More elderly couples live together without marrying
In their 70s, 80s and beyond, older couples meet in seniors-only housing and live together unencumbered by marriage vows. Their relationships are committed and bonded, meant to last the rest of their lives, sometimes even informally blessed by clergy.
According to U.S. census figures, co-habitation numbers for people 65 and older have tripled in the past decade, jumping from 193,000 in 2000 to 575,000 in 2010.
PLE wrote: Like the story of the Dutch boy who saves his country by putting his finger in a leaking dike, CV wants to save Protestantism by plugging the divorce deluge transitioning into a homosexual holocaust.
The challenge he would have is that the Protestant dike no longer has just a hole; yet it's all but washed out to sea.
The problem CV has is he built his case on sand. IOW, he has nothing. Only those who don't give a hoot for God's word would give an ear to his empty claims.
I am real disappointed that CV heaped so much violence of God's holy written word.
"More significantly, [Evangelicals and Fundamentalists] were very much against divorce and had a low incidence of it. But that, too, has changed. Evangelical churchmen and seminary professors found they just could not thunder against divorce any more once their own grown children were getting divorced.
"Homosexuality is next on the list. More and more educated Evangelicals seem to feel they must compromise between the inherited party line and their liberal social conscience. This is especially true with seminarians and young ministers. And such theological accommodations are not hard to find. It doesn't take as much text-twisting as slave abolition or feminism, that's for sure. And it was secular feminism challenging the church that led, more than anything else, to the great inerrancy crisis among Evangelicals in the 1970s. Prayer changes things? Things change prayer."
Who will restrain this down-grade of throwing moral taboos overboard one-by-one and now allowing the watching of movies, dancing, divorce to, ultimately, embracing homosexual pastors? Perhaps Loftus is prophetic.
"John Wesley's favorite writer, William Law, wrote, "We are to consider that God only knows what shortcomings in holiness He will accept; therefore we can have not security of our salvation but by doing our utmost to deserve it." "We have," said he, "nothing to rely on but the sincerity of our endeavors and God's mercy." Was Law an evangelical? If so, someone owes Pope Leo X an apology." -Horton, "Evangelical Arminians"
CV is trying to discern the mind of God in marriage, divorce and remarriage.
If significant neo-Calvinists are suggesting that Rome is owed an apology because the Reformers were unnecessarily hard-over on Monergism, imputation, forensic justification, etc. but the overwhelming majority of modern Protestants are semi-to-full-Pelagians, then this really, really matters, too.
Perhaps Calvinists have been advising what the mind of God is on justification and they're only now admitting that they were wrong by keeping this a relative secret. They never got the word out in our day of instant global communication. Wesley won. Law won. Synergism won. Monergism is unknown by the majority of Protestants.
PLE wrote: "It is up to us as heirs of the Protestant Reformers to issue an apology to the Roman Catholic Church for dividing over issues no more essential than these [Monergism v. Synergism]." -Dr. Michael Horton, "Evangelical Arminians," October 12, 2011
A bit out of context I'd say! And a little dishonest too!
"It must be said that if such writers can continue to be regarded as evangelical leaders (Dr. Pinnock is still a respected member of the Evangelical Theological Society), it is up to us as heirs of the Protestant Reformers to issue an apology to the Roman Catholic Church for dividing over issues no more essential than these. Original sin, the substitutionary atonement, justification, eternal judgment, and classical theism (the doctrine of God) all must go, according to Dr. Pinnock and his team of writers in A Case for Arminianism (Zondervan, 1989). "I do not think we should feel we have lost something of absolute value when we find ourselves at variance with some of the old so-called orthodox interpretations," Dr. Pinnock concludes."
If only Monergists may go to Heaven as the Protestant Reformers assumed and left the Roman Catholic Church over, then the vast majority of Protestants would be doomed since nobody is bothering to share this news with them.
Meanwhile, Protestantism is spawning global armies of Synergists. Why are Arminians considered "brothers" while words like "evil" and other epithets continue to be hurled at Roman Catholics after almost 500 years of separation?
"It is up to us as heirs of the Protestant Reformers to issue an apology to the Roman Catholic Church for dividing over issues no more essential than these [Monergism v. Synergism]." -Dr. Michael Horton, "Evangelical Arminians," October 12, 2011
Any day now, CV will be back again to report on his research into this subject, along with his conclusions.
I sure hope CV you find that God's elect cannot be finally lost, no matter what transpires in their life. Because if you think they can, you are researching a works-based salvation which discounts predestination and election, which occurred before the world was made.
What happens when you allow so much grace that it kills your congregation? If your pastor ultimately allows divorce and remarriage for any reason, your church will fail. Stick a real estate sign in the church lawn, it's done.
"The [Roman] Catholic Church will cancel registration to conduct legal marriages if hand forced on same-sex unions, says Perth's Archbishop Hickey ... We might be back to the ghetto. We cannot do those [same-sex] marriages at all. And if the law forces us to, we cancel our registration as marriage celebrants. We just donât do it,â the Archbishop said."
Gil Rugh said or, wrote: . . . Some parts of the Mosaic Law have been given as commands by Christ. Believers obey those commands not out of obligation to the Law but to be obedient to Christ and His authority. Today believers are obligated to Christ's teaching, live under His authority, and are able to obey because of the indwelling Spirit of God.
The purpose of the Laws is to prove the moral perfection of God Romans 7:8 "But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead. For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died. And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death." For the Antinomian inquirer; Mr. Lincoln.
Galatians 5 18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the Law. 22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law.---NASB
Without the preaching of the law, how will the Jewish Church that has lost her way so that the Gentile Church has been led astray in her fear and unbelief because she has forgotten not only to Fear God and Trust Him, but also what Paul taught in Ephes.& Romans 11:18 "Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee. This Church once knew what the family should look like. A properly married couple in the Commonwealth of Israel was under their parents and the Levitical Priesthood/Church. After Moses they also had a governing body outside the Levitical priesthood of civil elders/State and after David a King, that would address transgressions that could not be halted by family and Church but ALL were under the same moral law for the national good.
There is a biblical distinction made between Jew and Gentile. It is the very law of commandments contained in ordinances. These were know to the Jews from childhood, that like Timothy was able to make them wise unto salvation. They were given every detail of the holiness of God as Ephesians points out. Ephes.2:12-16. The Gentiles had their consciences, as all image bearers of God do. The NT Gospel was first opened to the Jew, but also to the Gentile. The NT counsel at Jerusalem established a place to begin, for those who all their lives (until conversion) had been without the law. Avoiding fornication was one such command of the apostles.
The Jews were members of a Covenant Community. Circumcision was the sign and seal of membership in the visible Church and Commonwealth of Israel. It was given to all males and their female offspring were under their father's covenant sign and seal. In the OT, after the marriage was consummated, the parents had proof of their daughter's virginity, should questions later arise. All this was part of being in a separated community, separated unto God for man's good and God's glory, to protect from the curse of the law, if once violated. Even OT saints understood forgiveness was based on promise, and the veracity of the Promiser.
The headship of the man was established by God -Eph5.
There's much truth in what Hilip says. Virtually every paganistic cult reverses that order.
My comments were related to the misconduct of men, of Moses' time. Of whom Jesus referred to as hardhearted.
Here's a summary of their "hardheartedness", from the link John posted: (better summarized by TULIP below)
"As the Jews falsely imagined that they discharged their whole duty toward God, when they kept the law in a national manner, so whatever the national law did not forbid, they foolishly supposed to be lawful. Divorces, which husbands were wont to give to their wives, had not been prohibited by Moses as to external order, but only, for the sake of restraining lewdness ..they did wrong in viewing as a matter of civil law, the rule which had been given them for a devout and holy life. Christ, therefore, admonishes us not to conclude, that what is allowed by the national law of Moses is, on that account, lawful in the sight of God."
Hilip wrote: No Mike, but it is life in reality otherwise known as life on earth.
Life on earth, not life in heaven. Read thoughtfully Ephes.1. Adam and Eve violated the Covenant of Life; Scripture requires death as the penalty of a broken covenant; Heb.9:21-23. A blood curse was brought upon their posterity. But a promise was also given in Gen. 3:15 and again in the NT: 'Behold, the Lamb of God; who taketh away the sins of the world.' For any Christian who has truly embraced Christ by faith with their understanding, the curse has been removed in Christ. He did not remove the law, but the curse of the law. Men are still expected to keep the law perfectly by the faith of Christ's perfect righteousness. Sanctification is the work of faith, by the power of the Spirit in mortification. There is a difference between headship, under Christ and tyranny. Just as there is in desiring the man's headship and being a helpmeet.
Mike wrote: True enough. But remember this came about after-the-fall, just as the cursed ground did. Man ruling over the woman was a curse application as a result of sin. Men shouldn't be at all happy about it, for it was not life in the pre-fall garden.
No Mike, but it is life in reality otherwise known as life on earth. Might I add that if men are to "rule" over the female the authority to rule must come from God, since He is the source of all authority. Now is it a curse for us poor dumb males to rule over women? Or is it a curse for the women alone, to be ruled by those chauvinist fools of men? Married men will have a different answer to batchelors.
Now that Liberalism has replaced authority in society and the ladies have rebelled from wifehood and motherhood does this make it impossible for men to rule over them?