The Strait and Narrow

How could these positions be over looked? If in fact the Biblical Principle & Doctrine committee of the COGOP did a compete study of the exception clause of fornication.  I given you the John Coblentz view, now I will give you another from John Piper. My point is how could the church overlook or dismiss these views that seems to be more biblical than what they have pasted in the assembly of 2006?

By: John Piper

“I have recently come to conclusion that the exception clause in Matthew 5:32 and 19:9 is not intended to provide a loophole for divorce and remarriage when one of the partners commits adultery.

I began, first of all, by being troubled that the absolute form of Jesus’ denunciation of divorce and remarriage in Mark 10:11, 12 (”And he said to them, ‘Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another she commits adultery against him’”) and Luke 16:18 (”Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery.”) is not preserved by Matthew, if in fact his exception clause is a loophole for divorce and remarriage. I was bothered by the simple assumption that so many writers make that Matthew is simply making explicit something that would have been implicitly understood by the hearers of Jesus or the readers of Mark 10 and Luke 16. Would they really have assumed that the absolute statements included exceptions? I have very strong doubts, and therefore my inclination is to inquire whether or not in fact Matthew’s exception clause conforms to the absoluteness of Mark and Luke.

The second thing that began to disturb me was the question, Why does Matthew use the word porneia instead of the word moicheia which means adultery? Almost all commentators seem to make the simple assumption again that porneia means adultery in this context. Even though I am ready to admit that now and then porneia is used in a sense which can include adultery, the question nags at me why Matthew should not use the word for adultery, if that is in fact what he meant. Then I noticed something very interesting. The only other place besides Matthew 5:32 and 19:9 where Matthew uses the word porneia is in 15:19 where it is used alongside of moicheia. Therefore, the primary contextual evidence for Matthew’s usage is that he conceives of porneia as something different than adultery. Could this mean, then, that Matthew conceives of porneia in its normal sense of fornication rather than adultery?

The next clue in my search for an explanation came when I stumbled upon the use of porneia in John 8:41 where the Jewish leaders indirectly accuse Jesus of being born of porneia. In other words, since they don’t accept the virgin birth, they assume that Mary had committed fornication and Jesus was the result of this act. On the basis of that clue I went back to study Matthew’s record of Jesus’ birth in Matthew 1:18-20. This was extremely enlightening.

In these verses Joseph and Mary are referred to each other as husband (aner) and wife (gunaika). Yet they are described as only being betrothed to each other. This is probably owing to the fact that the words for husband and wife are simply man and woman and to the fact that betrothal was a much more significant commitment then than engagement is today. In verse 19 Joseph resolves “to divorce” Mary. The word for divorce is the same as the word in Matthew 5:32 and 19:9. But most important of all, Matthew says that Joseph was “just” in making the decision to divorce Mary, presumably on account of her porneia, fornication. Therefore, as Matthew proceeded to construct the narrative of his gospel, he finds himself in chapter 5 and then later in chapter 19, in a difficult situation. He has before him the absolute sayings of Jesus that if a man divorces his wife and marries another he commits adultery, that is, he commits a grave injustice. Nevertheless, the one divorce that Matthew has contemplated with his readers in chapter 1 has been described by him as a “just” possibility. Therefore, in order to avoid the jarring inconsistency between what he has said about Joseph and what Jesus says about divorce, Matthew inserts the exception clause in order to exonerate Joseph and show that the kind of divorce that one might pursue during a betrothal on account of fornication, is not included in what Jesus had said. This interpretation of the exception clause has several advantages: 1) it does not force Matthew to contradict the plain, absolute meaning of Mark and Luke; 2) it provides an explanation for why the word porneia is used in Matthew’s exception clause instead of moicheia; 3) it squares with Matthew’s own use of porneia for fornication in Matthew 15:19; 4) from a redaction-critical standpoint it is very astute edition which promotes the truth of Jesus’ own absolute command and the rightness of Joseph’s intention in resolving to divorce his betrothed, Mary.

There is one more piece of evidence. It is usually assumed by evangelicals that when Jesus said the absolute form of his command, in Luke 18 for example, he was assuming that divorce on account of adultery was taken for granted and that a spouse had the right to remarry when divorced in this way. But there is very strong evidence in Luke 16:18 that Jesus did not assume this but in fact contemplated the possibility of an exception clause and rejected it. Luke 16:18 says, “Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery.” What is the situation of the woman in the second half of this verse? It seems to me that if we take the verse as a unity (and I can see no reason not to) the situation is that a man has divorced his wife and married another. That is, he has deserted his wife and illegitimately gone off with another and formed a new marital relationship. He has committed adultery against his first wife and left her “divorced.” If the traditional view of Matthew’s exception clause is correct, then this woman is free to remarry. But Jesus says just the opposite in the last half of Luke 16:18. He says that the woman who was divorced is not a candidate for remarriage, because if a man marries her, he commits adultery. The only way to escape from this implication is to say that the two halves of the verse don’t have anything to do with each other. But against that assumption is the active voice of the word “divorce” in 18a and the passive voice of the word “divorce” in 18b. In other words, the verse pictures a man divorcing in 18a and a woman divorced in 18b and it seems to me completely unnatural to think of this woman divorced in 18a and in 18b as two different women. The force of this argument has been felt by the translators of the NIV in Matthew 5:32. They translate “anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness (sic!), causes her to commit adultery, and anyone who marries a woman so divorced commits adultery.” The fact that they insert the word “so” shows that they think of the woman in the second half of the verse as the same woman in the first half of the verse. But when they get to Luke 16:18, they simply translate, “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and the man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.” Why don’t they use the word “so” in Luke 16:18? I think the reason is that as soon as they do, it will show that Jesus did consider the situation of an exception clause on the ground of adultery and rejected it. This is in fact the case.

This is what I have taught to my church and I see no warrant for anything different in I Corinthians 7.”

More: John Piper Divorce and Remarriage.

By John Piper. © Desiring God. Website: desiringGod.org

I have given a link to John Coblentz online bible resource (to the left) titled “What the bible says about: Marriage Divorce & Remarriage”. He defines many topics concerning marriage with the insight that is given in the bible. To me he has open my understanding concerning what the bible says about marriage, divorce and remarriage. Many modern Christians will stand against he’s views and takes a more liberal view.

For instincts the word fornication to which they think gives the reason for a divorce and says that adultery is in the list or type of fornication. I wanted to give everybody a opportunities to read the online ebook  but you can buy as I have in book form. I found mind at Barnes & Noble but you can find it at Anabaptist Bookstore. Truly understanding what the bible says about divorce,remarriage.

If I understand our new teaching of COGOP about D&R than what shall we say then?

“Therefore, the Church recognizes (in a pastoral sense) those causes, in addition to death, that would be recognized as ending a previously valid biblical marriage. In such cases, delineated on the following page, marriage partners would not be classed as adulterers even though remarried:

1. If persons were divorced and remarried for any reason prior to their personal salvation and have demonstrated a willingness to seek restitution (forgiveness from the offended spouse) and restoration where possible. Would not be classed as adulterers even though remarried:”

I agree that they can receive salvation, but to remain in that marriage would still be considered adultery.  I have debated this concept of forgiveness that “all” is forgiven and a marriage would not be classed as adultery with some of our church people. But I keep going back to scripture and I can’t find were this “forgiveness” would allow you to maintain that lifestyle that you have asked forgiven of. The one scripture I did find is Paul which wrote to the Romans in which he spoke of:

“What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?” Romans 6:1, 2. “What then? Shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.” Romans 6. 15

Paul speaks to the Roman Christians that has been “forgiven” and tells them not to live any longer in sin. I see this as a great example of the beliefs that our church has passed saying that those in these cases would not be classed as adulteress.

One problem with this teaching of “forgiven that would not be classed as adultery” is that it’s not consistent with scripture nor is the application consistent, would it be applied to homosexuality.  If persons were homosexual prior to personal salvation and remain in that lifestyle would not be classed as abomination? It goes against the scriptures of “shall we continue in sin” The church now says that it isn’t classed as adultery because of salvation. When Jesus himself teach us that all divorcees that remarry would be committing adultery “save for fornication” and fornication would have to be viewed as Jewish marriage customs for that is whom Jesus is referring too.

Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth? Then he speaks of the law that bonds a woman to her husband so long as he liveth. So then if while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress. Romans 7.1,2

Paul draws a parallel of the law to which the example he used is of a woman’s bond to her husband for life and there are no other way to remarry other then deaf of the husband, again Paul says deaf will free her to marry another man and she will  not be an adulteress. Likewise we are dead to the law and alive to God.

Once again I tell you that the church’s new standard of beliefs which allows these to maintain their sinful lifestyle isn’t supported by scripture and is inconsistent.  As in the scriptures we are only free to marry another if our husband is dead. We become married to Christ after we are dead to the law. Jesus himself said, “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.” Matt.5.17

I pray for our church that it will see the errors of our beliefs and move more closely to scripture. For the Old testament allowed for a divorce woman to remarry under the mosaic law, But Jesus new covenant done away with remarriage by divorce “putting away” for he called it adultery. So then what shall we say then?    

In recent day’s I have been blogging on the church forum Jude2. Which one topic has been from the Biblical Principles, Beliefs, and Practices of the church with the title “One Man for one Woman?” That is what is stated in our beliefs, but my question is do we simply say this as a metaphor or do we practice it?  Because our statement implies one man for one woman for life, it also states that under certain conditions it allows for divorces and remarriage:

Concerning “divorce” in the above context, the Church means the breaking of a legitimate, lawful, biblical marriage and holds firmly to the principle that such divorces are not God’s will, especially between Christians. Forgiveness, reconciliation, and healing should be sought as a first priority in order to preserve marriages and prevent divorce. The Church also recognizes that despite biblical teaching and honest human effort, divorces do occur sometimes against the will of one or the other party. Therefore, the Church recognizes (in a pastoral sense) those causes, in addition to death, that would be recognized as ending a previously valid biblical marriage. In such cases, delineated on the following page, marriage partners would not be classed as adulterers even though remarried:
1. If persons were divorced and remarried for any reason prior to their personal salvation and have demonstrated a willingness to seek restitution (forgiveness from the offended spouse) and restoration where possible.
2. If a divorce occurred because of a spouse’s habitual adulterous behavior and efforts to bring reconciliation are no longer possible.
3. If divorce occurred because of spousal or child abuse, such as incestuous behavior that seriously endangers the life and health of the spouse or family and violates the sanctity of holy matrimony.
Under no circumstances should Christians or church members initiate or seek divorce without completely exhausting all biblical and counseling avenues to restore, rebuild, and sustain their marriages. Marriages that clearly violate biblical standards (such as incestuous marriages) may be appealed to the presbytery for specific consideration. All divorce and remarriage cases not falling within the categories described above should be referred for counsel and resolution to the Pastor and local church leadership, the State/Regional/National Presbytery, or the General Ministerial Presbytery (which includes the General Overseer andGeneral Presbyters) as may be appropriate.

It would seem that the one man for one woman for life don’t apply to the total church only to some. With all these acceptations to our stated belief of one man for woman for life it seems we have compromised the truth.

I understand if a divorced person repents and then is able to be accepted as a covenant member and remain unmarried as scripture in 1 Corinthians 7:11.   But we are not stating that in the above, it speaks of these as being able for membership in another marriage “second marriage”. I think that would go against the teaching of Jesus in what he speaks about divorce and remarriage constitutes adultery.

Let’s look at the number one in the above; divorce and remarried for ‘any reason” prior to their personal salvation is acceptable for membership and remain in their present marriage. I will agree about their salvation and all is forgiven but to stay in the marriage that you have asked forgiveness would still constitute adultery.

The church see this as I have learned from jude2 that if one is in these conditions then after repentance and forgiveness is received that the past is forgiven that would make the marriage ok; they say,it would not be considered adultery.

Someone commented on this and said, if a life long drunker repented and received forgiveness of his sins would he still be able to continue drinking and remain a member or even saved?  

I see changing of rules in the college football and other sports that is said to make it better. Changing the game of football is one thing, but changing our biblical standard which Christ is our foundation would be our way of saying that a new foundation is better.  I think this mentality that the social world has entered our churches in that we let the world ideas become our way of thinking.  It has been said that this is a new generation and we much reach them in any form that we can use to get them into our churches.   I’m not saying that some programs or other devices that we can use is bad, I’m saying we should not let down on our biblical beliefs to get more people to come to our churches.   How would you like it if you practice for a football game with the old rules, but when you started to play the game the new rules is enforced? You may even not know all of the new rules.  I see this within our churches today with the new standard of beliefs, some believe that our old beliefs still stand, then others use the new standard. Some where we have let the social world’s idea led our church direction.  For the scripture says in 1 Cor.3:16

“Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? 17. If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.

18. Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise. 19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God.”

By this I will go back to our NEW STANDARD:

[EXCERPT]

Genesis 1:26, 27; 2:18–25; Deuteronomy 6:7; Matthew 5:32; 14:3, 4; 19:3–12; Mark 10:12; Luke 16:18; Romans 7:2, 3; 1 Corinthians 5:1–5; 6:9–18; 7:2, 11; Colossians 3:18–21.

MARRIAGE AND FAMILY

The Church of God of Prophecy affirms the biblical teaching that marriage is sacred and should not be entered into lightly without proper preparation. Marriage was originally instituted by God as a properly recognized covenant relationship between one man and one woman for life. The Church affirms the biblical family as a father and mother in wedlock who may procreate children. The Church further asserts that the home, including the extended family, is to be guided by love, discipline, and other nurturing aspects as taught in God’s Word. Because the Church is committed to the sanctity of marriage and human life, we diligently stand against abortion, incest, abuse, euthanasia, adultery, divorce, homosexuality, and lesbianism, which we believe are contrary to God’s original design as expressed in His Word. All biblically unlawful unions such as same sex, incestuous, or polygamous marriages are renounced by the Church even if they are recognized as legal by civil governments.

DIVORCE AND REMARRIAGE

Concerning “divorce” in the above context, the Church means the breaking of a legitimate, lawful, biblical marriage and holds firmly to the principle that such divorces are not God’s will, especially between Christians. Forgiveness, reconciliation, and healing should be sought as a first priority in order to preserve marriages and prevent divorce. The Church also recognizes that despite biblical teaching and honest human effort, divorces do occur sometimes against the will of one or the other party. Therefore, the Church recognizes (in a pastoral sense) those causes, in addition to death, that would be recognized as ending a previously valid biblical marriage. In such cases, delineated on the following page, marriage partners would not be classed as adulterers even though remarried:

1. If persons were divorced and remarried for any reason prior to their personal salvation and have demonstrated a willingness to seek restitution (forgiveness from the offended spouse) and restoration where possible.

2. If a divorce occurred because of a spouse’s habitual adulterous behavior and efforts to bring reconciliation are no longer possible.

3. If divorce occurred because of spousal or child abuse, such as incestuous behavior that seriously endangers the life and health of the spouse or family and violates the sanctity of holy matrimony.

Under no circumstances should Christians or church members initiate or seek divorce without completely exhausting all biblical and counseling avenues to restore, rebuild, and sustain their marriages. Marriages that clearly violate biblical standards (such as incestuous marriages) may be appealed to the presbytery for specific consideration. All divorce and remarriage cases not falling within the categories described above should be referred for counsel and resolution to the Pastor and local church leadership, the State/Regional/National Presbytery, or the General Ministerial Presbytery (which includes the General Overseer and General Presbyters) as may be appropriate.

 [EXCERPT]

Even when the church tries to stand on the truth about sex outside of marriage (adultery) they then open the way for it to enter the church with this NEW standard of beliefs. You see no were in scripture of these exceptions, but these are the churches worldly view on one scripture which others and I have spoken about were the use of Fornication is been used to allow for these exceptions.  What about the scripture that says “one woman for one man for life” this is found in Romans 7:2.  I would like to find the scripture(s) were number 1, 2 and 3 is written from the above excerpt.

 Our church uses the scriptures from Romans 7:2, 3; 1 Corinthians 5:1–5; 6:9–18; 7:2, 11; , but these only speak of oneness, but the church then allows for these exceptions. This only can be man’s wisdom. Will we compromise the truth for numbers? Will we let the world dictate our beliefs to justify the sinful? Or will we stand up for the truth? It may only start in marriage (divorce and remarriage) but will move to every aspect within our lives.  Whose rules will you play by men or God’s?

You may not know it, but yes the COGOP has a new standard. Some maybe unaware that the church had a new standard of beliefs. Download the BBB from the church page. This is in pdf format.

Read your new Basic Bible Beliefs at http://cogop.org/317810.ihtml

Also read this over at http://www.holyleaven.org this will give you a good perspective of where the church is headed.

Some where the church has missed the target when they speak that we believe in the ”One man for One woman”, but then turn around and say that now under the new standard the church will accept persons in double marriage (adultery)

First what is Theocratic government? Theocracy is a form of government in which God is recognized as the supreme civil ruler. For believers, theocracy is a form of government in which divine power governs an earthly human state, either in a personal or via religious institutional (church) replacing or dominating civil government.

I know this part will be a bit old, and this will be of my own opinion. In 2006, at the Church of God of Prophecy bi-annual General Assembly, General Overseer, Bishop Fred Fisher retired from this leadership role and a new General Overseer was appointed in his place, Bishop Randy Howard. After a week long battle between members at the General Assembly the church changed its long-standing interpretation of acceptable reasons for divorce and remarriage, with ninety-seven standing against the issue. Those standing against the issue, though small in number, stood because they felt the Holy Ghost had not consented and the Church was divided on the issue. The Church of God of Prophecy has always worked from theocratic government, with the Holy Ghost manifesting himself and all present members in complete agreement. Therefore, even if just one person should disagree with changing church doctrine, prayer should take place until God delivers what should be done, with the Holy Ghost giving consent in the issue. The divorce and remarriage issue had been tabled the entire week because an agreement could not be reached. It was supposed to have been dropped from the proxy until the next General Assembly, but Bishop Fisher took it upon himself to open it back up on the last day of the event, when originally no business was to be held. Many attendees had left believing that the issue was to be regarded at a later time. These ninety-seven were overruled, by the overwhelming majority of voting members. Bishop Fisher himself overruled those standing against it.

It may seem it were urgent to past this new change in the divorce and remarriage doctrine in this assembly by the way the “theocratic government” was not put into practice and when many attendees understood that it would be tabled until the next assembly and left the assembly.  Even by the w ay the General Overseer reopened the vote after been tabled all week. That would seem as been urgent and you may ask why? The Proxy System would come to my mind. It would give a broader participation from all around the world to give their vote on any doctrine change. It would give a better prospective of how the COGOP around the world feels about this change. Some feel that if we used the proxy system the outcome would been different. That maybe the reason it was urgent to past the D&R doctrine in that assembly. The proxy system will be used in the 2008 assembly.

This is how it will work:
All Representatives that carry a local church proxy, properly certified, meeting the deadlines, etc., will be registered on Monday of the Assembly by an Independent agency … a company hired to manage the proxy process. They are not affiliated with COGOP and have no stake in the outcome, as they are merely professionals hired to manage the logistics and assure the integrity of the process.
The proxy-carrying representative will be issued a voting card that is bar coded. Lose it? Lose the vote.
There will be x number of seats on the floor of the Sommet Center during the business sessions designated for those carrying the proxies, and ONLY them.
When the time comes for expressing the proxy on an issue, there will be about 15 strategically placed electronic stations at which the proxy holders will be able to use the bar-coded credential to register “yes/no” “for/against” or whatever the two options might be … “A/B.”
The independent agency will tally the results (pretty much immediately) and report them to the person presiding.

The proxy carrying representative would be elected by their local church and the church would have their own business meeting to come to a decision about the proxy in question. This decision is what the representative would vote in the assembly proxy. Then the assembly can tally the proxies to make their decision whether are not to pass the issues in question.  I question the lack of Theocratic government used in these debates and the way that the assembly presbytery reopened this vote even when a good amount of the attendees had left the assembly shows who was operating the church at that time.

There is those that say not to judge the ones that are calling themselves Christians, but their lives tells a deference story by the fruit they bear. Those that cry not to judge speak of the scripture in Matt.7:1 “Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.”  We must understand that this scripture is not implying not to judge at all, but to judge righteous as in John 7:24 “Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.”  Some also use the argument of that we all have some sin or that we are not perfect and use the “Get the beam out of your eye before you judge the one who has mote sand in their eye.”(Matt.7:5)

    The understanding of to Judge and Judgment should clear some issues for us. To judge is to weight the fruit that one brings forth.  The judgment is the condition that is giving after the weighting of the fruit.

Jesus came not to judge or to give judgment to the lost, but to bring salvation to the lost and dieing world.

We as his hands and feet are to do the work of God to show the way unto salvation in Christ Jesus. We should do this in a way that is not judgmental, but in love as Christ would show love. We have a great responsibly to show, teach and to preach the gospel of the good news. First not to be a hypocrite and casting out the beam in our own eye we can then help our brother or sister with their sand in their eye: not saying that there is big and little sins, but what should be learned by this scripture is that by removing the large beam will make it possible to see clear to help others.

In the true sense the one with the mote should helped the one with the beam.

   Understanding the scripture which speaks of “Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you”. (Matt.7:6)  The stiff-necked and stubborn enemies of the gospel are unworthy to have it preached unto them. (Geneva bible) Other commentaries http://biblecommenter.com/matthew/7-6.htm

So some will not receive the gospel, but would only trample it with their feet and then turn and tare you for judging them.

   Those that say that some people have difficult marriages that then end in a divorce and then remarry and now have a great marriage should not be judged and told that they are in the sin of adultery. They claim that God is forgiving them and claims to be a Christian, but there is more: forgiving and forsaking. This is the part that they have a problem with forsaking and don’t want to be judged. It’s sad that the COGOP is now accepting these as members in a lot of our churches around the world even when Jesus himself says that it is clearly a sin of adultery. Go even further with homosexuality been accepted in Christendom it’s all because they call themselves Christians without any repentance or forsaking are we to go without giving judgment to is abomination?

 “Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust, and not before the saints?

Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters? Know ye not that we shall judge angels? How much more things that pertain to this life? (1 Cor.6:1-3) 

  “Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.”(1 Cor.6:9-10)

To judge or not to judge it seems that by scripture the saints are the best to judge the world in righteous.

My brother in Christ over at HolyLeaven wrote about the 2006 Assembly of the Church of God of Prophecy where he shows us the dangerous precedents set before us that in the eagerness to win souls of the divorcess we have open the door to sin that will enter the church. This goes alone with the my last post of “Confession only”.

[This past General Assembly was truly a trying time for those who believe marriage is for life. The decision making process was troubling to say the least. I know for me personally some have questioned my intelligence and have lost confidence in me because I didn’t support what seemed to be the will of the General Assembly. It is certainly not my intent to disrespect authority or to disregard the counsel of my peers but I believed and still believe the reasoning used to pass this report was flawed and extremely dangerous.
So many have thought it was simply the change to the church’s stand on the sanctity of Marriage which caused me and others to be concerned. However, that’s not the case. While I believe in the sanctity of marriage and while I believe the church made a serious error in changing its stand, I am more troubled by the rationale used to come to this conclusion and the precedents those rationales have set.
The first mistake I wish to point out is the use of the “Hospital Analogy” which was continually put forth to support the proposed changes both in 2004 and 2006.]

 Read More at Holyleaven

I found this prospective about our Assembly minutes from the year 2006 that gives the impression that we now accept divorcees by their confession to be a Christian only.  Along with divorcees whom remarried for the cause of fornication may become members.  For me the criteria for membership if only by confession to be a Christian open the door for anyone with sin in their lives to become a member. I found that not every church sees this in the same prospective. What I mean is some do accept those in double marriage for example those that have been deserted then remarry, but not all of the churches. This is not what the Assembly minutes stated so you see how it maybe misinterpreted.  This will lead us down that open door that will sooner or later we will be addressing membership to the Homosexual movement.  If one is accepted only by confession then what is the difference between a person in double marriage and a person that lives a life style of homosexual? Understanding that homosexual is Abomination and double marriage is Adultery. If the church accepts one by confession then they by their own rules must accept the other.

[During the bi-annual General Assembly of the churches, held in Nashville, Tennessee in 2006, the church agreed that people who had been divorced (for the cause of fornication)and were later remarried may become members of the Church of God of Prophecy. May it be duely noted that ninety-seven members (out of an attendance of thousands voting)stood devoutly against changing church doctrine on this issue. The church however still maintains that God's perfect plan for marriage is between one man and one woman for life, but understands that humans are fallible and God has grace. The Church of God of Prophecy accepts divorcees as members. They believe that there is no sin worse than another. Only certain sins bring on worse consequences. Thus stating that it is okay for a person with a previous divorce to be a member. They must only confess to be a Christian. ]

Also  the Wikipedia wrote it this way:”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_God_of_Prophecy

[During the bi-annual General Assembly of the churches, held in Nashville, Tennessee in 2006, the church agreed that people who had been divorced (for the cause of fornication) and were later remarried may become members of the Church of God of Prophecy. However, 97 members stood devoutly against changing church doctrine on this issue, giving that the Holy Ghost had not consented and the Church was divided on the issue. The Church of God of Prophecy has always worked from theocratical government, with the Holy Ghost giving consent with each issue. However, the Holy Ghost never manifested Himself to approve this issue. The Bible firmly teaches against adultery. Therefore, God's true church can not accept it either. The Church of God of Prophecy maintains that God's perfect plan for marriage is between one man and one woman for life. But since it was passed that people who had been divorced for the cause of fornication and later remarried can now become members, many leaders in the Church have abused the idea in its entirity and have now began accepting adulterers as members. Many churches in The Church of God of Prophecy still do NOT accept fornicators and adulterers as members, unless they gotten out of this lifestyle through divorce. No judgement is passed on others, but The Church of God of Prophecy does have a standard to uphold. And even though the General Assembly changed doctrinal beliefs concerning divorce and remarriage WITHOUT the consent of the Holy Ghost, many churches are still holding fast to the vision they have been given of the Church and how it should operate.]