There appears to be some disagreement between what Greenie quoted from the bible and what Tom quoted above from Ellen. How are we to resolve this issue?

But neither of the examples given suggest merely permitting it, the quote from exodus could qualify as giving counsel, but you still have to deal with God telling David, "I gave you..." God only gives us good gifts, and I do not think you of all people will find examples of God giving anyone anything less than that.

I'm not sure I've understood your meaning here. For example, Buddhists, technically, are supposed to be vegetarian. In practice, they are not. In Thailand, even the monks eat meat. I recently heard a story of how a shocked onlooker watched the monks in India go into a store and buy beef. It is true that any kind of desire is supposed to be bad in Buddhism; however, Buddhists still have desires! No one can tell me, having lived among them, that they don't try to eat their favorite foods, or choose their favorite people as friends, or desire to marry a certain one, or have a good many other desires. What is theoretical, and what is natural, and what is practice are different things.

Now, to bring this back to topic here, I saw a statement in this discussion earlier that said we are only supposed to have "one wife at a time." I must say that this remark struck me as at once callous and ignorant. From my perspective, "serial polygamy" is a common practice in America, and in our church, but it is worse than what most serial polygamists (who think they are monogamists) call polygamy. I have seen polygamist families whose children from the separate wives all grow up together as siblings, and who all get along quite nicely. Even the wives seemed ok about living in adjacent houses. In America, however, this would be against the law, and the law would say that you must have only one "at a time." So, people just discard the old wife, and choose another model whenever they wish, and think that they are still within the bounds of the law of God. Foolishness!

So, yes, polygamy is a current and common practice among our people today.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa

My post immediately before yours (post 7568) addresses this. In short, God permits things which are not necessarily His will, such as divorce, for example.



Ok, I see from your following post you saw mine. God's saying, "I gave you" in the same principle involved in regards to permission. We can have or do nothing except as God permits.

Scripture often ascribes to God that which He permits, often using active language in so doing. For example, Scripture says that God sent fiery serpents upon the Israelites, when what really happened is the snakes were there all along and God withdrew His protection.

Another example is Scripture tells us that God killed Saul, when Saul actually committed suicide.

Another example is Scripture tells us that God commanded David to number Israel, when really Satan enticed David to do this against God's will.

So the same idea applies. We should not conclude that because God permitted a certain thing, or gave counsel in regarding it (which may be represented as a command) that the thing involved is something God is in favor of. We see in Jesus Christ the full revelation of God. So, for example, while the Old Testament had commands in regards to divorce, it was by no means that case that God was in favor of divorce. Similar logic applies to polygamy. God's ideal, as Jesus explained, was always that a man would have one wife.

Green Cochoa, great observations. Thanx for sharing. Certain instinctive things become blurred, obscure, or even obliterated over time. We sear our conscience until we eventually forget what is morally right and wrong. This describes a lot of people. My experience is with North and South Americans. People lie so often that they come to view it as a virtue rather than a vice. But they didn't start off that way, right?

Tom, I agree polygamy is not God's ideal for men and women. The SOP makes it clear, but the Bible doesn't. The COI clamored for a king, and God gave in to their demands. Which commandment were they guilty of breaking? I would suggest the first three.

When God permitted or commanded polygamy, which commandment were they guilty of breaking? In some cases they weren't breaking any commandments, they were simply obeying the laws of Moses. In other cases, though, I suppose they were breaking the first three commandments. Kings often had multiple wives to increase their power and influence in the world.

"Given that God never sanctioned polygamy even once, how could He have commanded it?" That He did indeed command it is not the question, right?

"Given that polygamy is contrary to His will, I have the same question. How does God command one to do something contrary to His will?" How? Do you mean, Why? I don't know why or how? For reasons that made sense to Him He chose to wink at certain sins until He was ready to deal with it.

Tom, you agree with me that Sabbath-keeping cannot be learned from nature, right? If so, then that's one thing excluded in the "everything" Paul spoke about, right?

Paul also spoke of knowing about the Godhead. See verse below. Do you agree with me that the truth about the triune, Godhead cannot be learned from nature? Is this another thing that is excluded in Paul's "everything"?

Also, what in nature forbids making idols to represent God? And, what in nature forbids worshiping the idols we are inspired to make? Are these other aspects of the law that are excluded in Paul's "everything"?

"For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse."

---

Romans 1:18-32 talks about people who knew the truth about God but turned their backs on Him and got caught up in all manner of sins when He gave them up. The wording Paul uses makes it clear he's not talking about people who never heard of Bible truths. Do you agree?

1. They hold the truth unrighteousness. Verse 18.

2. God hath showed it unto them. Verse 19.

3. They are without excuse. Verse 20.

4. They knew God. Verse 21.

5. They changed the truth of God into a lie. Verse 25.

6. They did not like to retain God in their knowledge. Verse 28.

7. They know the judgments of God. Verse 32.

8. They know that committing such sins will result in punishment and death. Verse 32.

Yes it does. It is clear from Genesis, where it says that in the beginning God created Adam, gave him Eve as her wife, and the two became one flesh. This is the argument Jesus gave regarding marriage in speaking of divorce, and the same argument applies to polygamy (if anything, being even easier to see in this regard).



How could God have commanded polygamy in light of the fact that it is contrary to His will, and given that He never in a single instance sanctioned it? He couldn't have, in the sense that we think of the word "command."



Sin is defined as a violation of the moral law. The EGW quote states that polygamy was a violation of the law, and contrary to God's will, which is to say it was sin. There's no way the law of Moses would command something which is a violation to the 10 commandments. Even Jews today, without the benefit of Jesus' teaching, recognize that polygamy was permitted but not sanctioned, as the following demonstrates:





If by this you mean that God gave Moses laws regarding things that He permitted, but weren't His ideal, I agree completely, as this is what I've been saying. God did not sanction polygamy, or divorce (or many other things the OT speaks about, but of which God gave counsel), but He permitted it.



If polygamy is a sin, which EGW says it is, then it is *always* against one of the 10 commandments, not just in "other cases." Which commandment is it always contrary to?



Yes, but God condemned this practice.





No, I mean how, as in how could this be the case. Obviously, it couldn't be. God would never command us to do something contrary His will. That makes no sense. Yet this is what you are asserting.



That He chose to wink at it is not the issue. You are asserting that God commanded that things be done which were contrary to His will. That makes no sense.

No. The "everything" refers to all that is revealed by God through creation. It is not excluding certain things.



No, for the same reason as the previous response.



No, they are not. That one should not create idols seems to me something that one could infer from nature.



They know about God from the things He made. That's what Paul says.



No, because that's not what he says. He says they know the truth about God from the things He made. He says nothing about their knowing the truth because of what Scripture says. Why would you come to your conclusion? I see nothing which says they know the truth because of Scripture, but I do see where it says they know the truth because of creation.



How could Paul have been any more clear about this?



You skipped the important part, which you should have included in 2 of your list. I underlined it in the text cited.

Tom and MountainMan,

I think most people likely misinterpret Paul on that verse 20. The part you underlined, especially, is misunderstood, because it takes a good understanding of what Creation was about before one can comprehend exactly what it revealed. I would strongly suggest that you spend a few hours (and I mean hours) studying 2 Peter 3. The entire chapter of 2 Peter 3 is focused, if one will but look closely, on Creation Week, and upon exactly what it reveals to us. I invite you to scrutinize the text, and to notice that Peter speaks of "creation", and further references days 2, 3, and 7 of Creation Week. While he does not address the entirety of the Creation, this touches quite nearly half of it. As you contemplate verse eight, you will need to go back up and look for the context. The context is that of Creation Week. When you understand what Peter evidently understood, you will better understand why John spoke of "the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world."

This is not an easy study. It will challenge you. But there is an incredible treasure hidden in Creation Week, and I believe it is this that Paul has alluded to in the text you have referenced above.

I won't do your homework for you on the Creation study at this time, but here's my two cents on the proper reading of Paul's statement. Notice the punctuation changes to the following:

For the invisible things of him (from the creation of the world), are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

And now consider that Paul is saying that WE, who read the creation account, learn of God's eternal power and Godhead through a proper understanding of the symbolism of His creations on each of those days.

In other words, I do NOT believe that Paul is necessarily referring to nature, but rather to the acts of creation week themselves. One can understand through a knowledge of those acts more about God.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa