Dr. Phil wrote:
Adelphos,
Finally . . . something you say that makes sense: "I am proud . . ."
Proverbs 16:5

Dr. Phil wrote:
Adelphos,
Nothing new in your arguments, therefore, your arguments now move into the Ad nauseum phase. Therefore, this endless debate is over for me as far as I am concerned. You build your harem and justify yourself with fallacious arguments. You shall fit in well with the Muslims. But, we shall see what holds up in the final analysis.

Well, I am proud to fit in with Abraham, Jacob, Moses, Gideon, David and other faithful followers of God!

Ok, let us deal with logic then:

1. Genesis 2:24 is a story of creation - period. If it is a story of commands, then ALL commands are equal in authority.

2. My argument is not the argument that since God allows meat, He also allows polygyny. My argument is that all the "commands" in Genesis are specifically "people specific". For example, when God told the disciples to go get a donkey for Him to ride, this is not a command for every generation to fulfill.

3. All one needs to prove this is to verify that God does not require those "people specific" commands on all His people. This is easily proved. The very fact that the Law regulates polygyny without condemning it is more than adequate proof.

"Adelphos. So, because you used a quote from an "expert" that settles it?"

No, "experts" are never the final authority. I am merely pointing out that even monogomists can practice sound exegetical principles. If you look at who Paul was addressing, it is only to obvious that the people that God was "winking" at concerning their sin were the Gentiles.

you said,

"I just think th there is a revelation here to a principle, and that is we are judged according to what has been revealed. Yes we are born in sin, and it is for that reason we are condemned already. But it is clear all through Scripture that judgment is according to revelation."

So, God chose Abraham, Jacob, Gideon, Caleb, David and other practicing who didn't have the full revelation of what the sin of adultery consisted of? They understood it perfectly!

You said:

"And actually, the Kings were told not to multiply wives long before David and Solomon came on the scene...or to multiply horses and chariots - but they did, and God was still working in their lives. So how is that explained?"

John_for_Christ wrote:
It's insane, isn't it! All you monogamists will say, "We are not like them, we are different," when we KNOW that you MONOGAMISTS all abuse children, you all murder your families, you use illegal drugs, you're homosexuals, you're perverts, you're adulterers, you practice beastiality, and you...gasp...marry underage women!!!
We know this because there are SOME monogamists that do it, so you must do it also.
(I thought it might be helpful to you to note the ignorance and hypocrisy of your reasoning. But I doubt it will help...)

Taking a text out of context ends up making it a pretext for bad theology.

1. There is a principle in hermeneutics called the "context principle". Who's sin did God wink at - it was not the Jewish People. Let me quote someone who has a good grasp of this the Acts 17 text:

Act 17:30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at,.... Not that he approved of, or encouraged such blindness and folly, as appeared among the Gentiles, when they worshipped idols of gold, silver, and stone, taking them for deities; but rather the sense is, he despised this, and them for it, and was displeased and angry with them; and as an evidence of such contempt and indignation, he overlooked them, and took no notice of them, and gave them no revelation to direct them, nor prophets to instruct them, and left them to their stupidity and ignorance (John Gill)

2. The Church is both singular and corporate. This truth is established over and over in the New Testament.

1. You are kidding right. I suppose that since the sons of the first monogomous marriage killed each other, we should avoid monogamy! How absurd! Or here is a better one: Since we know that the NT Churches had problems of jealousy, murder, rage, divisiveness, we should blame the Churches they were part of! This theology of yours is incorrect. The Bible tells us that those problems come from the sin nature! See the picture?

2. To suggest that God "winked" at their sin implies some serious bad theology. The necessary inference of that statement says that God not only permitted sin, but that He also doesn't require repentance. All of the Patriarchs who practiced polygyny were never required to repent of it. Moreover, your reasoning implies that unrepented sin is automatically forgiven of God, so why does anyone need to repent. Are you sure you want to make these statements?

3. Yes, it is a marriage between Christ and His Bride, which include millions of people. All this means is that God can use singular language in a corporate sense. This is nothing new! This takes place through the Bible! Just think about the Scriptures regarding the Trinity.

Phil said:

"If Adam and Eve were commanded to eat only vegetables prior to the fall, then they complied."

Yes, Adam obeyed the command to eat vegetables. For you to interpret this consistently, you must say that this was the eternal purpose of God for man. Therefore, for man to eat meat would be sin.

My response is consistent. God allowed man to eat meat in later generations, so this command was "people specific".

Phil Said,

"If they labored, it was done after the fall as a consequence of the fall."

This is first of all, untrue! Genesis 2:15 tells us that placed Adam in the garden of Eden to "tend and keep it". So, in order for you to be consistent, you must say that this was the eternal purpose of God.

My response is consistent. God allowed people to enter into other trades so this command was "people specific".

Phil Said,

"So, let us look If Adam took more than one wife (which he did not), it would have been after the fall because it is not recorded that he had more than one even after the fall"

Dr. Phil wrote:
1. You failed to demonstrate that Gen. 2:24 has been repealed. Therefore, your doctrine of polygamy is false and heretical.
2. To distort the truth from point one is to deny the Lord who is the truth.
3. See pts. 1 and 2 Only hermeneutically weak to the polygamist who can not repent of his sin.
4. Yeh, right!
5. No presuppositional bias except in the mind of the infidel who tries to justify himself.
Again in closing, you have not proven with scripture that Gen. 2:24 has been repealed. Now, let's talk about hermeneutics.

2. To "read into Scripture" what Scripture does not say is how heresy gets started. To take one verse and make it a doctrine is how heresy is started (like JW's). The doctrine of the Trinity takes more than one verse to prove.

3. Polygny is never taught as sin - that is a tradition of men.

4. Expected...

5. Nothing but unprovable presuppositions.

Dr. Phil wrote:
I. False Prophets according to 2 Pet. 2:1-3:
a) bring in damnable heresies
b) deny the Lord
c) their ways are "pernicious" (destructive) by distorting the truth and provide false grounds for unchaste behavior.
d) Covetousness (which covers a broad range including sexual fantasies with young girls) is the driving force of their feigned words.
2. Your justification for polygamy may be different than the Mormons, but it is polygamy none the less. The law of Gen. 2:24 has not been repealed.
3. It is not false witness since your own defense of polygamy condemns you as an infidel by your own mouth as a witness. Your defense of other polygamists who are guilty of pedophilia makes you a partaker of their sins.
4. You have not proven your point, and therefore, this is ad homenim.

2. I do not deny the Lord. This is blatantly false.

3. You have not proven that any truth is distorted. You have merely proven you disagree. Hermeneutically, very weak!

4. I have no sexual fantasies with young girls, nor do I advocate such.

Therefore, this practice of unproven condemnation is based upon pre-suppositional bias.

Dr. Phil wrote:
First: you nor Aldelphos are my elder, but you are both false prophets. Your fallacious argument of authority does nothing against the truth nor does it provide you grounds for your sinful behavior.
Second, you may not be a member of the Mormon church now, but you have not repented of their heresy.
Third, your account of Matt. 25 speaks of 10 "virgins". I have serious doubts that you pedophiles and infidels would leave any woman a virgin for 10 seconds much less long enough to read the passage carefully.
Fourth, if you don't want your doctrine corrected, then keep it to yourself and don't spread your lies.

2. You condemned OTP before you know the facts. The "heresy" of the Mormon church concerning polygyny is totally different view than what Christian polygynists hold.

3. Your point three may be in the area of "bearing false witness" again.

4. I don't mind if my doctrine is corrected. However, what you have presented is hermeneutically unsound.

Yes, all Scripture is profitable for doctrine. So, tell me, how does one interpret narratives, compare narratives, embrace hermeneutical analysis to include principles regarding necessary inference, didactics, with principles of full revelational truth (no doctrine is ever based on a single passage), in order to ensure that Scripture interpreting Scripture. Basically, no theologian in their right mind would make a doctrine out of a single doctrine. Doctrines are made by compiling everything that is said about the particular topic, examining each passage for similarities and differences, blending them as grammar and hermeneutics allow, so that all inconsistancies are resolved, resulting in a exhaustive understanding of the particular doctrine. If there are passages that seem to contradict other passages, you don't pick the passages you agree with. You ask the question "why"? Then you study harder until there is 100 unity. Because God does not contradict Himself!

1. It is a fallacy of logic to use one part of the creation story to present a full doctrine of any subject. For you to be consistent with your own usage of the Genesis 2:24 passage, you would need to claim that being single is sin. Eating meat is sin. Working outside of farming is sin. All of the above items are further explained throughout the Bible.

2. 1 Tim 3:2 has more than one option in the Greek - whether you like that or not - it is a fact!

3. Abraham, Jacob, Caleb, and David were not "unchaste" infidels! Sorry! Scripture again disagrees with you.

Walt:

I just downloaded the book you suggested, and will be reading it!

Thanks for the information.

I will definately read this book. I read all books pro and con on many subjects. My personal library is over 2500 books. However, my guess is that her arguments are the same I am hearing here - weak, illogical, and inconsistent. However, thanks for the resource.

For those who want a good sound exegetical passage by passage approach, buy the book located here:

http://www.cafepress.com/patriarchy.11991296

For those who want a good summary, read this:

www.blainerobison.com/concerns/polygamy.htm

Blessings

Mike wrote:
They place themselves under the law, not under Christ. That would be "outside of the given topic." Understandable and necessary from their perspective. So be it. At least it's clear.

Salvation takes place as one repents of their sin, and embraces the provision of our justification through the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ by faith.

The freedom that Christ brings frees us to follow with a new heart God's Word, to include most aspects of the OT. ALL Scripture is given for doctrine and instruction in righteousness. When Paul said told us that, there wasn't any New Testament. Therefore, he was telling us to take the OT teaching as a basis for doctrine.

If we love God, we will desire with a new heart to follow, embrace, endorse, and encourage people to follow the "whole counsel" of God's Word, not merely picking and choosing what we personally agree with.

These posts are topic specific, so I am not speaking outside of the given topic.

If you want to talk about the Deity of Christ, salvation by grace through faith, or any other aspects of soteriology, we can do that on another thread.

What is quite disturbing is the ongoing aspects of bearing false witness by those who are proclaiming their love for Christ and His Gospel. These sins of assuming and accusing people of actions and/or basic theology heresy are not based upon fact, but unfounded false opinions. Jesus Himself said, "Judge with righteous judgment".

One of the problems with the Pharisees was placing the demands of the tradition of men over against the Law. Perhaps it is important for one to compare their own traditions compared to the clear consistent teaching of God's Word!

1. Christian Polygyny Families were in the NT Church. This information is supported by many scholars. Read for example, Jay Adams on Marriage, Divorce and Remarriage.

2. Using the creation account for the fullness of any doctrine is absurd. Next, you will be teaching that unless people are single, eat vegetables and work as farmers, they are sinning.

3. Matthew 19 is not an argument against polygyny, but casual divorce. Too little space to exegete it here, for sure.

4. The principle stated in Ephesians does not negate more than one marriage. Each marriage is a union between two, and each union becomes "one flesh".

5. Jesus said that one should never delete anything from the Law. God used polygynous men to carry out His most important work. He never condemns polygny anywhere, yet he condemns harlotry and adultery, and marrying ungoldy spouses. The Bible tells us that the Law is good, perfect, and spiritual. The Bible gives us the defintion of sin in 1 John: Lawlessness. So, unless you can show that the Law condemns polygyny, it is a allowable practice and is not considered sin by Bible standards.

1. Scripture nowhere defines polygyny as perversion - that is YOUR own perseption.

2. The New Testament, both Jesus and Paul, embrace the entirety of Law, which includes polygyny.

3. The "own" misunderstanding: There are two separate Greek words used in 1 Cor. 7. Heautou implies sole "exclusive" ownership, that is, one entity solely owning a particular thing without sharing that ownership with another. Idios, by contrast, implies shared joint ownership, that is, ownership of a particular thing by more than one person. There is no word in the English language for exclusive ownership (heautou) versus non-exclusive ownership (idios), which is why they are both usually translated into English as "own".

The idea is that a wife is to be exclusively given to her husband and is not shared with other men, whereas a husband is "owned" (idios) jointly by his wives and is shared by each of them.

So instead of this text proving that polygyny is wrong, it actually supports the OT understanding.

3. Yes, Christ is marrying one bride, made up of millions of individuals. Which again, proves that a singular phrase may carry with it the idea of "corporate" or many.