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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By this I will go back to our NEW STANDARD:

[EXCERPT]

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

MARRIAGE AND FAMILY

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

DIVORCE AND REMARRIAGE

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

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

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

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

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

 [EXCERPT]

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

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

I have just got around to watching the movie “The Da Vinic Code” I know it’s been out for a year or two, but I really don’t watch a lot of movies.  The reviews from Ebert and Roeper “two thumps up, involving and intriguing” “a first rate thriller”. Actor Tom Hanks, a Ron Howard film.

Well this will be my review; at first it starts out as a who done it a murder mystery then on the way it gives little pieces that I will point out. It has points that are humanistic that says “what if Jesus were only a man?” It also wants you to consider the view that Mary of Magdalene was the wife “lover” of Jesus.

Well some may say it’s only Hollywood, but the problem is that possibly someone will believe this lie and be dammed if not many. I hoped that Rod Howard and Tom Hanks whom I both like as actors would not have falling for this heresy. Its go to show that you shouldn’t place faith in anyone else other than Christ himself.  I know that there are many other points to this movie that I will not speak of that I view as been Anti-Christ. Its proof that Satan will try to disprove the son of God and this is only one way.  All through history Satan has tried to stop or disprove the family tree of Christ the son of God.  Look at the genealogy of Christ, Matthew in the opening verses gives the genealogy to prove to Jewish people that Jesus is the Messiah that which was prophesied.  Satan knows this and tried to kill the Messiah by the hand of Herod and then on the mount he temped Jesus to jump. It’s show by this movie and book that he is still trying to disprove to many that Jesus Christ is the only way and true Messiah. He will also have other so called Messiah’s to try to deceive the one’s that aren’t strong in the Spirit and word of God.  We must proclaim the truth which is in Christ Jesus and defend the Gospel from the deceitful attempts to lead others away.

Full article, Satan agenda exposed

EXCERPT:

As Christians, we know the scripture backwards and forward that says the devil is crafty and cunning and goes about as a roaring lion seeking whom he may devour.  We know that he is subtle and is a seducer of the feebleminded, simple and those who are not on guard against his wiles.  As the Body of Christ, I see his agenda is to destroy what God calls honorable; marriage!  He said in his sight marriage is honorable and the bed undefiled.  Satan is anti-God and any God-institution established.  That being the case, I wonder why aren’t we more vigilant in fighting for the family, for marriages and to retain a voice of reason in the world.  We have spent enough time fighting over doctrines, over women wearing make-up and pants in the church pews and over denominational differences.  If the common denominator is Jesus Christ that should be enough for the whole body to come together and put its strengths and focus where needed.  I suggest we focus on restoration of the sacredness of marriage between a man and a woman because clearly the enemy is out to establish marriage between same sexes and (forgive my Ebonics) that ain’t right!

Want to see what is going on at the Church of God of Prophecy Assembly?

Go here COGOPmedia

 24 Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in the field:

25 but while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way.

26 but when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also.

27 So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in the field? From whence then hath it tares?

28 He said unto them, an enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up?

29 But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them.

30 Let both grow together until the harvest: Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into the barn.

36 Then Jesus sent the multitude away, and went into the house. And his disciples came unto him, saying, declare unto us the parable of tares of the field.

37 He answered and said unto them, He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man;

38 The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one;

39 The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels.

40 As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world.

41 The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity;

42 And shall cast them into a furnace of fire; there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.

43 Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear. (Matthew 13:24-30,37-43 kjv)

Jesus himself tells us of a time when the devil’s children will stand side by side with the children of his kingdom and will not be dealt with until the end of this world.    While at this time we may shine a light upon this darkness with the word of God the post “deceived” professes that many will believe a lie; this is why the devil is attempting to imitate the good seeds.

As you can see from the picture that it’s very hard to tell the difference between the wheat and the tare, in this picture it’s called a Darnel a type of tare (wild grass).  Not only is it hard to tell, but if you pull up the tares you would most likely pull up the wheat also.  Their will and is those that appear to be a Christian that will be a Darnel to those that hear and understand the truth.  Maybe that is why it seems everybody proclaims to be Christian even when they live a sinful lifestyle. So you have those in adultery, homosexuality, etc. and they call themselves a child of God, but are the children of the devil. As the servants of God we may not destroy or pull up the tare that is among us, but be aware of them and shine our light that the world will be able to tell the difference between the good and bad. More on the Darnel Tare.

Synonyms: deceive, mislead, delude, beguile mean to lead astray or frustrate usually by underhandedness. Deceive implies imposing a false idea or belief that causes ignorance, bewilderment, or helplessness <tried to deceive me about the cost>. Mislead implies a leading astray that may or may not be intentional <I was misled by the confusing sign>. Delude implies deceiving so thoroughly as to obscure the truth <we were deluded into thinking we were safe>. Beguile stresses the use of charm and persuasion in deceiving <was beguiled by false promises>.

People that are deceived will not know that they have been deceived. They will base their belief on someone else’s belief. The serpent in the garden deceived or better “beguiled” Eve and Adam. This is why Paul wrote;

2 Cor. 11:

3. “But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguile Eve through his subtilty, so your mind should be corrupted from simplicity that is in Christ.

4. For if he that cometh preaching another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.”

The “him” in verse 4 also can be translated “me” as Paul may have again been asking to bear with him as in verse 1.

The Corinthian’s were being deceived by the false apostles that were speaking of Jesus, gospel and spirit in a more excellent way. The apostle desired to preserve the Corinthians from being corrupted by the false apostles. There is but one Jesus, one Spirit, and one gospel, to be preached to them, and received by them; and why should any be prejudiced, by the devices of an adversary, against him who first taught them in faith? They should not listen to men, who, without cause, would draw them away from those who were the means of their conversion.

Paul also had to commend his own work because the Corinthian were so accepting this new Jesus from the false apostles by their excellent speaks.

13. “For such are false apostles deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ.

14. And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.

15. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.”

Remember that these called themselves apostles, but where in turn the apostles of Satan. So true today there are some that say they are of Christ, and claim to do his work, but are the ministers of Satan. The most deceitful way that this is used today in Christianity by Satan is to “love our neighbor” He would that we look over their sins and only show them love without any kind of rebuking so they need not to repent of sin. Without repentance of sin no one will be saved.  Then some claim to be saved, but continue to sin and Satan would that we only show love. This would be another Jesus that some will come preaching and will deceive many.

Today we can see were many false apostles and teachers are speaking of Jesus in so many difference ways. Speaking that Jesus is all Love and leaving out the judgment that also is giving to him.  They speak of this Jesus because they don’t want that part of Jesus which will judge them in their sin. To have salvation without repentance of one’s sin.

Others speak of Jesus as a great Blessing that will give gifts of love to his children without speaking of repentance, or forsaking of ones sin. Others speak of as Christains we should accept adulterers as members of the church without asking them to forsake their sin and we should only show them love.

James told it this way “Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of this world is the enermy of God” james 4:4