Amazon also has it. See details at Kress
Also available at Logos
Available on Kindle and in Logos
View readers' favorite Kindle excerpts
|
Remember that you are our guests. We will, at our discretion, delete comments that we find off-topic, derailing, un-civil, slanderous, trollish or troll-feeding, petulant, pestiferous, and/or otherwise obnoxious and non-constructive. If we warn you, stop it. After no more than three warnings, you will find yourself banned, and all your future comments will be immediately deleted.
See an error in the post? How clever of you! Email the author. If you comment a correction, expect the comment to disappear with the error.
If you are confused about how the specifics of these principles play out in practical terms, you'll find a longer list of rules HERE.
 |
| The opinions expressed in this blog do not necessarily represent the views of all contributors. Each individual is responsible for the facts and opinions contained in his posts. Generally, we agree. But not always. |
24 comments:
I went back and reread that post... everyone else should.
Frank's and Dr. Mohler's.
Frank... your inital typo made me think of "All Creatures Great and Small." Just saying :-)
al sends
Thanks for not shortchanging us on what needs to be said concerning marriage/divorce, Frank ~ almost 2 years ago, today, and as God's truth will still matter tomorrow.
It's nice to see that the esteemed (truly) Dr. Mohler has finally caught up with you on the significance of the secondary problem,
but it's interesting/frustrating/disappointing how few words he dedicates to the reason for that problem. Or, more importantly, the solution to that problem.
Unlike your piece, which, to echo others, is a masterpiece and should be mandatory reading for anyone married, single or inbetween.
I attribute any omission by Dr. Mohler to the vast ocean of information he is culling out to make a simple blog-length post. Imagine trying to catch all th Shrimp in the Gulf of Mexico in one net -- a few large ones are bound to get away.
"Be in God's house with God's people on His day"
I thought of when I hated church. It was somewhere I never wanted to be.
But ever since Christ saved me, and changed my heart, I love church. I love to worship our Father in Spirit and truth. I love to sing hymns and spiritual songs to our Lord.
I love to hear my pastor pray, and pray with him.
Most of all I love to hear the Word taught, and proclaimed with humility and authority.
Lord bless us all this Sunday as we assemble to honor and worship Him.
Rereading your post reminded me of necessity of connecting everything we are - and everything we advocate - to the narrative of God's word.
Moralism is easily punctured when it's supported outside the plot lines.
I read both your old post and Dr. Mohler's post. Excellent.
I guess the take-away for me is that evangelicals probably don't have much energy about opposing divorce, because many of them are divorced - and it's a lot easier to oppose sins that you may not have in your background (abortion, homosexuality) than to oppose ones that you do.
Can you imagine how uncomfortable the average church gathering would be if the pastor delivered a sermon on the actual, Biblical view of divorce (and remarriage)? In 30 years as a Christian I'm not sure I've ever heard such a sermon.
Despite its horrible consequences, divorce seems so easy doesn't it? Easier than trying to work things through.
I thank God that just when our marriage was at its worst, He saved me—and in a church that does that a strong stand on divorce.
As a result, after three years of struggle and in spite of numerous challenges, God has blessed and transformed our marriage, and made us truly one.
...does take a strong stand on divorce.
...and more to the point, takes a strong, positive stand on the sanctity marriage.
Great post, Frank!
David Regier - Moralism is easily punctured when it's supported outside the plot lines.
So true. Reminds me of the movie Time Changers. Bad acting, but good message (for the most part). We cannot separate good morals from the One who gave them to us to obey.
Mawwiage is wot bwings us together today. That Bwessed awangement, that dweam wifin a dweam.
I have a feeling that more churches need more sermons on sin and how to handle it in their lives. This would mean more time in the epistles, which I personally would love to have. My church seems a bit cold at times and I think that a lot of that stems from the fact that we've been in Genesis, Romans, and now Exodus since I've been there (almost 5 years). Our pastor wants to preach Matthew next, but I hope he will think about covering an epistle first (if not, right after).
word verification: metas
Somehow I missed this post back in the day. Just finished reading it. Good words.
Let's face it. God's people have never been very good on the issue of divorce. Jesus himself said so in the sermon on the mount.
And Newsweek's argument is an old one. It's regurgitated hash that they use on other issues such as slavery and war.
The standard on marriage and divorce is clear in the Bible. It's not written in parables or allegories. Newsweek and their ilk just choose to ignore it to sully the name of Christ and His followers.
So I'll grant you that the modern church have fallen short on decrying the number of divorces, but lets not pretend that Newsweek would write a different article if there were zero divorces in the church.
Actually Newsweek is using the same tactic that the Word of faith and celebrity super church robber barons use(ignoring new coveant principles). That being, talking more about the old testament tithe and the wealth of Abramham than the sacrifice of Jesus. The modern "get it now" church goer knows more about Abramham, Elijah, and the old testament prophets and the writings of Malachi than they do about the apostle Paul.
I'm wondering what you think of Luther writing in regards to the church and marriage...
"That it is a worldly issue and the church should have no part in it"
He was writing in regards to the Roman churches insistence that a priest had to preside at a marriage for it to be valid.. (the RC church ratified it in 1553) until then the church had no role in marrying people...
I heard one Pastor say that Christians who get divorced shouldn't be second class citizens in the Church. He pointed out that Moses was divorced and married a black woman. He cautioned getting legalistic about the issue.
I would caution against being any more legalistic than Paul.
MenCan --
I would say that this is not the only thing Luther is wrong about. cf. lutheranism.
I think your view of the history of marriage is less than fully informed. For example, certainly the Council of Trent did affirm that marriage ought to be a poublic ceremony, but it did so in 1563, not 1553 -- and that, against a contemporary trend in the 16th century to make weddings private affairs of neither political nor religious concern. While Luther may have had his own views, these were soundly and roundly rejected by almost all other reformers who take their cues for Paul, especially the letter to the Ephesians. The trend for private marriages died out -- and it was an anomaly in the history of the West.
As early as 866 is is plain that the public, religious nature of marriage was being practiced in the West, and we can trace it back even to the first century after Christ in the apologetic arguments of the first defenders of the Christian faith -- that the Christian view of marriage is first spiritual, but that spiritual blessing has material, ethical consequences.
Agree. I would say that the mere statement "what God has put together, let no man put asunder" alone makes it a religious matter, no matter what Luther or anyone else says/said to the contrary.
Ok, somebody needs to address the Luther quote head on.
Luther,like all men, had concerns of the day to deal with too. And like other great men he was a sinner and made mistakes. You'll find that he did a couple of things which it appears he later regretted. The bigamy of Philip being one of them. On the whole, you'll find that Luther said many times that one man and one woman was the standard for Christian marriage. Likewise, he held rigidly to the gospels and Christ's only reason for divorce: Adultery. (which was one of the reasons he made the aforementioned mistake).
Accordingly, you may say to the carnal people (with whom you have to do), if they want to be Christians, they must keep married fidelity and bridle their flesh, not give it license. If they want to be heathen, let them do what they please, at their own risk.
Post a Comment