![[Shelbyville Times-Gazette]](http://www.t-g.com/images/nameplate-small.png){kind=small}
Shelbyville, Tennessee ~ Monday, October 6, 2008
| Blogs | 
|
|
Thou shall not commit adultery Ex 20v14
Posted Tuesday, January 15, 2008, at 6:10 PM<< Previous | Read comments | Respond | Email link | Next >>
Technically this terms to being sexually involved with a married person. The reason why was that in biblical time it was men were allowed to go to prostitutes because of no implications but too take someones wife was considered stealing and most often led to murder.
It has been traditionally used to prohibit all sexual relations outside of marriage.
This commandment refers to a right relationship with God and with others.
Lots of Christians worry about being divorced and still serving God. Jesus stated that fornication was suitable and acceptable grounds for a divorce because the marriage was already dissolved.
But as in all cases we are human and we do and will sin but by the acceptance of Jesus all are forgiven. Comments Showing comments in chronological order [Show most recent comments first] |
Hot topics Maverick and more(14 ~ 7:45 PM, Oct 6)
The Army of Christ
Angels Among Us
The Stage is Set for His Appearance
A Glimmer of Hope.
|
![[Feed icon]](http://www.t-g.com/images/icons/feed-icon-14x14.png){kind=icon}
That is one problem I have with today's preachings and bible interpretation. If a Man's wife cheats on him and he is willing to forgive her for that transgression, but she still demands a divorce, that man is not allowed to be a deacon or serve in other capacities of the church.
This is Baptist belief anyway. I've never understood why a church would punish a man for trangressions that his spouse committed and he had no control over. This was a major problem for me personally and was a difficult thing for me to accept. Perhaps someone with more education on the subject can explain to me why they feel this is just. I happen to disagree with this belief, but I'd like to hear other opinions on it.
The bible says a deacon serving has to be a man of one wife. I believe if the church has proof that the divorced man's wife cheated on him he should be able to serve. But how can most people prove that. Your just going by someone's word , and now days you can't believe a whole lot of what you hear.That why you're refered back to the bible saying a man of one wife.
There is 2 interpretations to this "a husband of own wife" is either one wife at a time or faithful to the wife he is with. In the Jewish bible which is the most accurate it says "faithful to his wife.
Besides that if it happened before you got saved it does not count.
You always hear about the Baptist way or the Church of Christ way that is just there opinion.
They all have one.
Would I let a divorced man be a deacon or elder? I would examine each situation a persons heart , pray and fast on it then decide.
To me if the person truly desired the office and had proven himself to be a upstanding man of God I see no problem in it.
In most tight knit churches they can usually tell you who the cheating party is. If not by personally witnessing it, the auctions of each person immediately following the break up.
In my case, I had retained a private investigator and had proof of the infidelty, but would not of presented it to the church as proof that I'm "worthy". The only purpose for even obtaining proof was because children were involved. Today,s court system doesn't feel that the Male is the more suitable parent to award custody to in most cases if their is no evidence to support this claim. It isn't a case of proving your a good parent for a male, it is more of a case of proving the other parent isn't fit. I only wanted joint custody, and was able to obtain it. My whole point is that a congregation this day and time needs to be able to seperate the old bible teachings from what is applicable to today's society. I'm sure back in the day when the scripture was written, there wasn't near as many cases of spousal transgression on the females part.
Keeping a man from holding the title of "Deacon" due to divorce is in no way a punishment to a man. A man can still serve the Lord in that capacity without the title. The office of deacon is a position of servitude that is set aside and there are Biblical requirements.
Most of the time folks want to argue over these points because they believe that this position would put them in a great position of leadership or authority. The term "deacon" is derived from the Greek word diakonos, which is usually translated "servant" or "minister." A "table waiter" would also be a good translation.
I think that mostly the problem lies with man's fleshly desire to lord over others and that is what most people think of when they hear the title deacon applied to a man. Jesus is the Lord and that is all that matters...no matter what title a man holds.
I forgot to mention, I myself am divorced and remarried. The divorce was a Biblical divorce and I was free to remarry. I serve my Lord faithfully through my local church. I hold many positions of responsibility and do not covet those that are deacons. I know that I can never be one...and thankfully my church does obey that rule.
And to your point of:
"My whole point is that a congregation this day and time needs to be able to seperate the old bible teachings from what is applicable to today's society. I'm sure back in the day when the scripture was written, there wasn't near as many cases of spousal transgression on the females part."
God never changes...no matter how much man does. The reason we don't hear more of the spousal transgressions is because punishment was much more severe back then. Those that committed such things would have been stoned to death. Today, it is just a big "uh-oh" and no one thinks much about it. Sin is sin and it all offends God.