Comments on: Striking a Nerve, or, Love and Marriage

By: Caleb Blume

Caleb Blume — Wed, 15 Dec 2010 19:15:16 +0000

I think this calls for me stepping out of character for the sequel. It is up, FYI, and might explain a lot of the problems we are having. (I did say to wait.)

By: David

David — Wed, 15 Dec 2010 17:21:43 +0000

Amen Thad.

By: Matthew

Matthew — Wed, 15 Dec 2010 06:55:39 +0000

I think you’re right to argue for one method being more biblical than others, and to practice that method for that reason.

I’m just saying it’s also important to realize that everyone else is operating under the same assumption. No one is thinking, “Well, this clearly isn’t the most biblical way, but I like it better than God’s way.”

So just be careful in your arguments to acknowledge that and present reasons why you believe and act one way; your goal is to persuade your brothers out of love, or to have your beliefs corrected because you want to search out what’s right.

And if people aren’t doing wickedly, rejoice and fellowship with them; don’t estrange or provoke.

By: Caleb Blume

Caleb Blume — Wed, 15 Dec 2010 05:44:49 +0000

P.S. Thank you for not being hateful or irate, and I am sorry if I have overly offended anyone at all.

By: Caleb Blume

Caleb Blume — Wed, 15 Dec 2010 05:35:44 +0000

Hmm, I see your point. I thought the quotes around “reformed” was obviously talking about those who were not mainstream. Either way, when I rant, I tend to rant all out.
You are also right about the personal part, however. But then again, come to think of it, I suppose it should be. Maybe it’s my Romanian side talking, but if I don’t say, “I have His,” how can I get my brothers to set me strait? If I have a belief about what is His way, of course I’m going to say it is. If it is not, bring it on! Socrates says the worst thing on earth is to not be proved wrong. Actually, he said the best thing was to be proved wrong, but those statements are equivalent… I think.

By: Matthew

Matthew — Wed, 15 Dec 2010 05:26:21 +0000

Just briefly, Caleb, this IS personal. You say in your comment that you are refuting “the practice of [courtship] in general,” but in the main post, you write: “As for me and my house, we will choose the most Biblical way, not because of some self-righteousness that says we are more holy than you, but because we like God’s examples better than the “reformed” self-righteous path to holiness.”

You are saying, in essence, “You have your opinion and I have His.” You imply that any *person* (hence: personal) who practices courtship is following a less-Biblical, “self-righteous path to holiness.”

You may or may not be right about the first part; arranged marriage may be more Biblical. I think that is a good argument and I’m glad you brought it up because so many reformed (including myself) haven’t thought it through. But the second part—that courtship is always self-righteous—whether or not you meant it that way, is provocative and simply not true.

This comment should not be construed as me hating you or being irate. But just be careful you are going about your arguments charitably.

By: Caleb Blume

Caleb Blume — Wed, 15 Dec 2010 05:20:44 +0000

P.S. I only grimace in public to keep my image up. My smile is quite pious.

By: Caleb Blume

Caleb Blume — Wed, 15 Dec 2010 05:10:07 +0000

Wow, and before I was allowed the second post, too. Okay, first off, David, you are partly right. But you also were wrong in your translation of the word “general,” “neither are “evil,”” et cetera. I don’t believe any here is in gross sin except for the non-believers I mentioned in your quote of the “UNGodly.” I believe we had a talk of intentions before hand? My, my, you are quick to make this personal.

Matthew, I believe I talked about Samson and Delilah, Jacob and Leah and Rachel. They are IN the Bible, but what is brought up as a good marriage, process, et cetera again? Jacob’s polygamy brought about a civil war, and Solomon was brought to fault because he loved all those wives, not to mention the David Bathsheba incident, although God did take that and used it for good, the birth of Solomon, but Nathan was clear that the fact that it happened was… well, bad. Biblical and in the Bible are different. Ruth and Boaz were married because of Law, that is considered a fantastic marriage in Scripture, and shown to be so. Isaac’s marriage was perfectly legit according to God, since He commanded it be such. I don’t think I’m better than anyone because I believe this, I only read Scripture and say “This is what I see God saying, What am I missing?” Answer me, brothers… or wait until my next post. This is going to steal all my good points.

By: Matthew

Matthew — Wed, 15 Dec 2010 05:00:12 +0000

For what it’s worth (and to poke another stick in the hornet’s nest, since that’s the self-proclaimed goal of this post), polygamy is also “everywhere in the Bible.” Is polygamy better than monogamy too, or is it different than arranged marriage in some way?

By: David

David — Wed, 15 Dec 2010 04:31:52 +0000

But you did call those who court self-righteous and then preceded to explain how you would be holier than them. I call that excessively and hypocritically pious, though your face is probably in more of a solemn sickeningly sanctimonious grimace than a sickeningly sanctimonious smile. Ever stop to think that not everyone who is wrong on a theological points ISN’T horrible in some way?