2 Simple Questions

When a virgin girl has sex with a man —  is she ‘known’ by the man?

When a virgin girl has sex with a man —  is she now ‘one flesh’ with the man?

The answer to both questions for those who are intellectually honest is YES.  But yet people today have no problem with taking a woman who is “known” by another man for a wife.  A non-virgin woman is “one flesh” with a man and this doesn’t seem to bother anyone.  When you take a non-virgin woman for a wife, you are literally sleeping with another man’s wife.

Paul specifically says, “A woman is bound to her husband as long as he lives. But if her husband dies, she is free to marry anyone she wishes.”  1 Corinthians 7:39

I asked someone recently if Paul would have offered ‘grace’ to the couple in Romans 7:2-3.  He said YES.

So, Paul exhorts the Corinthian believers that a woman is bound to her husband for as long as he is alive.  Paul says that only death will break this bond and only in death of the man can she take a different man.

But yet this person says Paul didn’t really mean what he said because Paul would accept the couple that is in violation of this principle.  Paul calls it “adultery” in his letter to the Romans.  But yet this person believes that Paul would ‘forgive’ them even though they are practicing adultery by believing themselves to be married.

This is the problem with the teaching of OSAS.  It conditions the new believer that he is saved because he professed faith and there is nothing he can do or say for the rest of his life that will threaten his relationship with the Creator.  He can sin and become a friend to the world all the while he will remain in good standing with God in Heaven.

OSAS hinders the new believer from sincerely seeking the Father/Truth.  He ignores John 14:21 as an example.  If a pastor or author cites John 14:21 they will always conflate Obedience to Jesus Christ to the “keeping of the Law”.  Jesus and His Apostles taught against the keeping of the Mosaic Law for Salvation.  Not Christ’s Law.  For an in depth study, see Malcolm Lavender’s research — http://www.lavendersnewtestament.com

OSAS is “another jesus” — 2 Corinthians 11:3-4

If you have stumbled here and you believe in OSAS……………take heed.  Galatians 6:7-9 is absolute proof that OSAS is heresy.  Our entrance into Heaven is not solely based on some profession we make (alter call).  Salvation is both instant and continual.  We can still get off the Narrow Road that leads to Eternal life.  God will not be mocked.  We reap what we sow.  The Sexual Immoral will not inherit the Kingdom of Heaven.  These are not my words.

If you are married and your wife was not a virgin —- stop everything and earnestly seek Truth.

If you are thinking about “marriage”, please study the arguments presented here.  And read the comments.

“Marriage” is the second most important decision a man or woman makes in their lifetime.

Why do you simply trust your Pastor or your Church or “Tradition” to determine how to be married; and who is eligible?

Did you ever once consider how does one marry i.e., necessary procedures/rituals???

Should we not consult the Scriptures?  “Sexual Immorality” will bar the door to Eternal Rest with our Heavenly Father.

Most everyone living today has had sex, or is having sex presumably “married”.

Did you ask the Father if your sexual relationship is pleasing to Him???

If you have any Spirit left………….keep reading.

Posted in Uncategorized | 3 Comments

Scripture Declares………….(and the Rubric)

Only Virgin girls and or Widowed women have a Biblical Authority to take a Husband.

Scripture reveals that when a virgin girl has sex with a man, she becomes “Known” by that man.  She becomes “Joined” to the man as One Flesh.  Society should recognize said couple as man and wife.  Man’s failure to recognize them man and wife is not God’s fault.

Paul declares — “There is a difference between the wife and the virgin.  The unmarried woman cares about the things of the Lord…But she who is married cares about the things of the world.”  1 Corinthians 7:34

Question — who is the ‘unmarried’ according to Paul?  Answer — the Virgin.

Scripture reveals that only “Death” will separate the One Flesh Union.  Hence why Widows are the other category of women who have the Biblical authority to take a husband.

Paul admonishes the Corinthians that only ‘death’ will sever this one flesh union.  He writes —

“A wife is bound by law as long as her husband lives; but if her husband dies, she is at liberty to be married…”  1 Corinthians 7:39

A more thorough explanation —

“For the woman who has a husband is bound by the law to her husband as long as he lives.  But if the husband dies, she is released from the law of her husband.  So then if, while her husband lives, she marries another man, she will be called an adulteress; but if her husband dies, she is free from that law, so that she is no adulteress, though she has married another man.”  Romans 7:2-3


It is my assertion that if one applies the following Rubric to all Scripture pertaining to Sex and Marriage, one will find perfect balance and harmony.

Rubric —  When a Virgin girl has sex with a man, she becomes ‘joined’ to that man as one flesh.  She is now ‘known’ by the man.  Only Death can sever this union.

This is God’s Natural Law which is Universal.  It applies to all Generations.

The second part of the Rubric is:  Society (even Biblical ) should recognize said couple ‘man and wife’.  The non-virgin woman can only be with one man and it be righteous.  Sex with any other man would be Sexual Immorality.   

Apply this rubric to all Scripture pertaining to sex and marriage and you will find perfect harmony.

The Story of Jacob, Laban, Leah and Rachel is but one example.

The “woman at the well” is another story people will use to argue that my thesis is wrong.  But what does that example really prove?  I go into more detail on the “About” page; but simply: the woman at the well is in the situation described by Paul in Romans 7:2-3.  She is living with a man who is not her husband because she is still “one flesh” with a different man/husband.  It is very simple.  But men try to complicate it and or assume our tradition of marriage is the same as theirs.   They assume that all that the woman will need to do is just have a proper “ceremony” and then she will be married to the man and Jesus would not have said what He said.  So, I have to ask the question again — “how would she do that?”  “How would she ‘marry’?  This…….I have never received an answer.

If you have found this Blog and you are quickened by the Holy Spirit as to it’s message, please make a comment and if you would like, I’d be happy to contact you personally.

If you feel I am in error, please make your argument and help me understand how I have misunderstood Scripture.  “Iron Sharpens Iron”

Sincerely.  In the Truth of His Word, Jeff

Posted in Uncategorized | 23 Comments

Poll — Is “Death” the only way a woman can remarry? (1 Corinthians 7:39)


(Note — if you vote NO, please have the courage to leave a comment as to “why”.  Someone voted “NO” but didn’t have the guts to be honorable)


My other Poll asks the question — “Is sexual intercourse the vehicle by which two flesh become one.”



Surprisingly, the majority of people have agreed with me.  But I am confused slightly because I could count on both hands those who practice this reality.  And that reality would be that only virgin girls and or widowed women have a God given right to take a husband.


How can it not?  If sexual intercourse is the vehicle by which two flesh become one; how can it not mean that the couple is now “joined” and joined for life?


To speak frankly……………..if a man is married to a non-virgin woman, he is practicing adultery (Romans 7:3-4).  Such a couple should abstain from sexual intercourse.  You can still be husband and wife for your children, but you must not have sexual intercourse.


So……………I have another Poll.  Please, if you believe Death is not the only way a woman can remarry, please explain in the comment section.


Posted in Uncategorized | 20 Comments

If you have read: ‘Scripture Declares’… please take this Poll:

If you “Disagree” please leave a comment and explain ‘why’.  Thank you.


Those who have voted “no” didn’t have the courage to state their position.  God hates Cowards — Revelation 21:8


Posted in Uncategorized | 5 Comments

Focus on the Family believes Sex is Marriage!

Incredible.  I found this article at Focus on the Family — Does sex equal marriage?



The article begins by answering a reader’s question — When a couple has sex, aren’t they essentially married in God’s eyes? It seems to me that if the younger generation understood this and believed it, things would change fast. Dating as we know it would cease. Virgin women wouldn’t dream of putting themselves in a compromising position with a man. A young man would be far more careful if he knew that the moment he crossed the line he was committed. Wouldn’t you agree that this is the message we need to be communicating?

Focus on the Family replies — Technically speaking, you’re right on target in suggesting that, in God’s eyes, marriage has more to do with the sex act than it does with church ceremonies or legal documents. According to Scripture, marriage is fundamentally a matter of a man and a woman becoming one flesh (Genesis 2:24). Sexual intercourse is central to that process


“….he is a double-minded man, unstable in all his ways.”  James 1:8


FOTF says, “marriage has more to do with the sex act…” and then proceeds to speak out of the other side of the mouth by implying the ‘one flesh’ concept is something other than simply Sexual Intercourse.

This is a classic example of a Hireling.  Their conscious knows the truth, but ‘money’ and ‘popularity’ prevail.  So they appeal to the masses — the broad road.


Becoming one flesh is simple and purely = Sexual Intercourse.  There is no other interpretation.  One Flesh, or becoming One Flesh is nothing other than sexual intercourse.  Period.  End of Story.  For anyone to say otherwise, is a Heretic; a false teacher; a Hireling.  The deception is in the words — ‘Becoming’ and ‘Process’.

As if to imply that One Flesh is more than just a single act of Sex.  It is not.  One Flesh is simply Sex.  There is no ‘process’.  There is no ‘becoming’.  You are either joined as one flesh; or you are not.

But yet the “itching ears” accepts this erroneous teaching.

The amazing aspect to this article is in the Question.  I could write an entire book on just this one question.  The reason the world is in the shape that it is today is simply because Man has not followed God’s desire for sex and marriage.  I would imagine 90% of those ‘married’ are not married after all.  I would venture to say over 90% of Christian couples today are practicing adulterers.  The Scriptures say that God does not hear Sinners.


What I find amazing about this article is that Focus on the Family actually admits that having sex in the eyes of God is marriage.

They say — Technically speaking, you’re right on target in suggesting that, in God’s eyes, marriage has more to do with the sex act than it does with church ceremonies or legal documents. 

They also say —  How do we get them to care about the fact that sexual activity equals marriage in the eyes of God?

FOTF comes right out and says it!  “…sexual activity equals marriage in the eyes of God.”

Unbelievable.  Unbelievable, because they imply that sex is marriage in God’s eyes, ‘but not in ours’.  Is this not the epitome of arrogance/pride?

Is this not the perfect example of a people who have completely lost the ‘fear of the Lord’?

How does a man sleep at night when he can admit that God recognizes Sex is Marriage, but then do nothing about it.  ???

Even given the idea of Spiritual Blindness (deception), you would think that just having a basic sense of logic and reasoning skills, would cause a person to seriously examine this reality.  But………………….no one cares.  No one cares because no one fears the Lord.  They just don’t fear Eternity.  They are convinced they are already in Heaven.


I am willing to bet that if I were to ask 100 Christian pastors/teachers whether Biblical Marriage should be “subjective” or “objection”, they would almost all say biblical marriage should be objective.  Especially in light of the gay marriage controversy.  They would have to say biblical marriage should be objective.


How is Romans 7:2-3 anything other than an Objective statement?  A woman can remarry upon the death of her spouse.  Death is an emphatic statement.  Death is final.  Death is not subjective.  Death is decidedly objective.  You are either dead or you are alive.  Period.

This must be the definition of Hypocrite.  The Scripture says ‘death’ can only separate the marriage bond; spiritually dead christians say ‘death’ is not the only remedy.

This Hireling over at the http://www.theos.org blog has written practically a book explaining his sin.  http://www.thenarrowpath.com/ta_divorce.php

I copied his “research” paper onto Word and counted his words.

19,553 Words.

250 paragraphs.

Wow!  Subjective or Objective?

I will explain Biblical Marriage and lets compare:

When a virgin girl has sex, she is now known by the man.  She is joined to the man as ‘one flesh’.  Society should recognize this couple now man and wife.  Society’s failure to recognize this couple man and wife is not the fault of the Scriptures.

This ‘one flesh’ union is only severed by death.

You take this simple formula and apply it to EVERY passage related to sex and marriage and it fits.  No subjective interpretation necessary.  The Scriptures will speak for themselves.

Take the challenge.  Prove me wrong.  56 words by the way.




Focus on the Family says — Where we may see things differently is in the area of practical application. What are the implications of this theological truth for couples living in the cultural context of 21st century America?

Wow!  As if 2000 years since the time of Jesus and His Apostles changes the way in which God intended for us to live.  We must ‘adapt’ our theological convictions because of “Culture”?

How did we get here?  This is an argument I have in my mind all the time.  Kind of like the ‘chicken or the egg’ conversation.

Jude writes — “For certain men have crept in unnoticed, who long ago were marked out for this condemnation, ungodly men, who turn the grace of our God into lewdness and deny the only Lord God and our Lord Jesus Christ.” 

I believe the teaching of Once Saved Always Saved is the final product of this apostasy that first began during the time of the Apostles.  I don’t know exactly what was being taught during that time, but I could imagine it was very similar to what we have today.  This idea that once a person believes in Jesus Christ and receives “Salvation”, such a person is saved and will always be saved despite their actions in the future.  99% of Christians today believe in Eternal Security.

Is this how Man lost the desire to “follow” Jesus in all things pertaining to life and Godliness?  Deciding to be married is probably the second most important decision one makes in their lifetime.  Why do men and women just trust their church or trust tradition to explain marriage and how to be married?  Could the belief in OSAS be partly responsible?

At the end of the day, the belief in Once Saved Always Saved is “a different Jesus” — 2 Corinthians 11:4.  There is an aspect to “knowing Jesus”.  Jesus implies that He will turn many away because He “does not know them”.  So it is true that our Salvation is a relationship with the Lord Jesus.  Just as any relationship requires a knowledge of one another; so too is our relationship with the Messiah.  We must ‘know’ Him in order to follow Him.  The idea that Jesus took our punishment so that we can continue to sin and not be held accountable for that sin, is simply — “another Jesus”.






Posted in Uncategorized | 3 Comments

God Told Hosea To Do What?

Below is an article regarding Hosea and Gomer.  The author draws a few conclusions that I have not yet  studied in full detail.  I will BOLD the parts of this article in which I support 100% regarding the question as to whether Gomer was a harlot ‘prior’ to her marriage to Hosea.  Please study thoughtfully and carefully.


God Told Hosea To Do What?  By Edward Ridenour

In addition to the unfortunate Scriptural misinterpretation, by the church, in believing that the church is the bride of Christ, which influences false perceptions of Biblical marriage and fornication, there is another erred perception, which does the same. This horrific perception is that God in the book of Hosea had instructed the Prophet Hosea to marry (sexually intimate) a prostitute. In my view, those who believe this theory have seriously failed to consider God’s holy character and His Word. It is a theory that truly displays a lack of understanding in Biblical marriage and its sanctity, which He designed, as well as the consequences of its violation.

The church has used this prophetic book to support their perception of the church being the bride of Christ and that Christ is constantly forgiving the church for its sins, past and present, which Hosea symbolized by marrying Gomer and taking her back. This is based upon the interpretation that Hosea supposedly married a prostitute (Gomer) on Yahweh’s command and, then, she continued in her whoredom, which Hosea forgives, taking her back, works with her, and continued to be a husband to her, without any consequence.

This incorrect theory, then, is applied to the attitude of conduct, which they say should be displayed within a Christian marriage of a man and woman when one of them commits fornication against the other. The innocent spouse is to be like Hosea (Christ-like – forgiving), and take their fornicating spouse back if they repent, even though Gomer never showed any indication of repentance.

Although they wouldn’t admit it, this Scripture is used by many, similar to the bride of Christ idea, to brow-beat the innocent spouse into taking the violating spouse back, condemning them as not being Christ-like if they don’t. Others use it as a justification in taking their fornicating spouse back. Anyone who has read my book “It’s Good For A Man Not To Touch A Woman” or my articles in this blog know the reason why this is a huge mistake.

I have already outlined my reasons for the church being in error in believing that the bride of Christ is the church and how applying that theory in the dealings of marriage and fornication is damnable. Now I will outline my reasons why the church is in total error in their interpretation of this Scripture and how it fosters a wrong perception, and must not be applied to Biblical marriage precepts.

I concede to the premise that the book of Hosea reveals God’s love, mercy, forgiveness, and redemption. This is evident, but must be put in a proper perspective.

The gist of the message and marriage to Gomer was mostly to prophesy God’s view of His relationship He and Israel have had within their union from the beginning to the present. It also points to the promises of hope for Israel in the near future, and to the redemption that would come, further out, to all men through the work of Jesus Christ – those circumcised in the heart by faith. Howbeit, until then, there was going to be horrendous judgment and punishment upon Israel and Judah for their wickedness. As one commentator described it “This picture is one of a loving husband who yearns desperately to have a faithful wife. Israel, however, will have none of it, and the consequences of its sins must play themselves out, although hope for the future is never lost.”

Isn’t it interesting that these aspects of judgment and punishment (consequences), which is no small percentage of the prophet’s message, never seem to get much attention by those who use Hosea to support the church as the bride of Christ, nor as an advocated mindset to be exercised by an innocent spouse as the rule when fornicated against by their unfaithful spouse. They only seem to hear what they want to hear and see what they want to see. This, along with a lack of knowledge, makes for some false doctrines and applications to life, particularly marriage and its violation.

Without writing a whole commentary on the book of Hosea, I will just point out some of the main points where errors in interpretation are vivid:

Firstly, the relationship that God had with Israel was not in the form of husband/wife. Actually, God’s wife according to Scripture was Jerusalem, which was in Judah at this time in history. Neither is the prophecy of Hosea an instruction on how to deal with an errant spouse. The marriage to Gomer only symbolized God’s marriage (connection, union) to Israel in His oneness with them through the covenant of the law. The oneness He initiates with the church today is through the covenant (redemption) of Jesus Christ. This relationship is not husband/wife either.

On this earth, marriage (the oneness generated by two, through sexual intimacy) between a man and woman depicts, most distinctly, the oneness connection that God’s people experience with Him. We are married (joined) to Him, yet not as His wife, but as His body, like a wife is to her husband. It is a holy connection. Once born again, the church (made up of each member) is connected to Him as His body through His Spirit, once born again, as is also the wife connected to her husband as his body once they are sexually intimate. However, if you have read my book or articles you will know that both of these unions can be fornicated.

The earthly marriage union illustrates, for the lack of a better word, our oneness with Christ. Both of these institutions of oneness are a mystery. That is because each union is enacted by God Himself and is not seen by the human eye nor implemented by man.

Secondly, to think that God would entreat a prophet to commit an abominable act of fornication by being sexually intimate with a prostitute is ridiculous. Only those who: 1) Have no respect for God’s holy and righteous character, i.e., “…to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire unto Molech; which I commanded them not, neither come it into my mind, that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin” (Jeremiah 32:35, KJV) and “Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man” (James 1:13); 2) have no respect and knowledge to how horrific the sinful act of fornication is bodily and as idolatry could presume such an atrocity.

Should we believe that God would direct a holy man into committing this abomination (fornication) with a prostitute (see my previous articles or book) for the purpose of reproving the abominations of others? How could Hosea be the instrument for exposing and condemning the sin of Israel when He would be just as guilty as they? Where is the sense and wisdom in this, as the means for Israel to change? How does one marry a prostitute and then condemn her afterward for being a prostitute, considering it shameful?

This crazy idea is also like certain so-called ministries today where one spouse commits fornication against the other spouse, are taken back, and, then, set out to tell others that their marriage is now better than before. Anymore, to have a viable marriage ministry one must commit the sin of fornication beforehand. Then you are qualified to be a help to others. “Let us sin, so that grace may abound!” “Let’s all commit fornicated affairs so our marriages will be better!”   This is a sensual philosophy of the world being spewed out by the church, which even many unbelievers will not accept. Shouldn’t the ones who are faithful to their spouses be the ones who are true ministers of marriage, especially to unbelievers? Hosea was the true sinless minister. He represented and exemplified the true, righteous, and faithful God.

For God to direct Hosea to commit this defiling act would have been the most unrighteous thing for a righteous God to do. The holy prophet wouldn’t be so holy any longer, and would be just as worthy of condemnation. I ask… would the church be so ready to accept God commanding a prophet to commit homosexuality, instead of adultery, for the purpose of instruction? I don’t believe so! I would hope not!

The reason I made the claim as I just did is because Gomer was not a prostitute when Hosea married her. The book of Hosea itself makes this fact very clear for these reasons:

1) They, who make the claim that Gomer was a prostitute when Hosea married her, read Hosea 1:2&3 erringly. It is not saying to go take a wife that is already in the sin of whoredom, but to go take a wife among people who are and are the children of whoredoms (idolaters), who will later become a prostitute and have illegitimate children, as Israel had prostituted itself and produced illegitimate (idolatrous, lawless) children. For Israel “hath committed great whoredom, departing from the Lord.”

2) Verse three says, “So he went and took Gomer the daughter of Diblaim…”  When one understands Biblical marriage, it is understood that if Gomer had had other men, she would not have been referred to as “the daughter of” her father, but as a man’s wife or a harlot. To identify her as “the daughter of” was to indicate that she was still a virgin under her father’s authority within his house. She had not yet known a man. It is this virgin that Hosea covenanted for and married (sexual intimacy).

3) Verse three is also backed up by Hosea 2:7 saying, “…I will go and return to my first husband…” Her first husband was Hosea to whom she would return. Otherwise, if Hosea wasn’t her first husband who would be? Who was her second, third, fourth… husbands? If you know Biblical marriage, like I have been teaching, you’ll know how to answer this. It speaks of her sexual intimacies as husbands and not through covenant, vows, or documents. It’s a similar situation as when Jesus encountered the woman at the well and said to her, “For thou hast had five husbands; and he whom thou now hast is not thy husband…” (John 4:18). Just as God was the first for Israel and Israel the first for God, so was Hosea the first for Gomer and Gomer the first for Hosea.

4) Israel was not defiled when God chose and formed a nation of Him, “When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt” (Hosea 11:1). Israel was a young innocent child when God called (married) him out of Egypt, not a defiled fornicated one. Israel was unformed in Egypt and, then, formed and nurtured by God when called out and given His law. Israel, the nation, fornicated itself afterward; just as Gomer did. “I found Isreal like grapes in the wilderness; I saw your fathers as the first ripe in the fig tree at her first time: but they went to Baal-peor, and separated themselves unto that shame; and their abominations were according as they loved” (Hosea 9:10).

5) The first child Jezreel was Hosea’s son before Gomers adultery. He represented the righteous seed that was and would be sown in Israel. The other children Lo-ruhamah and Lo-ammi were children from her fornications. This is seen in Hosea 2:1-5, where he says, “Say ye [Jezreel] unto your brethren, Ammi; and to your sisters, Ruhamah. Plead with your mother, plead; for she is not my wife, neither am I her husband…for they be the children of whoredoms. For their mother hath played the harlot; she that conceived them hath done shamefully…”

Note: How could God say that Gomer conceived these children, Lo-ammi and Lo-ruhamah, shamefully and yet not declare the same concerning Jezreel, if she was a harlot before Hosea took her? Wouldn’t it have been just as shameful for him to have taken her as a harlot, also? Does a covenant or a marriage certificate, as some might say would make a difference, cause a harlot to not be a harlot anymore, Biblically? Do these procedures and documents wipe away all fornications (adutleries)? Does God’s Word depict such things? The reason there was no wrong with Hosea taking Gomer and bearing Jezreel is because, when he was conceived the union was a true marriage, not fornication.

Thirdly, many regard what is said in Hosea 3:1 signals Hosea taking Gomer back to be his wife. Well, interpreting verse 1 as meaning this is not at all correct. I can only say, for one to draw such a conclusion originates from the misunderstanding of Biblical marriage, as well as not acknowledging factual declarations from the book of Hosea itself. This verse itself is rife with signaling that he does not take her back as a wife.

Here is what verse 1 says, “Then said the Lord unto me, Go yet, love a woman beloved of her friend, yet an adulteress, according to the love of the Lord toward the children of Israel , who look to other gods, and love flagons of wine.”

Here are the reasons to dispute those who say Hosea took Gomer back:

1) Gomer is referred to as an “adulteress” and not as his wife. Romans 7:2,3 says, “For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth…So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married [sexually intimate] to another man, she shall be called an adulteress…” This means she no longer bears the label or distinction as a wife, but now bears the distinction of “adulteress.” An adulteress is not a wife of one man, but of more than one and, therefore, a fornicator of marriage. The husband cannot take her back. I already indicated how that Hosea was her first husband. Hosea, her original husband, is now no longer her husband. Their holy marriage (union) had been defiled (made illegitimate) by her fornication (adultery) with her “lovers [sexual].” The “love” God entreats Hosea to now show is not sexual in nature. That is the perversion of our culture, adopted by the church.

2) Hosea was commanded to love her and care for her, even though she was no longer his wife, indicated by the title of “adulteress.” This estranged marital relationship between them, because of her fornicated affairs, is compared to the same relationship, which God had with Israel at this time. Israel’s fornication is declared in the latter part of verse 1 above saying, “…the children of Israel, who look to other gods, and love flagons of wine.” This means the relationship that Israel had with God has been put asunder through their idolatrous fornication, although not as a husband/wife, but as a God and His people. He still loved them, but it would be an estranged relationship. He would care for them, yet, they would not benefit from all that they had when they were His alone. They would be “…without a king, and without a prince, and without a sacrifice, and without an image, and without an ephod, and without teraphim” (Hosea 3:4).

3) Hosea emphatically stated that Gomer was not his wife saying, “Say ye unto your brethren, Ammi, and to your sisters, Ruhama, Plead with your mother, plead; for she is not my wife, neither am I her husband…” (Hosea 2:1-3). He is telling Jezreel, his blood son from Gomer when she was his wife, to tell his half brother and half sister that their mother, who had them by another man or other men through her adulteries, is now no longer his wife. He also declares that for her to save herself (“Plead with your mother, plead“), she must stop living in fornication, if she doesn’t want to face harsh judgment. The only answer when fornication is committed is to repent and live celibate. This is the only way to not commit fornication again.

4) For the Scripture to declare that Gomer would “go back to her first husband” and Hosea to declare that “she is not my wife and I am not her husband” indicates that she had been put-away by Hosea. Therefore, for God to instruct Hosea to take her back would be forcing him to commit a declared abomination of violating the forbidden law of not taking back a spouse who was remarried after being put-away. So, according to the church, God causes Hosea to defile his self twice with this whorish woman through acts that were an abomination before God. How pathetic.

He couldn’t take her again or he would fornicate himself with her. What Hosea actually did resembled the sacrifice of God caring for Israel at the present time, and yet not having them as a people or a nation that are His in a holy way. The covenant of Christ and His Spirit would eventually change this situation including both Jew and Gentile, declared in Hosea 2:14-23. This is the new and intended Israel – the descendants of Abraham by faith.

Therefore, in chapter 3:2 the love that is shown by Hosea to Gomer is to purchase her as a man would purchase a prostitute, providing for her needs, yet not joining himself to her in a sexual way as he did when he married her. Through this possession, she is to stay celibate and he also commits to staying celibate along with her in order to care for her. He sacrifices both his finances and his physical sexual needs for her well-being. This is the true love story of sacrifice that people should be writing about.

I will close with these two Scripture verses:

“…therefore the people that doth not understand shall fall” (Hosea 4:14);

“Who is wise, and he shall understand these things? prudent, and he shall know them? for the ways of the Lord are right, and the just shall walk in them: but the transgressors shall fall therein” (Hosea 14:9).

There is forgiveness, but however, the sin of fornication produces consequences.



Anything that is not ‘bold’ above does not necessarily mean that I disagree with Ridenour’s opinion.  I just haven’t had the time yet to fully study his opinion.


I simply post this article as just one more ‘proofs’ of the ridiculous belief/claim that a non-virgin girl/woman is eligible for a righteous marriage to a different man.  Anytime I challenge men and women who have violated the principle/law of the necessity of Virginity in marriage, their likely first response is to say arrogantly, “Well…..Hosea married a prostitute, so there, case closed.”

Gomer was indeed a virgin when Hosea ‘took’ her as his wife.    The passage Hosea 2:7 is proof of that.  The word ‘husband’ is simply a translation of ‘man’.  Using the word ‘husband’ is no great violation….but I can anticipate my brother coming back with the argument that verse 7 simply proves that Hosea was Gomer’s first husband — not that Gomer was not a virgin.  But the passage could easily and should read — I will go and return to my first man.  Meaning — her first lover.  The Scriptures tell us that when a virgin girl has sex with a man she becomes ‘known’ by that man*.  If I were to play the devils advocate and argue my brother’s pov, he would suggest the word ‘first’ has no consequence.  If we are to take “first husband’ literally, then we would have to conclude that Gomer took other husbands.  If Hosea was Gomer’s ‘first’ husband, then she would have had to take second, even third husbands.    But the Scriptures imply no such thing.  Gomer simply “whored” herself out — slept with other men — after Hosea.  She did not marry ‘ceremoniously’ other ‘husbands’ as my brother would have to INSIST is true in order for the passage to make any sense.

*”And there was one Anna, a prophetess, the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Aser: she was of a great age, and had lived with an husband seven years from her virginity.” Luke 2:36

“The woman was very beautiful, a virgin; no man had known her. She went down to the spring, filled her jar and came up again.” Genesis 24:16


For those who sleep at night with the comfort of believing Gomer was a non-virgin prior to her union to Hosea, as justification for their similar situation, are simply deceiving themselves and perverting the Character of God.

Their argument is “weak” at best, but yet these lovers of sin hold Gomer up as the standard for Christian Living.

Their second blasphemous attempt to justify their sin is to suggest the Woman at the Well was also not a virgin; and or had multiple marriages in which Jesus did not condone.


Posted in Uncategorized | 3 Comments

The Erroneous Marriage Covenant


(Editor’s Note — This is a great article.  But I doubt hardly a person will read it.  No one “studies” anymore.  They simply want someone to ‘think’ for themselves.  The erroneous belief of a verbal ‘covenant’ all stems from one single verse — Malachi 2:14.  My Question is this — “What did God witness?”  Seriously…..did He witness the contract between fathers?  Or did He witness the act of sexual intercourse?  When a girl/woman opens her legs and allows the man to “go in to her”, she is agreeing to be “one” with him.  This is the covenant — girl opens legs and allows the man to be one with her.  Whether she is conscious of this fact or not is not God’s fault.  A biblical Covenant is bound in blood.  The bleeding of the Hymen is symbolic to this Covenant.  Covenant = Berith = to Cut.  So, what did God witness?  Vows; or the Sex Act?  Are we to assume Isaac and Rebekah recited vows just prior to penetration? How about Jacob and Leah?  They did not have a “covenant”.  The covenant was for Rachel.  But Jacob woke up married to Leah.  — jeffdave )


BIBLICAL MARRIAGE and The Erroneous Marriage Covenant — by Edward Ridenour


When the church attempts to define Biblical marriage, an ill-perceived and ill-conceived concept is attached to it that is consistently and erroneously advocated by the church. That concept is the so-called “marriage covenant” (vows stated by the couple at their wedding), which is valid only by the presence of human witnesses. This farcical concept extolled by the church as a requirement for the existence and validation of a God approved marriage is preposterous and absolutely unbiblical.

There are primarily two reasons causing one to advocate such a false unbiblical concept: Biblical ignorance*** or blatant rejection of what is Biblically and pointedly conveyed as to the makings of a God ordained marriage. However, AT THIS TIME, I believe ignorance is the overwhelming reason for this error, which I have constantly pointed to in my previous articles. There are many, though, who flat out reject this truth. What is important to remember, though, is that when one’s understanding of Biblical marriage is skewed, every concept applied to it will most likely be skewed as well.


***Editors Note — My Ridenhour is being highly courteous here.  There really is no excuse, unless one has never read the Bible.  The Truth starts in the first book of the Bible — Adam and Eve became “one flesh”.  It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to understand how they did just that.  Not to mention, since discovering this Truth for myself, I probably have engaged with over 100 men and women regarding this truth.  But yet when confronted with the evidence, they still reject it.  It is not Ignorance; it is Spiritual Blindness.  The Road is Narrow and Few will walk this road.  Even Jesus recognized such difficulty — “But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given.”  Matthew 19:11  — Who will Count the Cost?


This marital covenant business is something that people inquire about in regard to my theology of Biblical marriage. (Note: To acquire the foundation of that theology, one can begin by reading my article “The Honor of Biblical Marriage”). I have expounded only briefly on actual Biblical marital covenants, as well as the church’s unbiblical covenants in some of my other articles. However, in this article, I want to focus on it exclusively and point out some aspects that I haven’t referenced before.

I think the best way for me to proceed is to first describe an actual Biblical marital covenant. Then, I will give illustrations of the unbiblical descriptions and applications popularized in the church, along with some eccentric and bizarre references attached to it, as well.

So, how does the covenant fit within marriage for a Biblical Christian?

When covenants were exercised in Biblical times, it was a binding agreement between a man and another man for the marriage of his VIRGIN daughter. This was the only time a covenant was implemented. Plain examples of this procedure and purpose are illustrated throughout the Old Testament and vaguely alluded to twice in the New Testament. In the Old Testament, the governance of these binding agreements was inscribed in Jewish legislation. The legislation, deduced from Scripture, prescribed no insertion of any required contents, but primarily governed what was to be done if a girl was taken sexually without a covenant or any violation of its contents, as well as the principles inherent based on the marital law of God. All Biblical covenants of marriage were of the same purpose – acquiring, mostly through some expense, a pure bride for marriage. Yes, this is how women were generally bought and sold for marrying. It was the way of men after the fall of man in the Old Testament, and to a degree carried over into the New Testament.

Once the terms of the agreement (covenant) were fulfilled, the couple were considered husband and wife by covenant (espousal), which, generally, the maiden at a prescribed time would be delivered (given) to the purchaser’s dwelling (bedchamber) for them to make a marriage (sexual intimacy). Once this was done, she now no longer was his wife by covenant, but his wife by marriage, with the celebration afterward. They two were now joined as one flesh. Flesh with flesh.

Now, what must be understood is that marriage occurred even without a covenant existing. It is very clear in Scripture that covenants had nothing to do with making a God joined marriage. It was strictly a procedure of espousal giving lawful rights to a father to decide who would be allowed to marry his daughter for her benefit and/or his benefit.

If a man took a maiden (a virgin), (not by rape, which is described in Deut. 22:25) without a covenant with her father, marrying her (sexual intimacy), there was a law dealing with that. The law stated that the man had to pay an automatic 50 shekels of silver to the father for this infringement, because his actions violated the father’s rights and authority over his daughter (Deuteronomy 22:28&29). This appears to be “the dowry of virgins” noted in Exodus 22:16&17. Verse 17 does not insinuate, as many suppose, that a father could keep his daughter from the man to be his wife, but rather, maximum compensation was to be paid by law, if the father failed to agree to take less or just “give” her to him.


Again, many assume this verse to insinuate that the father can refuse and keep her from the man from having her at all. This is wrong for two reasons: 1. If he didn’t give her to him, she, no longer a virgin, would unlikely ever be accepted by a man, and additionally forfeit any opportunity of receiving a dowry for her, because of her impurity. She was this man’s wife, period. 2. It is commanded in Deuteronomy 22:29 that the man must accept (bear responsibility for) her as his wife and can never put her away (Bill of Divorcement) all his days. In other words, a marriage between them had already been made without the covenant. Isn’t that amazing!

There are other ample examples in Scripture illustrating the truth that a Biblical marriage did NOT occur through a covenant, as is taught by the church. To expound on them here would be too lengthy, but if interested, I do expound on them in my book “It’s Good For A Man Not To Touch a Woman.”

So, something needs to be observed here in the illustration I just presented and all others found in the Bible: These covenants were not at all what the Christian church labels marriage covenants to be today. There was never a covenant or any vow made between the man and woman. It was always an agreement between the man and the father for acquisition of the woman. Once sold, she didn’t have much to say about it. Upon the conditions being satisfied within the covenant, she immediately became his espoused wife by law, but not a married wife, and the covenant did not govern that espousal. At a time determined by the espoused husband, they went into the bedchamber and were married there after it. From the point of the espousal, the covenant was history, unless he found her not to be a virgin after going in to marry her. Beyond this, the covenant had no bearing on their marriage. Their marital union was now legislatively governed, which addressed marital infidelity, except in the case of the issuance of a Bill of Divorcement.

The church’s promoting of the so-called marriage covenant is not Biblical and most certainly does not make a Biblical marriage. If two people, qualified to be married by God, make vows to one another, then, that is all they are (see my article MARRIAGE: A Vow Won’t Make It). Please hear me on this. The vows stated at anytime between a man and woman never, never, ever, ever truly govern their marriage. In a Biblical marriage, where two become one flesh, the union is strictly governed by Scripture (void of being rewritten) and not the promises/vows made to each other.

A fact needs to be understood as the reason for my last comment: The vows recited are irrelevant, because New Testament Scripture defines the obligations and commitments of each sex within the marriage. It defines what makes it, what defiles it, the position/level/order of the man and woman in that marriage, along with instruction of conduct and disposition. Any vows made by the couple, cannot supersede, alter, or enhance Biblical marital purity, instruction, and expectation. The church’s erroneous covenant distorts the truth that EVERY part of a Biblical marriage is Biblically governed and regulated, with no other inputs. What does this mean? It means, for a Biblical marriage to exist, covenants, ministers, vows, witnesses, civil or personal contracts/documents, rituals, etc. are unnecessary.

The bottom line is this: Marriage is in nature. None of those things I listed are required to be married before God. They are all unnatural. Just as you don’t need any of those man made devises or rituals to be a mother or a father – to create and bring into the world a new living soul (I give credit to my lovely wife who made this point clear).

The most important responsibility of the Biblical Christian is to make sure that you and, as possible, the one you join yourself with (sexually) are Biblically qualified to do so, to avoid fornication. I believe it is important that your other should understand how a marriage is made, and the consequences of violating it. That is all there is to it and nothing else is required other than a male and female to make it happen.

Every Christian needs to know these principles of marriage. However, a word of advice for parents: Teach your children these principles of marriage, because the church today is ignorant to these truths and are steeped in the culture; no longer protecting their daughters regarding what males they come in contact with, or who ever they marry. Children who show signs of a level of maturity to understand marital principles should be taught them for their own sake. I have provided everything you need.

Now that I have described what a Biblical marriage covenant was, let’s look at some comments and descriptions offered by other Christians as to what they describe a marital covenant to be, as is accepted by the church as relevant and Biblical.

What happens when Christians fail to accept and teach true Biblical marital concepts, but instead believe these false ideas advocated today by the church? Besides wrongful actions, ridiculous, unbiblical, deceptive, and disingenuous declarations and prognostications ensue, with no proof to back them up, which can easily be discovered by an online search.

Here are just some examples of what I just cited:

1. Ministers will demand the couple recite certain vows, which they deem valid by representing seriousness toward marriage or they will refuse to do the ceremony.

2. Scholars will rewrite Scripture to promote their theology, deviated from the original text and claim it is the original meaning.

3. Old Testament examples are used where the two making a covenant would do something extraordinary to make it solemn and binding, i.e., cutting up an animal and walking between it; showing how witnesses were incorporated; or the construct of memorials (wedding pictures, copies of vows are a couple sited as useful today).

4. The claim will be made that the marriage covenant is based upon the covenant that Christ made with us. (This wrong perception of the marriage covenant causes them to view the covenant of Christ erringly, seen through other wrong doctrinal claims and Scriptural interpretations. A number of my other articles reveal this fact).

5. All kinds of sensational, fantastical, and hyperbolic rhetoric will be used to describe this covenant, i.e., it’s an unbreakable, unconditional, and everlasting covenant, like the covenant between God and Abraham (even though marriage does not go beyond this world); it holds together the work of God in this world; it is compared to God’s covenant with Noah and the rainbow; the seriousness of the covenant between Jacob and Laban, where God was called as a witness to it (even though Jacob wasn’t marrying Laban, and Laban not only broke the covenant, but also deceived with a substitute).

6. The love spoken about in 1Corinthians 13 (a dispositional love that is to be exercised in all situations of life, yet however, is contorted and finagled to personify it as support for the marriage covenant doctrine).

7. Their poster Scripture, Malachi 2:14. (The reason the Lord mentions “wife of thy covenant” is because it was the process used to acquire a wife. For a man to covenant for a wife with her guardian was because he thought her to be very special and desirable. The Lord is declaring in this statement, “what happened to that dispositional desire you once had for her?” It’s similar to Christ rebuking the church in Ephesus for “leaving their first love” (Revelation 2:4). Along with the expression of the covenant was the fact that she was his “companion.” This referenced the bond of their oneness of being one flesh through their sexual union).

So many untrue lofty statements or actions, as well as inapplicable examples and illustrations are used to try and convince the reader that such a covenant for marriage is essential and Biblically ordained. And all basically derived from the Old Testament. Are there no direct valid references to this covenant of marriage in the New Testament, which they can use for support? Do you suppose the reason for this is because this covenant doesn’t exist? Yet, there are supportive references in both Testaments for Biblical marriage, as I teach.

Yes, covenants were made in the Old Testament for numerous reasons and by all sorts of procedures. However, to present them as they do within the context of marriage is disingenuous and deceptive.

Why…? It gives allusion to a woman’s participation in this binding action, while no such participation existed. All one has to do is go to The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, which is highly regarded, and see how it affirms my thesis. It states, concerning marriage transactions,“the woman, however, had no part in this transaction as an independent individual under the law.” Most of those who teach this marital covenant have a degree from popular and notable theological seminaries. Are they not aware of this easily accessible fact?

Not only this, but if these false covenant promoters were as knowledgeable as they portend on the subject, they would understand that covenants in the O.T. only pertained to virgin daughters exclusively. Never was a covenant made for a divorced woman or a widow, whether from the death of her husband naturally or stoning due to an act of fornication or some other violation of the law.

Those who claim this doctrine may be well intentioned, and I don’t doubt that. However, to deliberately misapply or rewrite Scripture, or sensationalize with the wrong implications for their defense is not an honest way to be well intentioned. In presenting their defense as they do reveals desperation, because of their inability to truly define Biblical marriage. They attempt to pull from anywhere they feel they can and declare what ever they want, whether relevant or not. What’s sad is that no one calls them to task for doing so.

Well, I have news for them. They will find nothing in the original text of the Bible to support their marriage covenant doctrine and all their trimmings to go with it. It’s just not there and does not exist. Their covenant concept of marriage is a figment of their imagination. Yes, God considers marriage sacred, but not because two people recite any or certain chosen vows with witnesses (see “BIBLICAL MARRIAGE: A Sacred Law).




Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Can you marry a non-virgin woman?

Paul exhorts the Corinthians not to marry a non-virgin woman.

He writes,

“Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ?  Shall I then take the members of Christ and make them members of a harlot?  Certainly not! 

Or do you not know that he who is joined to a harlot is one body with her?  For ‘the two,’ He says, ‘shall become one flesh.”  But he who is joined to the Lord is one spirit with Him.  Flee sexual immorality. 

Every sin that a man does is outside the body, but he who commits sexual immorality sins against his own body. 

Or do you not know that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God and you are not your own?….therefore glorify God in your body and in your spirit, which are God’s.”

Let us break this passage down.  Paul says that our bodies are Christ’s.  To have sex with a non-virgin woman would be defilement because she is ‘one flesh’ with another man.  Paul calls it “Sexual Immorality”.  It is a SIN against your body.


Now….some will certainly say that I am taking liberty here.  Paul is talking about a harlot, not a non-virgin.

Ok…..so answer me this:  what is the difference Physically Speaking?

A non-virgin woman is “one flesh” with another man.  She is joined to a man.

A harlot is “one flesh” with another man; she is joined to a man.

What is the difference physically speaking?

Are they not both “one flesh” with a man?


If it is a sin against the body to have sex with a harlot who is ‘one flesh’ with another man; would it not be also a sin against the body to have sex with a non-virgin woman; who is also joined to a man?

False teachers teach that a Covenant with this same harlot would make the sex righteous…..not defilement.

A piece of paper, or some verbal agreement will make the sex holy.  She is one flesh with another man, which Paul commands us not to join with (have sex), but if you have a covenant with this same woman, the sex is not ‘sexual immorality’, even though she is still ‘one flesh’ with another man:  “So then if, while her husband lives, she marries another man, she will be called an adulteress.”

If this isn’t heresy….if this isn’t a Hireling, then I don’t know who is.  Dangerous.  Very dangerous.

Are we to honestly believe that Paul would say to us today, that if we have a marriage certificate with this harlot that it would be Ok to have sex with such a person?  We could take this woman as a wife — all the while she is joined to another man?

So it would be a sin against the body without a piece of paper;  but it would be ‘holy’ with one?  These men have shifted the focus from a physical reality; to an abstract one.  Sin against the body; versus a sin against the conscience.  The sin was against the body, unlike all other sin – – of the conscience. The false teacher wants you to believe the sin against the body is one of the conscience.  If your heart is right it is not a sin.  If your intentions are wrong, it is a sin.  The false teacher ignores the distinction Paul makes describing sexual immorality.  All other sins are ‘outside of the body’ Paul says.  The false teacher says it is defilement because your “intentions” are not right.  Is this not the conscience?  Of course it is.


I’m willing to bet that if I polled 100 bible reading, Jesus believing Christians, and asked them if it was adultery to marry a woman already married….would this be adultery? 99 of them would agree that this is adultery.  How can they deny Romans 7:2-3?

What if I then ask this same group whether a non-virgin woman would be an adulterer if she takes a husband?  I’m convinced all 100 of them would say NO.

What is the difference between a non-virgin woman and a woman married?


A piece of paper?  A marriage ceremony?  A magical agreement?  Both are ‘joined’ to a man.


“Nevertheless, when the Son of Man comes, will He really find faith on the earth?”  Luke 18:8

Posted in Uncategorized | 3 Comments

The Broad Way — J.C. Ryle

Here is the sermon that allowed me to stand on my own two feet:



The Narrow Road by J.C. Ryle —

Our Lord gives us a general caution against the way of the many in religion. It is not enough to think as others think, and do as others do. It must not satisfy us to follow the fashion, and swim with the stream of those among whom we live. He tells us that the way that leads to everlasting life is “narrow,” and “few” travel in it. He tells us that the way that leads to everlasting destruction is “broad,” and full of travelers. “Many are those who enter in by it.”

These are fearful truths! They ought to raise great searchings of heart in the minds of all who hear them. “Which way am I going? By what road am I traveling?” In one or other of the two ways here described, every one of us may be found. May God give us an honest, self-inquiring spirit, and show us what we are!

We may well tremble and be afraid, if our religion is that of the multitude. If we can say no more than this, that “we go where others go, and worship where others worship, and hope we shall do as well as others at last,” we are literally pronouncing our own condemnation. What is this but being in the “broad way?” What is this but being in the road whose end is “destruction?” Our religion at present is not saving religion.

We have no reason to be discouraged and cast down, if the religion we profess is not popular, and few agree with us. We must remember the words of our Lord Jesus Christ in this passage: “The gate is narrow.” Repentance, and faith in Christ, and holiness of life, have never been fashionable. The true flock of Christ has always been small. It must not move us to find that we are reckoned singular, and peculiar, and bigoted, and narrow-minded. This is “the narrow way.” Surely it is better to enter into life eternal with a few, than to go to “destruction” with a great company.

In the last place, the Lord Jesus gives us a general warning against false teachers in the church. We are to “beware of false prophets.” The connection between this passage and the preceding one is striking. Would we keep clear of this “broad way?” We must beware of false prophets. They will arise. They began in the days of the apostles. Even then the seeds of error were sown. They have appeared continually ever since. We must be prepared for them, and be on our guard.

This is a warning which is much needed. There are thousands who seem ready to believe anything in religion if they hear it from an ordained minister. They forget that clergymen may err as much as laymen. They are not infallible. Their teaching must be weighed in the balance of Holy Scripture. They are to be followed and believed, so long as their doctrine agrees with the Bible, but not a minute longer. We are to try them “by their fruits.” Sound doctrine and holy living are the marks of true prophets. Let us remember this. Our minister’s mistakes will not excuse our own. “If the blind lead the blind, both will fall into the ditch.”

What is the best safe-guard against false teaching? Beyond all doubt the regular study of the word of God, with prayer for the teaching of the Holy Spirit. The Bible was given to be a lamp to our feet and a light to our path. (Psalm. 119:105.) The man who reads it aright will never be allowed greatly to err. It is neglect of the Bible which makes so many a prey to the first false teacher whom they hear. They would have us believe that “they are not learned, and do not pretend to have decided opinions.” The plain truth is that they are lazy and idle about reading the Bible, and do not like the trouble of thinking for themselves. Nothing supplies false prophets with followers so much as spiritual sloth under a cloak of humility.

May we all bear in mind our Lord’s warning! The world, the devil, and the flesh, are not the only dangers in the way of the Christian. There remains another yet, and that is the “false prophet,” the wolf in sheep’s clothing. Happy is he who prays over his Bible and knows the difference between truth and error in religion! There is a difference, and we are meant to know it, and use our knowledge.

End of Sermon — Below is a brief Commentary……………..


I contemplate often, “How did I get here?” So much had happened in 2002. I can’t really place my finger on any one book that I read, or a particular passage of Scripture that I meditated on. But I do remember reading a book with the writings of J.C. Ryle around that time. I remember vividly being moved to tears as I read this sermon and finally understanding what it meant to “Fear the Lord”. It was at this time that I “examined myself” to ensure I was on the Narrow Road (and still do daily). Although this Blog is dedicated to “Marriage”, prior to coming to the truth of marriage; I spent a good deal of time studying Soteriology. Specifically — Is Once Saved Always Saved Scriptural? I often ask myself, “Which is more damning: the belief in Eternal Security, or the unbelief regarding the Lord’s Will for sex and marriage? Similar to the analogy — The Chicken or the Egg. Is it ‘unlawful marriage’ that leads a person to believe the LIE of Eternal Security? Or does the LIE of Eternal Security cause a person to marry an already married person. We know that God does not hear sinners – John 9:31. Can an ‘adulterer’ ever come to the Truth as long as they are in sin and not ‘hearing’ the Lord?  Answer – No.

Interesting — my family has never considered or taken the time to investigate and evaluate my beliefs. I don’t ever recall anyone in my family ask me “Why” I believe differently. I’ve come to learn that my family disregards my beliefs because they have convinced themselves I have a ‘mental illness’. Specifically PTSD.

So……in their minds they can ignore my beliefs. What I find very interesting is that CLEARLY my beliefs are almost opposite of theirs; but yet they refuse to consider me a ‘false teacher’. Why? Because they believe in Eternal Security and they know that I once professed a belief in Christ and was baptized etc., etc. To suggest I am not saved; would force them to question their own belief in OSAS.

So………………in their minds I am saved right now, even though I profess a false belief (according to them). They should label me a heretic and “mark and avoid me”. But instead, they have sympathy on me because I have a mental illness. Like a rabid dog, they feel sorry for me, rather than ‘fear’ that what I say just may be true. They will never ‘examine themselves’ because they have convinced themselves that they are saved no matter the “fruit” of their walk. This is the poison of Eternal Security. Just as Satan lied to Eve — you shall not surely die — my family has accepted a similar lie = you are saved no matter your actions, or wrong beliefs.

This is the power of Spiritual Deception. THIS IS THE POWER OF SPIRITUAL DECEPTION.

“In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.” 2 Corinthians 4:4

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments

Sex with a harlot

Why is sex with a harlot a “sin against the body”? 1 Corinthians 6:18

Paul makes a special point to say that this sin — sin against the body — is unlike all others.

It is a sin against the actual flesh.  Paul then asks the question as to why you would ‘join’ yourself as one flesh with a harlot as the body is the temple of the Holy Spirit.

So why is joining yourself to a harlot a sin against the body?  What makes it immorality?

Could it be — I believe logic dictates — that this is a sin against the body because the harlot is already one flesh.  Is she not?  What makes her a harlot?  Answer:  she is ‘joined’ as one flesh already.  Is she not?

Some might argue,  “it is a sin to have sex with a harlot because….well…she is a harlot!” “There is no love, commitment etc..”  Ok.  But this would be a sin of conscience; a sin of the heart, not an actual physical defilement against the body.  Paul says that this sin is unlike all others!

What makes it so unique?

Logic dictates that the harlot is already joined to a man; thus ‘joining’ yourself to a woman who is already known/joined to a man is the defilement.   This is the sin against the body.  This is not a sin of conscience such as covetousness.  This is REAL.  A real, tangible, offence against the flesh.  Going “into” a woman who is joined to another man is the sin against the body.  How could it be anything else?

Let me repeat this in graphic terms — having sexual intercourse with a non-virgin is the sin against the body because not only has another man inserted his penis into the vagina, but he released his seminal fluid into the woman.  And…the man who did this is still alive!  His ‘soul’ is in this woman.  His life blood is in this woman.  And the man is still alive!  The Levites were commanded to ONLY take a virgin for a wife.  Meaning — a woman who was a widow was not a candidate for marriage to a Levite because she had slept with a man.  God allows a man to marry a Widow, but such was not the case for the Levitical Priesthood.  Meditate on that for a day!

Next Question — what is the difference between a harlot and a non-virgin woman physically speaking?

Answer — Nothing.  Both are already joined to a man.  Only Death will severe the one flesh union.

Thus — Civil Marriage to a non-virgin is sexual immorality and will always be sexual immorality.

You may say, “what about forgiveness?”

Question — Is the woman of Romans 7:2-3 granted grace?  Do you truly believe in your heart that Paul would bless the women’s second husband because she asked for forgiveness?  Is this your version of the Gospel?

Why would you join yourself to a woman who is joined to another man?  This is Paul’s question.

How can it be anything else?

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment