I believe we have done a very poor job of explaining the sin nature, how it is removed, and how Sanctification does the job. This is how we now explain Sanctification which is a great improvement from our past definition.

Which is in our Basic Bible Beliefs

Sanctification, like salvation, ultimately spans the entire life of the believer. Initially, it is a work of grace subsequent to being justified, regenerated, or born again. It is an instantaneous work, which both sets one apart for God (1 Corinthians 1:2) and crucifies and cleanses the old nature, enabling the believer to be free from the dominant rule of sin: “Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin. For, he that is dead is freed from sin” (Romans 6:6, 7). “And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God” (1 Corinthians 6:11). This dethroning of the old nature, this cleansing, this setting apart, places upon the believer the scriptural demand to “mortify the deeds of the body” through the Spirit (Romans 8:12, 13) and to “Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication [sexual immorality],uncleanness, inordinate [abnormal] affection, evil concupiscence [desire for earthly things], and covetousness, which is idolatry” (Colossians 3:5). Second Peter 3:17, 18 further encourages growth in God’s grace and in the knowledge of Jesus Christ: “Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own steadfastness. But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and for ever. Amen.” There is then in sanctification, a responsibility on the part of the believer to “put off” some habits and practices, and to “put on” others, which means there must be intentionality to holiness (Ephesians 4:22–32). Sanctification empowers us against sin’s control; the believer responds with a renewed mind to be transformed into the image of Christ (Romans 12:1, 2) and to be holy in life and conduct (2 Corinthians 7:1).

This part is from a COGOP Ministerial Seminar, by Pastor Bruce Sullivan. Which I hope will give us come insight and a clearer understanding of what sanctfication is and does witin our lives.

Sanctification is the recognition of the call to purity, the accepting of the power to live pure by faith, and the consecration to the source of that purity – the Holy Spirit.  Walk in the Spirit and ye shall not fulfill the lusts…”  We want to tell people they can receive an experience where they are victorious over sin without explaining the need to consecrate themselves to the leading of the Holy Spirit and that is not true and it will not work!!!

Some people define Sanctification as one of the three but forget about the other two.  They believe they are called to live pure but you can’t live pure without consecration.  They believe God has called them to purity but they don’t believe God has given them the ability to live pure.  They don’t believe God has called them to purity.  They don’t believe they have to be consecrated to be saved (its just a matter of time).  Sanctification is perpetual.  It is a commitment which must be walked in. 

It was designed to take place at Salvation but many times, through ignorance or deception, it is postponed until the knowledge (through the Word) comes.  “Faith cometh by hearing…”

What is the “sin nature?”  It is the physical body with its desires without the control and influence of the Holy Spirit.  It is eradicated only by true Salvation.  It can reform or regroup if Sanctification is rejected (consecration). 

You may be called to holiness (separation and purity) but not be submitting to that.  Either through ignorance of the requirement or ignorance of the ability to do so. 

Sanctification is then a gift of grace whereby one receives into their heart the ability to live holy and the recognition of such by faith.  The ability to live a Holy life may be imparted at Salvation but it is not activated until faith grabs it and a person submits to the Holy Spirit who gives them that strength.  Paul’s call to holiness and submission to be led by the Holy Spirit are calls to Sanctification.

The confusion comes when people mix up God’s imputing of Holiness (saints) and God’s impartation of Holiness (the ability to live a holy life).  A truly converted person will readily accept the call to holiness while not always submitting to the Spirit (consecrating) and thus not living consistently. 

Cleansing is not Sanctification.  Something can be clean but unless it is consecrated to the service of God, it is not sanctified.  Something which is consecrated must be clean and, in fact, it is sacrilege for something consecrated to be used for unclean purposes.

I do believe man has a sin nature and I do believe it must be eliminated, I believe we have done a very poor job of explaining the sin nature, how it is removed, and how Sanctification does the job.  Therefore, we have been ill equipped to teach or preach on this subject and to defend it from the scripture.

Some misunderstanding arises from a timeline man has put in place.  God can rush one through Salvation, Sanctification, & Baptism in the Holy Spirit so they happen so close as to appear simultaneous.  This is seen in the experience in Cornelius’ house in Acts 10.  If this can happen, it is probable it is not God who withholds but the believer either through ignorance, deception, unbelief, or the struggle of a rebellious heart.  God’s intent was for the new convert to accept God’s call to purity and consecrate their lives at the same time they accepted Christ as their Savior.

At Salvation God forgives us for our sins but He does nothing regarding our sinfulness and thus our future sins.  The belief is that the root of sin still remains and the prospect of sinning in the future is bleak.  Therefore we must ask God for a second definite work of grace, whereby the root or sin nature is eradicated and therefore we can live without sin. 

At Salvation you receive a new influence, namely, the Holy Spirit.  You still have the old influence of the flesh. Which nature controls you, depends on which influence you are committed to.  If you are committed to the flesh, you have the old nature which leads to sin.  If you are committed to the Holy Spirit, you have the new nature which leads to holiness.  Sanctification is a crisis point in which you crucify, mortify, put to death, the old nature by once and for all consecrating your life to the leading of God’s Spirit

I wanted to post this study of prophetic fulfillment, I know it doesn’t go with my normal context, but hey it’s my blog.

Prophetic statements sometimes apply to more than one fulfillment, a principle call duality. A prime example of duality is Christ’s first coming to atone for our sins and His second coming to rule as King of Kings.

Such dual themes are common in Scripture. The apostle Paul, for example, wrote about the first man Adam and the last Adam [Jesus Christ]

God inspired much of prophecy to relate to the first and second appearances of Jesus as the Messiah. Prophecy explains the necessity of both His first and second comings in God’s plan for mankind. The apostles often referred to prophecies Jesus had already fulfilled to prove that He was the Messiah. But they also often spoke of His second coming.

Therefore, the first important key to an understanding of biblical prophecy is to recognize that almost all prophecy directly relates to the intervention in human affairs of one key player: Jesus the Messiah

Jesus made this clear to His disciples after His resurrection: “Then He said to them, ‘These are the words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning Me.’ And He opened their understanding, that they might comprehend the Scriptures” (Luke 24:44-45).

Jesus specifically alluded to the dual application of some prophecies in Matthew 17:11-12. Asked about the prophecy of “Elijah,” who would precede the coming of the Messiah (Malachi 4:5), Jesus responded: “Indeed, Elijah is coming first and will restore all things. But I say to you that Elijah has come already.” The disciples understood that the “Elijah” who had come already was John the Baptist (verse 13). But Christ’s clear implication was that another “Elijah” would precede His second coming, announcing His return just as John the Baptist preceded Christ’s first coming.

Another prophecy with dual application is Jesus’ Olivet prophecy (Matthew 24; Mark 13; Luke 21), so named because He gave it on the Mount of Olives, overlooking Jerusalem. Many conditions described in this prophecy existed in the days leading up to the Romans’ siege and destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. But Christ makes it clear that similar conditions would prevail shortly before his return, his second coming.

In the Olivet prophecy, Jesus spoke of an “abomination of desolation.” Daniel’s prophecy about the abomination of desolation was fulfilled in 167 B.C. by Antiochus Epiphanes, but Jesus pointed out that the prophecy would have a future fulfillment or would be fulfilled in that generation.

In His most detailed prophecy of the end time, Jesus said, “When you see the ‘abomination of desolation,’ spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place…, then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains” (Matthew 24:15-16).

Daniel’s prophecy warned of Antiochus: “And they shall defile the sanctuary fortress; then they shall take away the daily sacrifices, and place there the abomination of desolation” (Daniel 11:31).

“On the fifteenth day of the month Kislev in the year 145″  which corresponds to 168/167 B.C., “they set up the abomination of desolation upon the altar” of the temple. This appears to have been a pagan altar, probably with an image representing the Greek chief god Zeus, as 2 Maccabees 6:2 tells us that Antiochus defiled the Jewish temple “by dedicating it to the Olympian god Zeus” 

Jesus revealed to us the time for this prophecy’s ultimate fulfillment in Matthew 24:21 when He explained what would immediately follow it: “For then there will be great tribulation, such as has not been since the beginning of the world until this time.”

We can learn a great deal about this end-time prophecy from the original abomination of desolation Daniel foretold. Antiochus Epiphanes was a forerunner of the end-time king of the North, the world dictator the book of Revelation refers to as the “beast.” No doubt this end-time ruler will employ the same deceitful and underhanded methods that marked the reign of Antiochus

As Jesus fortold about the abomination of desolation to come, to him that have a ear to hear.(whoso readeth, let him understand) understanding because of the first fulfillment of the prophecy by Antiochus Epiphanes and the second fulfillment by Titus in 70 AD. and another to come.

Therefore be ye also ready: for in such an hour as ye think not the Son of man cometh. Who then is a faithful and wise servant, whom his lord hath made ruler over his household, to give them meat in due season? Blessed is that servant, whom his lord when he cometh shall find so doing. Verily I say unto you, That he shall make him ruler over all his goods.

Over the years and over changes within the church through our teachings have we become a social club? If we stop teaching or preaching the truth, then by the way of changing we become no more than a social club. Jesus said, to dust off our shoes when one would not receive the truth and move on.

Today our mentality is to tell them what they want to hear. The church has changed to accommodate the world. It should be the other way, We should be that light unto this dark world.

Lets look at the early church. In those days the church was not merely a thermometer that recorded the ideas and principles of popular opinion; it was a thermostat that transformed the mores of society.

Today’s church is far different.

As a social club the church would be saying; Come and be apart of us, but give no guidence of teaching the truth.  Many go to church as if it were a social club to sing and dance and even shout, but live a life that show’s not fruit of a christian. For some go to the club on Saturday night and live it up then turn and go to church on Sunday thinking every think is alright.

The church has become a place of Money Maker, Celebrity Ministers, Sexually Immoralities, Lover of lies rather than the Truth. 

In changing our teachings of divorce and remarriage it has opened doors to these immoralities. I can only look around and see these changes that have taking place and I see it as a social club. To know the church has fallen from what she once were unto a mistress.   It makes me think of Revelation 18:3 which speaks of the end time about the “Great Whore” which deceive many by her fornication.

My hope is that the church will rid ourselves of the social club mentality and become “The pillar and foundation of the Truth!”

Scripture shows that even if a single person married a divorced woman both would be committing adultery.

Divorce and remarriage is classified as breaking of a vow and it is but it is more. Jesus didn’t say, “Whoever puts always his wife and marries another is a covenant breaker” He said, “He is an adulterer.” That makes all the difference in the world. Adultery means I am having an affair. If I ask forgiveness for cheating on my spouse can I then continue to cheat on my spouse? You can ask forgiveness for it, but you can’t continue or remain in that sin in which you have asked forgiveness from.  God still recognizes the first marriage therefore it is seen as an affair.    

So then why is the church COGOP teaching this? “These marriage partners would not be called as adulterers even though remarried. 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 that be a man taken another man’s wife and then repents and keeps the wife.

1 Corinthians 7:27 KJV

Art thou bound unto a wife? Seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? Seek not a wife. But if thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned. Nevertheless such shall have trouble in the flesh: but I spare you.

In context of these scriptures Paul is referring to the principles of the unmarried starting with verse 25 that concerns the virgins. Then in verse 26 he suppose that it is good in this present distress, that a man remain as he were “That it is good for a man so to be”

Art thou (married) bound unto a wife? Seek not to be loosed (divorce, put away). Art thou loosed (unmarried, single, widow) from a wife? Seek not a wife.

The problem becomes with many the word “loosed.” How to understand what Paul is meaning? The way it should be understand is that Paul with in this chapter would not be contradicting himself, but this scripture would have to be understood in context of all the others. For instinct verse 10, 11 “but and if she depart (leave, separate), let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.”

 Also verse 39 “The wife is bound by law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord.”

So as we get a better understanding of the word “loosed” it is in context of the unmarried, single or widowed . If that person should get married they are not sinning.  Paul had said; in verse 8, 9 “I say therefore to the unmarried and the widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I, But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.”  We see Paul now express that if they the unmarried (single) and widows (ones that are not bound,”loosed”) should get married it isn’t a sin this is in agreement with all others scriptures.

Paul is responding to questions he received in a letter from the Corinthians (7:1). Obviously some of the questions pertained to marriage, and whether or not the apostle deemed it advisable. What many people overlook is that the questions were asked, and Paul’s responses were offered, in light of “the present distress” that the Corinthians were facing. Likely, the members of the church at Corinth had asked him whether or not it was proper for a Christian to marry in their present circumstances. In 7:26, Paul wrote: “I suppose therefore that this is good because of the present distress —that it is good for a man to remain as he is [single]” . Exactly what “the present distress” was at this time is unknown, but it likely involved oppression and persecution at the hands of the Romans (possibly Emperor Nero). After all Paul makes these statements of singleness one would think he was against marriage, but he was not.

“It is good for a man not to touch a woman” (7:1)“I wish that all men were even as I myself” (7:7).“I say to the unmarried and to the widows: It is good for them if they remain even as I am” (7:8).“It is good for a man to remain as he is” (7:26).

Some take the “loosed” to mean that a divorced person now has the right to remarry, but that would be in conflict with Paul, Luke, Mark and Jesus in which Jesus said “whosoever put away a wife and married another committed adultery.” Matthew 5:32 

 So why does Paul say this? 1 Corinthians 7:35

“And this I speak for your own profit; not that I may cast a snare upon you, but for that which is comely, and that ye may attend upon the Lord without distraction.”

What Paul means by this is that he would that one stay single (unmarried) so to attend to the Lord’s affairs.

 Marriage is based on both of those concepts together. Biblically a covenant is always made first, and then the two become one physically and are “married.” In Old Covenant marriages the covenant was made well in advance (often a year) of the two becoming one physically. They lived separate lives calling one another “husband” and “wife” but weren’t yet “married”. This was called the betrothal period where they were bound legally to this person but not physically. Then at the end of the betrothal they became one physically as well and were then “married”. In modern times of course we make the covenant and consummate it immediately after. In either case it is the covenant that makes it legally binding while the consummation is just the physical manifestation of the two becoming “one flesh.”  The old covenant marriage would show the “blood of the covenant” with the consummation.  Again it is the covenant or vow that binds the marriage.

 Then understanding that a marriage is bonded by the covenant “vow” from the start of the marriage they are called husband and wife. 

 The example of betrothal and marriage is an example of the covenant made between God and mankind. God’s “church/bride” is betrothed to Jesus the “bridegroom” in which Christ consummated the covenant on the cross with his blood and will come into its fullness when he returns for his bride and they are married and have the marriage supper of the lamb.

This is the number 3 statement in which my church COGOP classification of one that would not be classed as an adulterer even if divorce and remarry.

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.

The use of the words “such as” in speaking about incestuous behavior is that nonrestrictive or restrictive? In other words would that be open to other behavior’s that seriously endanger the life of the family or is it restrictive to incestuous behavior only. Such as imply that there are more to apply and that would mean it’s nonrestrictive.

Have the church open the door for nonrestrictive exceptation that wouldn’t be classed as adultery?

Where in scripture is this exception for abuse ?  I think the church with all love for the hurting people in these positions is trying to find away to help, but by misinterpertation.

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?