lørdag 25. januar 2014

Nr. 652: Øyvind Kleiveland divorced - will continue as pastor and teacher - this he has been disqualified as divorced from what the apostle Paul taught!

Nr. 652:

Øyvind Kleiveland divorced - will continue as pastor and teacher - this he has been disqualified as divorced from what the apostle Paul taught!

I have found that unfortunately most Protestant churches do not have the morals and ethics that God's word speaks . An overemphasis on salvation and the need to be saved there anything going in the background or being misunderstood and misinterpreted . As to their own and other doom and delusion .

2 Pet. 3 16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; them it is something that is very understand , and that the unlearned and unstable suggests interfered, as they do also the other scriptures , unto their own destruction .

The unlearned and unstable here fits perfectly in today's PinseKaresmatiske Christians there also false prophets haunt over any other motion and spiritual direction. Where an emphasis on signs, wonders and spiritual manifestations. But ignoring the weightier matters of God's word as fruit of the Spirit , morale and keep the commandments of God . Photo of one of the many false prophets in the time among the PinseKaresmatiske Christian Pastor Jan Hanvold , founder of Vision Norway that all apostate Christians unfortunately not reject in from but pops up on his littered TV channel is just a lurendreieri at all levels . Be it moral , economic , doctrinal and everything else.

Øystein Kleveland is honest - but is not fit to be a pastor after what Paul taught : http://the-heavenly-blog.janchristensen.net/2013/04/nr-491-yvind-kleiveland-divorced.html

It's a character flaw not being able to live in community with others and be married to the same person for life says God's word. And the character flaw is so big and wide and runs as deep as the one is not fit to be neither Pastor, pastoral or Bible teacher for what God's word says.

1 Tim . 3 4 He must be one who rules his own house well , having children in subjection with all reverence. 5 For if someone does not know how to rule his own house , how will he take care of God's church ?

Kleveland has unfortunately not done it , that he is now divorced . He writes this about himself in the newspaper the day : But to get married? Yes. Just once . And since God's word is settled in heaven at all times , we must deal with his orders at any time . God has made ​​marriage as binding , that even a person who has to leave his wife and children and lands, and all for Jesus' sake and the gospel 's sake , do not have the right to remarry. Just look at Mark 10.29-30 . We who have had their own spouse, knows what support may be in its own spouse. But God has commanded us to reconcile us with our divorced spouse, OR to live the rest of your life alone. For there is so much value God has given to marriage. Just DEATH separates a married couple . Since Jesus AND 1 Corinthians says that divorced people should behave singles and NOT get married again , whether he is married to a Christian or non - Christian, it would be the church's proclamation in 2014 too. If you have dedicated people again , whether they have been Christians or have not been Christians , when they divorced , so it's still not what the Bible commands us . The Bible also says that it is to be a leader in God's Assembly shall be one woman man , and thus not remarried . Why? Yes, because then Grace had done his work in that head , and the fruit has been grown up in that . AND both faithfulness and self-control are part of the fruit of the Spirit . Adultery , fornication and uncleanness, lasciviousness mentioned the works of the flesh , which directly contrast with the fruit , which includes faithfulness and self-control . What people think about an issue , based on what experience they have, of course, vary , but God's Word stands firm in the heavens at any time , and where the Bible commands us that those who are divorced, to relate single or be reconciled to her their spouse. And that goes for both sexes. ( 1 Kor.7 0.10-11 ) ( end of quote ) .

All this is true, but Kleiveland even need to take God's words to heart and resign from his position as pastor and Bible teacher.

I wrote an article about Frank Mang , which I reproduce here: http://the-heavenly-blog.janchristensen.net/2013/09/nr-583-nordic-countries-largest.html

He was married, had two children , divorced, lived solitary for life as God's word says browse . In 1 Cor. 7 10 The married I command , yet not I, but the Lord , that a wife should not separate herself from her husband ; 11 but divorced him when she abide, being unmarried or be reconciled herself with her ​​husband - and that a man shall put away his wife.

What should a believer one who is a Christian to do after a breakup ? Whether settle or live alone : 1 Cor. 7 10 The married I command , yet not I, but the Lord , that a wife should not separate herself from her husband ; 11 but divorced him when she abide, being unmarried or be reconciled herself with her ​​husband - and that a man shall put away his wife.

How long marriage ? Lifetime or the second door : Rooms . 7 2 For the married woman is bound by law to her husband so long as he is alive, but if her husband be dead , she is loosed from the law of her husband . 3 Therefore she is called an adulteress if she , while her husband lives , marries another man : but if her husband dies, she is free from that law , so she is not an adulteress if she marries another man.

Does any law to marry a divorcee ? No, it makes one so get a judgment the gjengiftede , and fornicators . Luke 16 18 Whoever divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery , and whoever marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery .

How to proceed against those who are re-married as believers or married to a divorced , what scripture says ? We will speak the right, first privately , then take one or two with us. And they did not repent , then, must be presented to the congregation before they expelled ! Matt . 18 15 But if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him privately ! if he shall hear thee , thou hast gained thy brother ; 16 but he will not listen, then take yet one or two with you , that every word may be established by two or three witnesses . 17 But he is not on them , tell it unto the church: but he did not hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican . The person is then like a Gentile and worse than that then we will not even eat with them. 1 Cor. 5 9 I wrote to you in my letter that I should not associate with adulterers - 10 I did not in general a fornicators of this world or the greed and robbers , or idolaters , then must ye go out of the world: 11 But now I have written to you, was that I should not have intercourse with any man that is called a brother and a fornicator, or covetous person or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or robber, so I do not even eat with him . 12 For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within? 13 But them that are without God judgeth . Put away the wicked man from among yourselves !

Article from Our Land : The man woke Oslo

"Frank Mang is one of the 1900s greatest men of God . Had he lived , and lived in the U.S. , he would have been a world evangelist " Billy Graham's description of the Finland- Swede to have caused 100,000 Norwegians to Jesus.

Lack decline started 8 October 75 years ago and lasted until the war years. But who was really Mang , and why did he awaken 30th century people? popular meetings

- Lack decline meant a lot to Oslo, but also outside the capital . And Missionary Association had the pleasure of standing in the midst of it, telling principal at Ansgar School in Kristiansand, Bjørn Øyvind Fjeld.

In brief revival started in Norway with a Sunday meeting in Oslo Mission Church of Bethlehem Meeting facilities , which at that time was in Mariboesgate in Oslo. As the fame of Mang began to spread, the meetings were so popular that a giant tent with room for 4,000 people was set up by tram stables at Major living in Oslo. During periods were held meetings six days a week , and both the unchurched and people belonging to other denominations than the Norwegian missionary associations participated.

American influence

Mang however, was popular even outside Norway . Not least in home country Finland, Sweden, where he held a major event series in several major cities. But in the United States. - In Chicago he filled Moodykirken , and stood in the middle of a fierce revival also there. Mang was heavily influenced by the American preacher AB Simpson, who was one of the most influential preachers at the turn of the century and beyond , says Ivar Overgaard .

Øvergaard grew up in Bethlehem, and was later pastor there. Today he is pastor of the Mission Church in Stavanger. The church celebrates this year its 70th birthday and is a direct offshoot of the revival that took place on 30 - and 40 's. Although Øvergaard are too young to remember Lack weakening , he has met many more times .

Dynamic speaker

- What was it like Mang prison ? - Frank Mang had an unbelievable ability to be concise , succinct, dynamic and intellectual in his approach . At the same time , he had a tremendous ability to hit people in the middle where they were in their daily lives.

Øvergaard remember one very well what he was thinking when Frank Mang participated in the program "This Is Your Life " with Anny Skaug and Harald Tusse Berg . - When he stood with them on stage , it struck me that there was a spiritual atomic sphere by Mang . He had an authority that was what we might call " low key " - even though he was dramatic , he was not directly played on your emotions . He had a low-key manner of speaking , and a rare narrative potential . Mang embraced absolutely everyone and got the ears of young people as much as the elderly , says Øvergaard .

Pentecostal move

It is said that Mang contributed to greater openness to charismatic element in the Mission League. - Missionary Association has a huge Plymouth tradition, and some of the older ones were not as happy Pentecost features that came with Frank Mang says Ansgar principal Fjeld. - Especially in Sweden, the Mission Covenant relatively conservative and somewhat stiff, and there was some discussion about whether Mang heard in this environment. He also traveled much among Pentecostals in Sweden and Norway , but all the time he was an ecumenical man tells Øvergaard .

He firmly believes that Mang had a charismatic element in it.

- Mang had a very clear view that faith is a spiritual life . I remember well that I was seated in Bethlehem in the 60 's when he turned to the audience and said , " Nine forgotten that celebrate Hallelujah here in Bethlehem ." He experienced enough that meeting was quite stiff , says Øvergaard .

Gastric and loneliness

Many work as mentioned simultaneously in four countries , Sweden, Norway , USA and Finland. And already in the last half of the 30th century many began to feel tired. He saw little of his wife Karin and their three children Runar , Margaretha and Christian .

In 1947 he was sent to hospital with bleeding ulcers after a series of meetings in New York, and afterwards came a long stay at Lovisenberg hospital in Oslo.

It was here Mang began to write his book about life - Song of Life .

" Jag was forced again become ill för att jag should make time att leva . The passionate an issue again see life and and attempt describe it to others one another case är att själv make time att leva . Jag måste be sick och och ensam get the där tag on Dörren för att jag åtminståne for a time would get mojo again drunkna in life, "writes Mang .


Some time later also moved Mang and Mrs. Karin apart. Mang felt lonelier than ever. " Utåt was rush alltjämt one efterfrågad evangelist. However carcinoma me was rush ensam . Ohyggligt ensam , " said Mang .

In his circle were divorce suppressed , and many saw this as he does not really concerned someone.

Øvergaard describes However, Frank Mang preaching being particularly honest and lifelike .

- Mang talked a lot about life in the Holy Spirit. When I was young and should be ordained for service, he gathered a group of aspiring pastors and told us about how his mental life had fluctuated between the highest peak and the deepest valley . As youth pastors we were very moved by Mang and he testified about his spiritual life with God , telling Øvergaard .

Media person Mang

"Frank Mang has not had an easy road to walk. He could have been bitter. Instead, he not only kept the faith , but in God's hands become a prophet in our own time , a carrier of the sacred fire , constantly renewed through ever again having surrendered to the Lord, "says Margareta Malmgren about Mang . For while Mang stepped down on public appearances , many felt that he could have a job counselor . He was an active writer in this field , and gave out the evangelical periodical "the Word" in Finland , which was to reach out to the circuits that had removed themselves from the Church and Christendom. In Sweden, many began to write articles for several newspapers. Among other things he had for 23 years a separate column in the Swedish journal in which he answered reader questions during the vignette " in confidence ". The last years of his life had many experience a new public sphere in its own television series . Here he spoke and answered questions peek .

- Mang was one of the most used commentators in the Swedish media. He was a commentator , one that you asked for advice , and one that answered basic questions that ordinary people had , says Ivar Overgaard .

visible results

In Oslo results by Mang still visible. This is the club Cosmopolite inhabit today place as Bethlehem opened as church property in 1938 in Møllergaten 26 The place had 1,700 seats. Which was absolutely necessary, as Bethlehem had grown from powerful in a very short time . Today keeps Bethlehem to Geitmyrsveien in Oslo, but are in the process of building a brand new church on Abildsø in town Østensjø .

The tremendous growth has nevertheless also caused major challenges for the churches that had multiplied its membership.

- When the majority of people choose God in a particular age of life, wandering the generations through the life of the church. If the churches do not get refills , this becomes a problem. And all the churches who experienced revival has had major challenges with this, as they did not belong to the group might feel a little strange , admits Øvergaard .

Final Comment:

Even the "best" can be divorced , here are at least two about that than to succeed . But when the divorce is a fact , what then? Then we have to hold my tongue right in the mouth , and not be led by emotions and what others think , but God's word.

Psalm 119:105 Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light for my path .

Psalm 18:3 The LORD is my rock and my fortress and my deliverer , my God is my rock , in whom I trust, my shield and the horn of my salvation , my stronghold .

Psalm 138:2 I will throw myself down toward your holy temple , and I will praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth's sake : for thou hast made ​​thy word delightful , above all thy name.

What should one do then , especially you, man ? Pray that one is led back together or live single. This made Frank Mang , a model and pattern for when other believers. Scripture is so abundantly clear here . Whether reconciled with his first wife and straight , or live single. Initiates than a new relationship or marries a divorced than living in adultery ! Is this easy ? Impossible for human itself , entirely possible for God , only than will add life and everything in the Lord 's hands ! ( end of quote ) .

Includes an article that I came across on the net related to this topic :

Harald odd thoughts

If one is experiencing its own position as heart raw , should we not consider listening to the heart ?

There is an ongoing rather heated debate about divorce and remarriage in Our Land debate slots at the moment. The reason is that NLM Espen Ottosen 's profile (and organization ) absolute no to remarriage through newspaper recently. Ottosen experience that his own view may be felt heart raw - hence the wording in the headline - but also says that he feels bound by Jesus' words on the matter. After the presentation of Ottosen standpoint the posts poured on . Several distinguished shared glimpses of their own life stories, glimpses that have reinforced the feeling that a consistently refuse remarriage is just heart raw stance . Ottosen wrote a few follow-up posts. His attitude seems to be that this question we can not let ourselves be guided by emotions. We are bound by Jesus' words. And Jesus ( and insofar as Paul ) is, according to Ottosen completely dismissive of remarriage .

God said it . I believe it . That settles it . Tuesday 26 January got so Ottosen responses from two medteologer . And the two are not anyone. We are talking about Jan - Olav Henriksen, professor at the School of Theology , and Paul Leer - Salvesen , a professor at the University of Agder. The two have an impressive Nonfiction behind him . In my eyes , these are two of the most exciting theological thinkers we have in this country . The gentlemen professors are not merciful (! ) In his criticism of Ottosen . I quote (and commenting )

It seems as if Ottosen is more concerned with the Biblical character than the Bible affairs and news. In both Jesus and Paul 's teaching on divorce and remarriage first understandable if we know the historical and social context into which they speak Ottosen reading means in practice not to take the Bible's message seriously and reveal little understanding of the point of Jesus' teaching - which is to protect the weaker party in a relationship . Fresh stroke , ie. And it is healthier . Ottosen vision can help to maintain people in consequence of others' wrongdoing . If there is to be such that some are prevented from marrying after the spouse has established a new relationship and broken out of the marriage , it means in reality is that Christian ethics maintains fracture implications for the abandoned party. This party is deprived when the resources for self-expression , happiness , personal development , time , effort and finances as a relationship with a new spouse can possible do. What value will Ottosen set up is more important than this? The consequence of his view would be that against such life qualities of Christian ethics has nothing to set up than an abstract value of Bible-believing cabinets. If the Bible is to be obeyed blindly and randomly in this way , it is no wonder that respect for the Church's ethical teaching is about to disappear.

You talking. Harsh words , this. But I am therefore agree with the two gentlemen strict (and this I think boy deserves to be set in italics ) : What exactly is Bible-believing cabinets worth if this fidelity hinders us from seeing our neighbor? The issue affects the relationship between the two joints in the double love commandment : You shall love God and to love your neighbor . I think that, to get to the right of this duality must think like so that your ability and willingness to love God must be tested just on your ability and willingness to love your neighbor , even if this means you have to cross any boundaries. (It's not so long ago I wrote a long text about this. )

Now, of course not Ottosen agree that he is unable to see his neighbor . But I struggle to see at what point Henriksen and Leer - Salvesen can be arrested right here . Adding non to the existing burden if you bind the abandoned and scorned party in consequence of the sin of others , even where there would be the opportunity to move on? From this , the kind of ethics that Ottosen advocates for , primarily for the benefit of those who break out of a relationship and establish a new one: They will partake of the qualities that we listed in the previous paragraph , while the spouse they have left , will have no legitimate right to the same. Can such a stance with any reason be justified as an ethical standpoint ? Do not misunderstand us not : in many cases it can be both barren and impossible to place the guilt and innocence of a breakup . But using the Bible to claim that both the passing and the one that is left will be denied access to the new marriage , cherish no other "values" than the blind allegiance to the biblical character. Now it begins to be clear what it is implicit in Henriksen and Leer - Salvesen argument. Yes, Jesus is quoted as saying that he says no to divorce. In evangelietradisjonen this is evidenced in Matthew 5:27-28 , 19:3-10 , Mark 10:2-12 , Luke 4:18 p.m. . Paul refers to Jesus' words in 1 Corinthians 7:10-11 as part of their discussion on the topic . But Jesus' statement is directed initially only against one of the parties to the cohabitation, namely man. In Jesus' time it was the man who could file for divorce (" give his wife a bill of divorce "). This was certainly the situation on Jewish land , which is the Jesus' own context . The woman was at the mercy of any man's choice to "send her away ." The discussion in the rabbinic communities was not whether the man had the right to file for divorce , but about how serious violation of the man's honor had to be before the divorce was a socially acceptable choice : Held that she burnt the food (as preserved that Rabbi Hillel said) , or did she actually have been unfaithful to him with another man (as Rabbi Shammai thought ) ?

Anyway : The woman could not even choose to leave her husband . But the man could send her away . And a divorced woman was not exactly attractive on the marriage market. Such repelled woman lost therefore most of their social safety net. (A small à prpops to this: In the Gospel of Matthew mentioned Joseph as a righteous man because he , when he learned that Mary was pregnant without having initiated any sex life with him would divorce her quietly (Matt. 1:19 ) . in other words: he did not want her to be punished (although this would be in line with the letter !) and he would not make it completely impossible for her to start over by creating a lot of noise around the had happened. How easy this would actually be for her to start over with a child born out of wedlock is another question . But we'll leave out right here . )

In this context it is thus that Jesus goes in and tightens up the bid : The man should not send the woman down this way. This has traditionally been understood to mean that Jesus seeks to protect the weaker party , namely the woman. Contemporary interpretation of the Mosaic law , coupled with the shame associated with being outcast , would largely bind a divorced woman in her singleness if the man were to file for divorce .

Henriksen and Leer - Salvesen is of course aware that the social context is different now than it was then . A marriage is today, at least in our culture sphere, based on equality as a core value . Both women and men can break out of the relationship on equal terms. It is not impossible for divorced establishing itself again , socially speaking , because the shame associated with divorce is not a particularly dominant factor anymore. In this context, pointing Henriksen and Leer - Salvesen that the consequences of Ottosen stance similar to the consequences of divorce practice which Jesus criticizes . So then the question becomes : Can this be said to be in line with Jesus' desire to protect the weaker party ? Ottosen has gone through a theological study where he learned about the historical context of Jesus ' teaching on divorce and remarriage is spoken in in. In Jesus' time it was developed a very liberal divorce practice , on the man 's terms. The threshold was low for men who would send their women 's divorce to get rid of them : Missed pregnancy , lack of obedience or poor cooking skills could be enough. Based on knowledge of such reputable divorce reasons, strict words of Jesus about divorce understood that the protection of the weaker party . There was divorce practices of Jesus' contemporaries who also we will see as unfair . But we will also have to see Ottosen firm rejection of remarriage after divorce as untenable . Ottosen ethics in this field " unbiblical ". It does not take into account the weaker party after a breakup, whether one or both . Reading the Bible without understanding and context in this way , leads precisely to a hjerterå ethics. Fortunately, many denominations , including the Norwegian church, moved away from such a way of using the Bible . This kind of literalism is not only blind to the message of the Bible to people who feel that life can break - it closes also out from the core of Jesus' ethical teaching. We believe this hard deserves to be called ethics. It should rather be called the foolish inability to face life's problems and challenges, and come to plead with them.

Harsh words ? Sure . But not harder than the words Ottosen itself uses about people who think the same as Henriksen and Leer - Salvesen . Words such as " unbiblical ", " directly contrary to the biblical text and Jesus ' intention ', ' rebellion against Jesus' commandment ," " not Christian ethics ," " not consistent with ( classical) Christian faith" or the classic " influenced by the spirit " - I do not know how many times I 've read such words in posts from the conservative side. It's a strange experience to see the same type of formulations thrown back against Ottosen . If such a harsh and unforgiving language earns debate I do not know , but it's good spectator sport , there is no doubt . If I want to add a few words about the theological assessment of divorce and remarriage , it must be like this: It seems appropriate and in keeping with the classic Christian ethics both open to divorce as a viable way out of an impasse and accept remarriage when divorce first is a fact . The reason for this is twofold . Firstly, the New Testament texts themselves an opening and a trend in this direction, from more highly dismissive statements to no more opening statements where the "exception clauses " for valid divorce is extended and the remarriage also seems to be a possibility ( Matt 19 ) . Paul looks at his hand out to show some restraint in drawing conclusions even if he assumes a terse form of Jesus' words. He is aware that divorce can occur even among Christians, and he points out that the individual must consider his own situation , he gives advice, but emphasizes that this is his own guidance , not the words of Jesus ( 1 Corinthians 7:10-15 ) . It appears , in other words out that already the first Christian loosened somewhat in Jesus tighten supervision what divorce is concerned, and this church still too recent in its history .

Second : When divorce first is a fact and there is no way back to the marriage that was once as it seems ( Henriksen and Leer - Salvesen also inside ) completely unreasonable would refuse a man to do a 're trying to really make good biblical values ​​in a relationship of mutual obligation. Put another way : Even after a divorce can grace realized that the force that gives one the courage and opportunity to begin again. Such a way of thinking may find support among others in Paul's teaching in 1 Corinthians 7:8-9 , where he encourages unmarried to marry if the opportunity exists , and this feels right for the person concerned . They differed in this respect be regarded as " unmarried ". Richard B. Hays writes:

The Gospel of Matthew Clearly allows a the husband -whose wife is guilty of porneia the option of remarriage (Matthew 5:31-32 , 19:9 ) , though Matthew does not accord this same privilege to the wife . Even the prohibitions of remarriage in Mark 10:11-12 and 1 Corinthians 7:10-11 are Applied Specifically only to the partner - male or female - who initiate the divorce , a reasonable case can be made ​​that the silence of the texts Concerning any restrictions on the spouse who is divorced wrongly implied the freedom of this " innocent " party two remarry . The divorced Become agamoi (" unmarried "), and they are there would - I would suggest - subject to the advice that Paul Gives in 1 Corinthians 7:8-9 : it is good for them two remain unmarried , but if their desires are strong , it is better for then to marry than to burn with passion . [... ] Indeed , if one purpose of marriage is two serve as a sign of God 's love in the world ( by symbolizing the relation between Christ and the church) , how can we reject the possibility that a second marriage after a divorce could serve as a sign of grace and redemption from the his and brokenness of the past ? No New Testament writer entertains such a suggestion , but I offer it here as a constructive theological proposal . One dares to make such a suggestion Precisely Because The New Testament itself - especially 1 Corinthians 7 - invites its readers into a process of constructive reflection and discernment about the issues of divorce and remarriage .

For my part I dedicate divorced . I find it difficult - do not know if it's expedient - to take on the role as the one to judge as to who may have been the innocent party in connection with a violation . Currently, I have not considered any relevant cases to mean that I conscientious objection should not be complicit as marriage man. Also, I want the people to take any cohabitation seriously as " real " relationship . Then it will be a little strange if I , in my approach to the topic , should give people who have three to four broken cohabitation behind them , but refuse to marry someone who has been in only one relationship before if this relationship was a marriage .

It does not mean that I believe it is a nice thing that something close to half of all marriages crashes . Ideally I'd seen that "most people" held together . Not in all cases - there are extreme case , of course, do it - but in many cases you could probably find a way forward if one of slightly greater extent was willing to work through the crisis (s ) together. But this is not a review I may or must (! ) Do for other older people - thankfully. I happily as interlocutor or refer to helpers when people come to me and say they are struggling but still have not given up. And at the same time : When the breach first is a fact and the opportunity to establish himself again present , as I like to contribute to the formal and legal place. I mean, Jesus also see the seem to think that it is not good for man to be alone . Man is weaker set then. And the weak will be strengthened where possible. Besides looking as I said the New Testament seem open to such opportunities after divorce . Not because divorce is a good thing, necessarily , but because it is not an end in itself getting stuck in all the world's misery. So I try to relate to reality as it actually is , with both divorce and remarriage . Espen Ottosen absolutely right : Anything else would strictly been heart raw.

I quote Ottosen itself, in a post that also was printed in Our Country 26 January : Many missionaries have experienced in the face of polygamy that dilemmas are many. Different considerations may play a role. The same may apply in a Norwegian context. What should I for example think about a convert is cohabiting with children - if one of them has been married before? I have big problems to discourage them to marry. The alternative would be the splitting up a family. It is not so I think it 's easy, in theory or practice , to maintain that the Bible says no to remarriage . I understand so well the protests . But so long as Jesus is so evident that he is, I do not want to use the various dilemmas and questions to put a bar over his words. Do I understand correctly Ottosen , he says thus : Yes, I think my own standpoint hurts. There is also a stand which makes it hard for me to meet and relate my experience , the actual reality. But I maintain the point of view anyway. Why ? Because it's the right thing to do - whatever.

God said it . I believe it . That settles it . Medblogger Teo & Tao has written an apt comment on this. He calls Ottosen attitude of submission and ask: What is it that is so pious about it? I for my part think that: If an experience that one's own view hurts, leading to unreasonable consequences and means that one must shut down the heart of fellow pain, then it might be time to start listening to the heart. I can not understand that desire to do good and act accordingly will be worth less or be less Christian than to maintain a blind obedience to the Bible - whether it is a question of one or more individual statements - no matter how painful it makes .

After all, the Bible and the Jesus we meet where we learn that charity is the greatest value. And last I checked acted love actually about feelings - too. ( end of quote ) .

Final Comment:

It is admirable moral and ethical strength Øyvind Kleiveland exercise, it is the great respect . To live as a single after divorce as scripture says , is something I admire . Not least of a man and when you see how others live there not refuse and renounce anything. But this article does not live solitary , but being fit to a Pastor and pastoral ministry , there is no one who is divorced . If one were to desire that was so, then speak the word of God on the contrary one who can not conformed his own house and live as married after marriage, should not be a teacher of others. The example power is great and important , indeed crucial .

Related links: http://the-heavenly-blog.janchristensen.net/2013/04/nr-491-yvind-kleiveland-divorced.html http://the-heavenly-blog.janchristensen.net/2013/03/nr-478-tepid-proud-and-self-righteous.html http://the-heavenly-blog.janchristensen.net/2013/04/nr-484-evangelist-benny-hinn-married.html

Ingen kommentarer:

Legg inn en kommentar