case. :bigsmile:
LadyFlynt
Puritan Board Doctor
Well, at least we can all be honest with eachother.
back to legalism...you never actually answered the question led by logical conclusion.
Moralism does not neccessarily lead to legalism. If anything, I would be quicker to believe that intentional avoidance of moralism leads to liberalism. By your theory that it was their moralistic ideals that was the beginning of legalism, then all persons holding to moralistic standards are legalists. (basically, I'm just waiting for you to call me a legalist ) One can hold to certain standards based upon scriptural principles and not believe that it adds to grace...but instead is caused because of grace.
One thing I've noticed (and I know you've heard me say this before)...I think we need to be careful going in either direction. There's a ditch on either side of the path that we walk...one called legalism and one called liberalism...sometimes we run so hard and so fast from one that we fall blindly into the other.
[Edited on 7-13-2005 by LadyFlynt]
back to legalism...you never actually answered the question led by logical conclusion.
Moralism does not neccessarily lead to legalism. If anything, I would be quicker to believe that intentional avoidance of moralism leads to liberalism. By your theory that it was their moralistic ideals that was the beginning of legalism, then all persons holding to moralistic standards are legalists. (basically, I'm just waiting for you to call me a legalist
) One can hold to certain standards based upon scriptural principles and not believe that it adds to grace...but instead is caused because of grace.One thing I've noticed (and I know you've heard me say this before)...I think we need to be careful going in either direction. There's a ditch on either side of the path that we walk...one called legalism and one called liberalism...sometimes we run so hard and so fast from one that we fall blindly into the other.
[Edited on 7-13-2005 by LadyFlynt]
biblelighthouse
Puritan Board Junior
Sounds like you guys don't believe in the perspicuity of Scripture. You guys believe the Holy Spirit keeps certain important doctrines a *secret* from everybody between the apostles and the Reformers. For 1500 years nobody in the entire church knew what the Scriptures were really saying.
The dispensationalists use the same argument. They don't flinch a bit when you show them that dispensationalism is less than 200 years old. They just say the truth was restored by Darby and his crew.
The credobaptists do the same thing. Even though there could hardly be said to be a single credobaptist until the Petrobrussians of the 12th century, the credobaptists don't flinch at all, and just say that the true doctrine of Scripture was "lost" for a thousand years.
If you want to go way outside orthodoxy, it gets even more interesting. The Church of Christ was started in the 1800s by a guy who was determined to read the Bible every time as if he had never read it before, and he felt like he brought about a "restoration" of true Apostolic Chrsitianity which had been lost for nearly 2000 years. The same goes for the Mormons. The same goes for the Jehovah's Witnesses.
So, do you believe in the perspicuity of Scripture, or not? Did the Holy Spirit hide the truth from the ENTIRE church for one and a half THOUSAND years?
By the way, how is your argument for remarriage any different than the dispensationalist arguments? . . . Or are you suggesting that church history is an irrelevant topic when arguing against dispensationalism?
[Edited on 7-13-2005 by biblelighthouse]
The dispensationalists use the same argument. They don't flinch a bit when you show them that dispensationalism is less than 200 years old. They just say the truth was restored by Darby and his crew.
The credobaptists do the same thing. Even though there could hardly be said to be a single credobaptist until the Petrobrussians of the 12th century, the credobaptists don't flinch at all, and just say that the true doctrine of Scripture was "lost" for a thousand years.
If you want to go way outside orthodoxy, it gets even more interesting. The Church of Christ was started in the 1800s by a guy who was determined to read the Bible every time as if he had never read it before, and he felt like he brought about a "restoration" of true Apostolic Chrsitianity which had been lost for nearly 2000 years. The same goes for the Mormons. The same goes for the Jehovah's Witnesses.
So, do you believe in the perspicuity of Scripture, or not? Did the Holy Spirit hide the truth from the ENTIRE church for one and a half THOUSAND years?
By the way, how is your argument for remarriage any different than the dispensationalist arguments? . . . Or are you suggesting that church history is an irrelevant topic when arguing against dispensationalism?
[Edited on 7-13-2005 by biblelighthouse]
LadyFlynt
Puritan Board Doctor
Martin, earlier you answered a question I asked, but backwards. You stated that other sexual sins weren't covered under the term adultery. I'm aware of this. But adultery is being claimed as being covered under the term fornication in other passages...which leads back to the actual question asked. Why does not the verse that uses both terms in it not simply say fornication? Why does it say fornication AND adultery...thereby implying that fornication is not being used as a general term but rather something specifically different than adultery? It would also not make sense...not be consistent to use a general term AND a specific term in the same context if the general term covers the specific...therefore, I presume the general is actually a specific.
kevin.carroll
Puritan Board Junior
It's because I'm not going anywhere with it. I'm simply making an historical observation.
Very true. But the fact that it did steadily in the history of the Church, beginning almost immediately after the disappearance of the Apostles is a matter of historical fact. The reason I don't want to pursue the discussion of you is twofold: first, while we have had our disagreements, I'm NOT calling you a legalist and second, this discussion is getting wildly off topic.
Your conslusion doesn't follow. Moralism tends towards legalism (because of the hardness of our hearts) but doesn't do so inexorably.
I couldn't agree more.
kevin.carroll
Puritan Board Junior
Originally posted by biblelighthouse
Sounds like you guys don't believe in the perspicuity of Scripture. You guys believe the Holy Spirit keeps certain important doctrines a *secret* from everybody between the apostles and the Reformers. For 1500 years nobody in the entire church knew what the Scriptures were really saying.
The dispensationalists use the same argument. They don't flinch a bit when you show them that dispensationalism is less than 200 years old. They just say the truth was restored by Darby and his crew.
The credobaptists do the same thing. Even though there could hardly be said to be a single credobaptist until the Petrobrussians of the 12th century, the credobaptists don't flinch at all, and just say that the true doctrine of Scripture was "lost" for a thousand years.
If you want to go way outside orthodoxy, it gets even more interesting. The Church of Christ was started in the 1800s by a guy who was determined to read the Bible every time as if he had never read it before, and he felt like he brought about a "restoration" of true Apostolic Chrsitianity which had been lost for nearly 2000 years. The same goes for the Mormons. The same goes for the Jehovah's Witnesses.
So, do you believe in the perspicuity of Scripture, or not? Did the Holy Spirit hide the truth from the ENTIRE church for one and a half THOUSAND years?
By the way, how is your argument for remarriage any different than the dispensationalist arguments? . . . Or are you suggesting that church history is an irrelevant topic when arguing against dispensationalism?
[Edited on 7-13-2005 by biblelighthouse]
I'm not sure who you are including among the "you guys," but it sounds to me like you are arguing for the perspicuity of the Fathers!
I could just as easily point out that the Church from the time of the Apostolic Fathers to the Reformation was episcopate in government...where does that leave your position? There position is universal and unanimous. But I bet you a donut, you're a Presbyterian (and I'm glad)! Hehhehe.
This thread has gotten wildly off topic, hasn't it?
LadyFlynt
Puritan Board Doctor
Moralism tends to legalism? I totally, 100%, disagree. Are we not to be moral ppl?
And yes, it has rabbit trailed...but I think this would be a worthwhile discussion. As I think it's sad that we would put aside moralism.
Also...the church as a whole may have fallen into legalism at later dates...but does the fault lie with the early church fathers? I was just coming to respect these men (I used to be so anti RCC that I threw the baby out with the bath water).
And yes, it has rabbit trailed...but I think this would be a worthwhile discussion. As I think it's sad that we would put aside moralism.
Also...the church as a whole may have fallen into legalism at later dates...but does the fault lie with the early church fathers? I was just coming to respect these men (I used to be so anti RCC that I threw the baby out with the bath water).
biblelighthouse
Puritan Board Junior
Originally posted by kevin.carroll
I'm not sure who you are including among the "you guys," but it sounds to me like you are arguing for the perspicuity of the Fathers!
--- I know you're giving me a cut-down, but for some reason it really cracks me up . . . sounds like the type of thing I would say to someone else in a different conversation. :bigsmile:I don't agree. But I have to admit I haven't done my homework yet on this topic. I thought Dr. McMahon argued that the early church fathers practiced a Presbyterian form of church government?
You've got me curious now. I need to go do some research.
Actually, I go to a semi-dispensational Bible church that is somewhat of the "Brethren" style . . .
Nevertheless, yes, you are right . . . I am a Presbyterian at heart.
Originally posted by biblelighthouse
Sounds like you guys don't believe in the perspicuity of Scripture. You guys believe the Holy Spirit keeps certain important doctrines a *secret* from everybody between the apostles and the Reformers. For 1500 years nobody in the entire church knew what the Scriptures were really saying.
The dispensationalists use the same argument. They don't flinch a bit when you show them that dispensationalism is less than 200 years old. They just say the truth was restored by Darby and his crew.
The credobaptists do the same thing. Even though there could hardly be said to be a single credobaptist until the Petrobrussians of the 12th century, the credobaptists don't flinch at all, and just say that the true doctrine of Scripture was "lost" for a thousand years.
If you want to go way outside orthodoxy, it gets even more interesting. The Church of Christ was started in the 1800s by a guy who was determined to read the Bible every time as if he had never read it before, and he felt like he brought about a "restoration" of true Apostolic Chrsitianity which had been lost for nearly 2000 years. The same goes for the Mormons. The same goes for the Jehovah's Witnesses.
So, do you believe in the perspicuity of Scripture, or not? Did the Holy Spirit hide the truth from the ENTIRE church for one and a half THOUSAND years?
By the way, how is your argument for remarriage any different than the dispensationalist arguments? . . . Or are you suggesting that church history is an irrelevant topic when arguing against dispensationalism?
[Edited on 7-13-2005 by biblelighthouse]
Come on Joe. So do you believe the WCF got it wrong Joe?
Did you forget my comments with Jacob on the other thread concerning Augustine and other Church Fathers not being baptized until they were older, even though they had Christian parents. One of them being a Bishops son. I asked you a question about who is incorrect and you didn't answer. Maybe you didn't see my post since I posted later. I will look into your references but there are others who refute your claims. Also, do you deny the dark ages and how Catholicism basically took over? Sounds like straw men arguments to me. I don't believe Bruce is a dispensationalist nor a Credo. I hope you weren't addressing him along with me in your comments. Maybe you are only addressing KC.
Another thing, Darby introduced dispensational eschatology that isn't documented anywhere in the Church Fathers. I can show you some credo baptisms in the church fathers even though they were raised by parents in the faith. I am going to read what you recommended. I would also challenge you to read the book Baptism in the Early Church.
[Edited on 7-13-2005 by puritancovenanter]
BrianBowman
Posting Priviledges Revoked
All,
I just want to express my love and gratitude in Christ for each one of you. D&R (including the related "rabbitt trails") is a really "charged" subject, namely because so much is at stake. I'm especially grateful to Joseph Gleason and to Colleen, who are wonderful, gracious people! I'm certain of this, that the love and investment in Christian character that they are imparting to their Covenant children will go a long way to ensure that the curse of divorce does not visit their future generations.
Although I am childless, it will be worth all of the pain and woe that I've experienced if can help just one young person get the right foundation for life and marriage!
I just want to express my love and gratitude in Christ for each one of you. D&R (including the related "rabbitt trails") is a really "charged" subject, namely because so much is at stake. I'm especially grateful to Joseph Gleason and to Colleen, who are wonderful, gracious people! I'm certain of this, that the love and investment in Christian character that they are imparting to their Covenant children will go a long way to ensure that the curse of divorce does not visit their future generations.
Although I am childless, it will be worth all of the pain and woe that I've experienced if can help just one young person get the right foundation for life and marriage!
biblelighthouse
Puritan Board Junior
absolutely!
You are making the fallacy of equating "baptism as an adult" with "credobaptism". The two simply are not the same. Lots of presbyterians baptize adults after professions of faith. Credobaptists are *anti-paedobaptists*. Furthermore, they generally believe that baptism should proceed soon after a profession of faith. NEITHER of these cases applied to the examples you give. Some of the early church fathers were baptized as adults, but not because they were against infant baptism. Rather, they had a faulty belief in baptismal regeneration, so they often thought it best to wait until just before death to be baptized. Or at the very least, as Tertullian suggested, they thought a person should wait until it's not so easy to be tempted by sin (like during puberty), and then to be baptized afterwards.
There were no credobaptists in the first 1000 years of the church, to my knowledge.
Great. You've already made up your mind that my references have been refuted. Sounds like your mind is truly open to change. (NOT!)
I was merely comparing them, not equating them.
I would be very interested to see even a single credobaptism in the early church, not to mention several of them.
I would be happy to read that book. But I need to finish my Beasley-Murray book first. (It is a *baptistic* book on the history of baptism.)
In Christ,
Joseph
[Edited on 7-13-2005 by biblelighthouse]
biblelighthouse
Puritan Board Junior
Originally posted by BrianBowman
All,
I just want to express my love and gratitude in Christ for each one of you. D&R (including the related "rabbitt trails") is a really "charged" subject, namely because so much is at stake. I'm especially grateful to Joseph Gleason and to Colleen, who are wonderful, gracious people! I'm certain of this, that the love and investment in Christian character that they are imparting to their Covenant children will go a long way to ensure that the curse of divorce does not visit their future generations.
Although I am childless, it will be worth all of the pain and woe that I've experienced if can help just one young person get the right foundation for life and marriage!
Amen, my brother!!!BrianBowman
Posting Priviledges Revoked
... and I pray that each of you will have such a special bond in Christ with each of your children that when the time comes for them to Biblically court and marry that they will trust your judgment as to whether or not a particular individual is right for them or not. The authority of parents and the Church body in helping young people to make correct decisions toward marriage is key to eradicating divorce in the Church for future generations.
I also want to pubicly repent to anyone who might construe any of my statements on this subject to appear that I don't want to uphold Christ's highest ideal for marriage.
I also want to pubicly repent to anyone who might construe any of my statements on this subject to appear that I don't want to uphold Christ's highest ideal for marriage.
LadyFlynt
Puritan Board Doctor
I don't doubt your desire, Brian...even in disagreement on "where to draw a line" you've shown passion on trying to change the course of thinking. I know you will be a good testamony and have wisdom from your past experience to help others to avoid what you've been through. And who knows...one day the Lord might just bring a child into your life in one way or another...to bring up in the admonition of the Lord. (heavens, I was told that I couldn't have children...I've birthed 6!)
- Status
Similar threads
