chuck smith on divorce
ray
talking about the internet. The subject came around to christians
viewing pornography. Chuck cited the verse about "lusting in your heart
after a woman" to prove that viewing pornography was on the same level
with adultery, and concluded that this made it grounds for divorce.
Is it just me, or does this seem like an overly liberal position to take
on the issue? It seems like Chuck will often make
informal/off-the-record comments like this, but never really have an
official position on anything. I suppose he would say that having
official doctrine and positional statements is what those old
denominational buzzards do in all of those "dead" denominational
churches that he's always denouncing. Does Chuck have an official
position on divorce? If he does, is it as lax as the one he mentioned
in his radio broadcast? It seems ironic for him to condemn the
mainstream churches for being liberal when he ends up copping out just
as much as they do.
Ray
Diakon II
Ray writes:
> About a week ago on his nightly
> radio broadcast, I heard Chuck Smith
> talking about the internet. The
> subject came around to christians
> viewing pornography. Chuck cited
> the verse about "lusting in your heart
> after a woman" to prove that viewing
> pornography was on the same level
> with adultery, and concluded that this
> made it grounds for divorce.
>
> Is it just me, or does this seem like
> an overly liberal position to take
> on the issue?
It would seem that the 'understood' CC positions concerning 'divorce' may
have liberaled-up a bit over the years. Pragmatic concerns? Divorce/re-marriage
continue to be darkly 'popular' both inside and outside church.
Somewhat odd, for how we might never imagine Jesus, in His ministry, advising
a married couple to 'consider a divorce'; whereas some our pastors and brothers
will this week be doing that very thing (quite believing that God
'understands', and is pleased with their counsel.)
> It seems like Chuck will often make
> informal/off-the-record comments
> like this, but never really have an
> official position on anything.
I'm sure there's a unofficial, "official" position written down somewhere,
Ray.
:-)
> Does Chuck have an official
> position on divorce? If he does,
> is it as lax as the one he mentioned
> in his radio broadcast? It seems
> ironic for him to condemn the
> mainstream churches for being
> liberal when he ends up copping out just
> as much as they do.
I hope this would not be what we're about, as the body of Christ.
'Mainstreaming' away from the narrow road (creek?) of orthodox/New Testament
Christianity dogs the church everywhere. More direct to the thread: I've heard
it said that some folks who may have been turned away for "re-marriage" by a CC
pastor (10-20 years back) may today be eligible to celebrate their 'second
attempt'. (Or, maybe for them that moment has already passed, and passed again?
Lord help us.)
Marshall Diakon II
Teresita Mercado
>Chuck cited the verse about "lusting in your
>heart after a woman" to prove that viewing
>pornography was on the same level with
>adultery, and concluded that this made it
>grounds for divorce.
Jesus was trying to take people from a "letter of the law" view of
adultery, as only being committed when the act is carried out, to get at
the heart of the problem: lust. He was creating a higher standard, by
saying sin begins interiorly. But Chuck Smith has come around full
circle back to a Pharisee-like attention to nit-picky detail, combining
it with a verse in Matthew that permits the dissolution of unlawful
marriages (like brother-sister ones, not adulterous ones), and spits out
a masterpiece in scripture twisting that has got my jaw wide open with
astonishment.
>Is it just me, or does this seem like an overly
>liberal position to take on the issue?
No, right-wingers think divorce is biblical, with all the attendant
destruction to the family and the well-being of the children, but will
damn lesbians to the lowest ring of hell.
>I suppose he would say that having official
>doctrine and positional statements is what
>those old denominational buzzards do in all
>of those "dead" denominational churches that
>he's always denouncing.
He defines "dead" as not having changed their positions for almost 2,000
years. I'll take "dead" over any structure built on sand.
>It seems ironic for him to condemn the
>mainstream churches for being liberal when
>he ends up copping out just as much as they do.
I guess ironic is a nicer way to say hypocritical.
Teresita
ray
>
> "carb...@gte.net"@gte.net (ray) wrote:
>
> >Chuck cited the verse about "lusting in your
> >heart after a woman" to prove that viewing
> >pornography was on the same level with
> >adultery, and concluded that this made it
> >grounds for divorce.
>
> Jesus was trying to take people from a "letter of the law" view of
> adultery, as only being committed when the act is carried out, to get at
> the heart of the problem: lust. He was creating a higher standard, by
> saying sin begins interiorly. But Chuck Smith has come around full
> circle back to a Pharisee-like attention to nit-picky detail, combining
> it with a verse in Matthew that permits the dissolution of unlawful
> marriages (like brother-sister ones, not adulterous ones), and spits out
> a masterpiece in scripture twisting that has got my jaw wide open with
> astonishment.
>
> >Is it just me, or does this seem like an overly
> >liberal position to take on the issue?
>
> No, right-wingers think divorce is biblical, with all the attendant
> destruction to the family and the well-being of the children, but will
> damn lesbians to the lowest ring of hell.
I'm not quite sure about this, but I've been read teresita's posts
recently and I believe I see a new theme surfacing...
Doug Gilliland
> It would seem that the 'understood' CC positions
> concerning 'divorce' may have liberaled-up a bit over
> the years. Pragmatic concerns? Divorce/re-marriage
> continue to be darkly 'popular' both inside and outside
> church.
I see two factors at play there.
One was the booklet on Divorce by Larry Taylor which marked a shift in
official CC dogma on divorce. If you want to read that one, you have to buy
it through the Chapel Store (as far as I know that's the only place it's
at). The second half of this first factor was the extramarital affair and
divorce of Larry Taylor while he was still a pastor in Colorado. Chuck Smith
asked Taylor to stay on in his position and eventually made him the head of
the Bible College.
The other was the divorce of Chuck Smith, Jr. Official CC theology had to
be developed to allow for this.
--
Doug Gilliland
Calvary Chapel FUAQ Page http://idt.net/~dougg/cc.htm
Luke 7:35 But wisdom is justified of all her children.
Doug Gilliland
> No, right-wingers think divorce is biblical,
What do you mean? I don't think that divorce is good or "Biblical", but
there are several extraordinary conditions where the Bible allows for it.
Alternatives should ALWAYS be sought.
> with all the attendant destruction to the family and the
> well-being of the children,
I'm against destruction of the family.
> but will damn lesbians to the lowest ring of hell.
I'll accept that as well. That's what the Bible does after all.
Teresita Mercado
>I'm not quite sure about this, but I've been
>read teresita's posts recently and I believe
>I see a new theme surfacing...
Well, whatever happens now, it's better than the dark treadmill I was
chained to the last few days. This email thing reminds me of a time a
few years ago when the sanctity of my apartment parking space became the
center of my life (driving out Christ). It's over now.
Teresita
Teresita Mercado
>What do you mean? I don't think that divorce
>is good or "Biblical", but there are several >extraordinary conditions
where the Bible allows
>for it. Alternatives should ALWAYS be sought.
The exception granted in Matthew in the Catholic translation is "unless
the marriage is unlawful". That's one point on which I spurn the NIV,
which allows it for adultery, and Chuck Smith's liberalization of that
further to pornography takes the cake.
>>but will damn lesbians to the lowest ring of hell.
>I'll accept that as well. That's what the Bible
>does after all.
Well, now that the putty tat is out of the bag, I have to disagree. No
one is damned for "being" anything, Doug, but only for choosing to
reject God's free gift of eternal life obtained for us through the life,
death, and resurrection of His Son Jesus Christ.
Teresita
Doug Gilliland
> No one is damned for "being" anything, Doug,
1 Cor 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of
God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers,
nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
1 Cor 6:10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor
extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
ray
Well, as far as parking spaces are concerned, I would never park in
someone else's unless they really really wanted me to.
Ray
Doug Gilliland
> No one is damned for "being" anything, Doug, but only
> for choosing to reject God's free gift of eternal life
> obtained for us through the life, death, and resurrection
> of His Son Jesus Christ.
John 8:31 Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye
continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed;
Teresita Mercado
>Teresita Mercado wrote
>>No one is damned for "being" anything, Doug,
>1 Cor 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous
>shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be
>not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters,
>nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers
>of themselves with mankind,
>1 Cor 6:10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor >drunkards, nor revilers, nor
extortioners,
>shall inherit the kingdom of God.
Thanks for making my point.
Fornicators fornicate.
Idolaters idolate.
Adulterers adulterate, etc.
We are judged for our sins, not for being sinners. That is what the
pharisees and scribes did when they accused Jesus of hanging out with
the wrong people.
Teresita
Teresita Mercado
>John 8:31 Then said Jesus to those Jews
>which believed on him, If ye continue in my
>word, then are ye my disciples indeed;
Well, two women together in bed is as pure as babies playing in the
bathtub <g>, but even if that were not so, "If we acknowlege our sins,
he is faithful and just and will forgive our sins and cleanse us from
every wrongdoing." (1 John 1:9)
(Now I guess Scott can see I'm not really Doug's little puppy dog
acolyte and yes-girl.)
Teresita
Doug Gilliland
>Thanks for making my point.
> Fornicators fornicate.
> Idolaters idolate.
> Adulterers adulterate, etc.
And homosexuals engage in homosexual behavior.
Xenita
>
>Teresita Mercado wrote
>
>>Thanks for making my point.
>
>> Fornicators fornicate.
>> Idolaters idolate.
>> Adulterers adulterate, etc.
>
>And homosexuals engage in homosexual behavior.
>
homosexuality, as a result of causes for which he or she is not fully
responsible. Thus it is extremely difficult to assess the personal guilt
involved in some homosexual acts.
Xenita
Xenita
Xenita wrote:
>>Thus it is extremely difficult to assess the personal guilt
>>involved in some homosexual acts.
>>
>Is this like an "I can't help it [myself]...?"
>
>What did Augustine have to say about the inability to not sin
>(i.e. not commit sinful acts)?
>
CHAP. II. THE FIRST BREVIATE OF COELESTIUS.
1. "First of all," says he, "he must be asked who denies man's ability to live
without sin, what: every sort of sin is,--is it such as can be avoided? or is it
unavoidable? If it is unavoidable, then it is not sin; if it can be avoided,
then a man can live without the sin which can be avoided. No reason or justice
permits us to designate as sin what cannot in any way be avoided." Our answer to
this is, that sin can be avoided, if our corrupted nature be healed by God's
grace, through our Lord Jesus Christ. For, in so far as it is not sound, in so
far does it either through blindness fail to see, or through weakness fail to
accomplish, that which it ought to do; "for the flesh lusteth against the
spirit, and the spirit against the flesh," so that a man does not do the things
which he would.
--St. Augustine
---------
Xenita
heb...@ibm.net
>Teresita Mercado wrote
>
>>Thanks for making my point.
>
>> Fornicators fornicate.
>> Idolaters idolate.
>> Adulterers adulterate, etc.
>
>And homosexuals engage in homosexual behavior.
>
heb...@ibm.net
>In article <6ulksd$o...@nnrp2.farm.idt.net>, "Doug says...
>>
>>
>>>Thanks for making my point.
>>
>>> Fornicators fornicate.
>>> Idolaters idolate.
>>> Adulterers adulterate, etc.
>>
>>And homosexuals engage in homosexual behavior.
>>
>homosexuality, as a result of causes for which he or she is not fully
>involved in some homosexual acts.
>
Is this like an "I can't help it [myself]...?"
What did Augustine have to say about the inability to not sin
(i.e. not commit sinful acts)?
Scott
heb...@ibm.net
Now if I could only see a completely new side of
Doug as well...
Scott
heb...@ibm.net
>Teresita Mercado wrote
>
>
>I'll accept that as well. That's what the Bible does after all.
>
Sounds terribly Dante-ish.
NAB Revelation 21:8 "But for the
cowardly and unbelieving and
abominable and murderers and immoral
persons and sorcerers and idolaters
and all liars, their part will be in the lake
that burns with fire and brimstone,
which is the second death."
NAB Revelation 21:27 and nothing
unclean, and no one who practices
abomination and lying, shall ever come
into it, but only those whose names are
written in the Lamb's book of life.
NAB Revelation 22:11 "Let the one who
does wrong, still do wrong; and the one
who is filthy, still be filthy; and let the
one who is righteous, still practice
righteousness; and the one who is holy,
still keep himself holy."
NAB Revelation 22:15 Outside are the
dogs and the sorcerers and the immoral
persons and the murderers and the
idolaters, and everyone who loves and
practices lying.
Scott
Xenita
>
>In <6uk40h$b...@nnrp2.farm.idt.net>, "Doug Gilliland" <do...@idt.net> writes:
>>Teresita Mercado wrote
>>
>>> but will damn lesbians to the lowest ring of hell.
>>
>>I'll accept that as well. That's what the Bible does after all.
>>
>Lowest ring of hell?
>
>Sounds terribly Dante-ish.
At the very least I do not have (nor ever had) the moral authority to teach from
scriptures here in this newsgroup, let alone to call anyone a heretic.
Xenita
ray
> >>involved in some homosexual acts.
> >>
> >Is this like an "I can't help it [myself]...?"
> >
> >What did Augustine have to say about the inability to not sin
> >(i.e. not commit sinful acts)?
> >
>
>
> 1. "First of all," says he, "he must be asked who denies man's ability to live
> without sin, what: every sort of sin is,--is it such as can be avoided? or is it
> unavoidable? If it is unavoidable, then it is not sin; if it can be avoided,
> then a man can live without the sin which can be avoided. No reason or justice
> permits us to designate as sin what cannot in any way be avoided." Our answer to
> this is, that sin can be avoided, if our corrupted nature be healed by God's
> grace, through our Lord Jesus Christ. For, in so far as it is not sound, in so
> far does it either through blindness fail to see, or through weakness fail to
> accomplish, that which it ought to do; "for the flesh lusteth against the
> spirit, and the spirit against the flesh," so that a man does not do the things
> which he would.
>
> --St. Augustine
No temptation has overtaken you but such as is common to man; and God is
faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able,
but with the temptation will provide the way of escape also, so that you
will be able to endure it.
1 Cor. 10:13
ray
Scott, you feeling ok?
ray
>
> In <6upa39$acb$1...@news-1.news.gte.net>, ray <"carb...@gte.net"@gte.net> writes:
> >
> >No temptation has overtaken you but such as is common to man; and God is
> >faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able,
> >but with the temptation will provide the way of escape also, so that you
> >will be able to endure it.
> >
> >1 Cor. 10:13
> >
Well, if you don't like that one, there's always:
You have not yet resisted to the point of shedding blood in your
striving against sin.
Hebrews 12:4
ray
>
> Self flagellation? No thanks.
After that comment you made to Doug I thought you might be into that
kind of thing.
heb...@ibm.net
>
>No temptation has overtaken you but such as is common to man; and God is
>faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able,
>but with the temptation will provide the way of escape also, so that you
>will be able to endure it.
>
>1 Cor. 10:13
>
Personally this verse never worked for me.
Scott
heb...@ibm.net
What happens to me is irrelevant if He is glorified.
God Bless,
Scott
heb...@ibm.net
>heb...@ibm.net wrote:
>>
>
>You have not yet resisted to the point of shedding blood in your
>striving against sin.
>
>Hebrews 12:4
>
Hmm...
Self flagellation? No thanks.
Scott
heb...@ibm.net
>kind of thing.
>
Scott