Archive

Posts Tagged ‘Marriage’

3 Pieces of Marriage Advice from Spurgeon’s Mother-In-Law

Charles Spurgeon abandoned his fiancée on a Sunday afternoon. After lunch, a carriage took the betrothed couple from Susannah’s house in St. Ann’s Terrace to Kennington where Charles would preach. Susannah recounted the event:

I well remember trying to keep close by his side as we mingled with the mass of people thronging up the staircase. But, by the time we had reached the landing, he had forgotten my existence; the burden of the message he had to proclaim to that crowd of immortal souls was upon him, and he turned into the small side door where the officials were awaiting him, without for a moment realizing that I was left to struggle as best I could with the rough and eager throng around me. At first, I was utterly bewildered, and then, I am sorry to have to confess, I was angry.

Susannah left the service and fumed all the way home. Her mother gently “tried to soothe [her] ruffled spirit” and offered some motherly advice about marriage:

[My mother] wisely reasoned that my chosen husband was no ordinary man, that his whole life was absolutely dedicated to God and His service, and that I must never, never hinder him by trying to put myself first in his heart.

 

 

 

Read the entire article here.

Advertisements

Identity Theft

By Tom Chantry

Todd Pruitt has responded to my post on the MOS blog, and I appreciate the serious engagement. I am somewhat frustrated to be asked questions on a blog that does not accept comments, but I fully understand. Comment threads breed problems, and I have turned them off on some of my own posts. Consequently I’ll put my answer here.

Pruitt spends most of his post arguing that Baptist life is far too complicated to describe easily in an informal conversation such as an MOS podcast. By “Reformed Baptist” they meant Calvinistic Baptists of various stripes. I am certain this was an unintentional error, but it was an error nonetheless. Using “Reformed Baptist” to refer to all Calvinistic Baptists is like using “asparagus” when what you intended to say was “vegetable.”

I know I’ve written about this before, but perhaps someone is actually reading this time, so I’ll go over it again. In the early 1960s, there were various Baptists with somewhat Calvinistic approaches to soteriology…..

 

 

 

Read the entire article here.

A Word of Advice to our Friends at MOS

by Tom Chantry

Hoo, boy! I’m getting tired of blogging on the same subject over and over, but here we go again:

I wanted to be positive about today’s episode of Mortification of Spin. Honestly, I did. Carl Trueman, Todd Pruitt, and Aimee Byrd chatted about the difficulties facing credo-baptists and paedo-baptists who decide to marry, and that is a worthwhile discussion. There was even much to commend in this particular episode:

■Diverging views of baptism do not constitute different faiths, and there is no biblical command against marrying across this particular line. I would add that neither the Westminster Standards or the Second London (Baptist) Confession forbid such marriages.

■Real practical issues are at stake when credo-baptists and paedo-baptists marry; particularly if they are raising children, and those should be thought through and talked through in advance of marriage.

■There should be no presumption of one side needing to always be the one to compromise. I might have put this a bit differently than Trueman, but in principle I agree.

■Pastoral care requires that we address these issues gently and faithfully in premarital counseling.

 

 

 

Read the entire article here.

Random Thoughts

March 22, 2016 2 comments

I’m running out of unique Thomas Sowell pictures. Onward, anyway…

The mess in the Anglican Communion demonstrates a real problem for Western Progressivism, both political and theological. One of the primary goals of all Progressivisms is escape from traditional moral structure. One of their central tenets, though, is deference to any cultural or ethnic group perceived to have been marginalized. So what exactly are they supposed to do when the representatives of the marginalized cultures – say, African bishops – don’t care to go along with moral permissivism?

 

 

Read the entire article here.

Briefer statements are to be interpreted by fuller ones-Example 2: Putting away spouse for adultery

January 19, 2016 2 comments

Arthur PinkMuch harm has been done by some who, without qualification, pressed our Lord’s words in Mark 10:11,

“Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her,”

thereby subjecting the innocent party to the same penalty as the guilty one. But that statement is to be interpreted in the light of the fuller one in Matthew 5:32,

“Whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced [for any other cause] committeth adultery”

— repeated by Christ in Matthew 19:9. In those words the sole Legislator for His people propounded a general rule: “Whosoever putteth away his wife causeth her to commit adultery,” and then He put in an exception. namely that where adultery has taken place he may put away, and he may marry again. As Christ there teaches the lawfulness of divorce on the ground of marital infidelity, so He teaches that it is lawful for the innocent one to marry again after such a divorce, without contracting guilt. The violation of the marriage vows severs the marriage bond, and the one who kept them is, after divorce is obtained, free to marry again.

Arthur W. Pink-Interpretation of the Scriptures

Abounding Grace

Romans 5:20 Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound:

Here are some descriptions of grace.

It’s Amazing! Matchless and Marvellous!

One of our old hymns says it like this,

Marvellous grace of our loving Lord,
Grace that exceeds our sin and our guilt!
Yonder on Calvary’s mount outpoured,
There where the blood of the Lamb was spilled.

According to Romans 5:20, Grace is also abounding!

Listen to our verse again.

Romans 5:20; ‘Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound:’

There are two words for ‘abound’ found in this verse. They each have a different meaning. ‘Sin abounded’, (Gk ‘pleonazo’) ’But grace did much more abound,’ (Gk, ‘huperperisseuo’)! The sentence means something like this, ‘Where sin abounded, grace super-abounded’ or ‘Where sin overflowed, Grace flooded in!!!’

We might have expected to read that where sin abounded God’s anger and judgment abounded more. But sin can construct no dam which can keep us from the heaven-sent, abounding flood of grace that is ours in Christ Jesus.

One of the wonderful things about God’s grace is that it abounds to us for the past, present and future! Often when we think about grace we limit it to the past. We think about how we were saved (past tense) by grace. Ephesians 2:4-5, for example, highlights past grace; “God who is rich in mercy,made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved.”

How beautifully undeserved is this grace. We don’t earn it or work for it, grace is God’s gift. He has saved us and called us—not because of anything we have done, but because of his own purpose and grace (2 Timothy 1:9). No wonder then that grace is Past, Present and Future!

Grace didn’t just begin on the cross. Notice when this grace was first given? It was given to us in Christ Jesus before the beginning of time” (2 Timothy 1:9).

That’s abounding grace!

Praise God for His past grace! But, grace is not only for the past it is also for the present. God’s grace doesn’t end when we begin our Christian walk.

There is present grace. His grace impacts our lives right this moment. If we are saved, it’s because God’s grace is continuing to save us at this very moment.

The Bible says that; “We have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have access by faith into this grace in which we stand” (Romans 5:1-2).

We are standing in grace! Our feet are firmly fixed in grace! Abounding Grace has placed us as acquitted before the throne of God and risen in Christ forever beyond the reach of judgment.

God’s abounding, present grace is operating right now, it is surrounding us at this very second. In fact, the only person who doesn’t need God’s continuing grace is the person who never sins. And we all sin! So why doesn’t God just strike us down?….the answer is GRACE, abounding grace.

Look at what happened here in Ireland. The Irish nation, in its folly, became the first nation in the world to vote in, by referendum, the legality of same-sex marriage. In the wake of the vote, members of the LBGT coalition were quick to trumpet that a double rainbow appeared over Dublin immediately after the success of the Yes vote was announced. They said it was a sign of God’s approval of the subject of their campaign (see HERE).

But here’s a reality check! Rainbows have nothing to do with same-sex marriage! The rainbow is God’s covenant promise that he will not destroy the earth again through literal floods of judgment (Genesis 9:11-17). The rainbow is a symbol of GRACE, not a demonstration of divine approval of same-sex marriage.

We are praying that the nation of Ireland will receive grace and not judgment for their defiance of God. And remember this, God gave a double rainbow on the day of the catastrophic result. Could that be prophetic? Prophetic of abounding grace? Perhaps it means that God will indeed visit us in Ireland with the converting power of His gospel? For, where sin abounds, grace super-abounds. Where sin overflows, grace floods in!

Grant it Lord, grant it! Abound in your grace!

And that’s the Gospel Truth!

Miles Mckee

www.milesmckee.com 

Everything Has Changed and Nothing Has Changed — The Supreme Court Legalizes Same-Sex Marriage

by Dr. R. Albert Mohler Jr.

Everything has changed and nothing has changed. The Supreme Court’s decision yesterday is a central assault upon marriage as the conjugal union of a man and a woman and in a five to four decision the nation’s highest court has now imposed its mandate redefining marriage on all fifty states.

As Chief Justice Roberts said in his dissent, “The majority’s decision is an act of will, not a legal judgment.”

The majority’s argument, expressed by Justice Kennedy, is that the right of same-sex couples to marry is based in individual autonomy as related to sexuality, in marriage as a fundamental right, in marriage as a privileged context for raising children, and in upholding marriage as central to civilization. But at every one of these points, the majority had to reinvent marriage in order to make its case. The Court has not merely ordered that same-sex couples be allowed to marry – it has fundamentally redefined marriage itself.

 

 

 

Read the entire article here.