Don’t miss today’s special show on the Line of Fire, as Dr. Brown tackles some theological controversies, answers your questions, shares some inspirational quotes, and takes your calls!
Dr. Brown’s Bottom Line: Jesus died to save us from our sins and give us a brand new life. We have truly died to sin and therefore, we cannot live in it any longer. God will give us grace and power to be overcomers. We will not attain perfection in this world, but sin is no longer the ruler of our lives. Righteousness rules!
Dr. Brown’s Bottom Line: Jesus meant what He said, and He said what He meant. He calls us to something very radical. He calls for us to leave everything and follow Him, and for things that in and of themselves are impossible for us; but with God’s help, grace, and power, all things are possible to him or her who believes!
Special Offer, This Week Only!
Our Hands Are Stained with Blood for ONLY $15! PLUS FREE SHIPPING!
Call 1-800-278-9978 to take advantage of this offer, or ORDER ONLINE!
Dr. Brown Interviews Scientist Hugh Ross (Reasons to Believe); and Biblical Mistranslations and Misunderstandings
MIRACLES: An Interview With Professor Craig Keener
Only Genesis with John C. Rankin [MP3 Series]: The foundations for life and living are found in the book of Genesis, including the power to give, the power to live in the light, the power of informed choice, the power to love hard questions, the power to love enemies and the power to forgive. This class will outline the ten positive assumptions of Genesis, which follow the biblical order of creation: God’s nature, communication, human nature, human freedom, hard questions, human sexuality, science and the scientific method, verifiable history, covenantal law and unalienable rights.
Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus vol. 2 by Dr. Brown: Incisive and direct, this book provides an honest, fair, and thorough discussion of common objections on theological themes. Brown’s answers are thoroughly documented and foot noted.
Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus vol. 3 by Dr. Brown: This third installment of Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus looks specifically at questions raised about messianic prophecies in Isaiah, Daniel, Psalms, Haggai, and Zechariah.
Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus vol. 4 by Dr. Brown: In this volume of the Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus series, Dr. Brown counters the arguments that the New Testament mistranslates, misuses, and misunderstands the Hebrew Scriptures, also addressing the objections that Jesus or Paul abolished the Law.
The human heart is the most deceitful of all things, and desperately wicked. Who really knows how bad it is?
When we become born again. A transformation takes place in us. Our heart turns from what Jeremiah 17:9 says to a different heart. Our heart becomes like that as Jesus.
Jesus came not only to save us or prevent us from going to Hell. He also came to change our old ways to new ways. Which is a heart of the fruits of the Spirit.
Peace, love, joy, hope, goodness, gentleness, kindness, self control, patience and faithfulness.
When one becomes born again we should turn into a J.J. which is a Jesus Jr.
Thank you Lord for the cross! Thank you for a chance to live life pleasing to the Heavenly Father.
Just want to state we are all a work in progress. Our sinful nature will always try to overtake our spirit.
The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak.
Work in progress folks!! 🙂
Thanks for taking my call. I am not sure that I exactly understood your stance on the remarriage issue, though. Since Messiah calls remarriage adultery, is there any scriptural reason why believers can remain in a remarried/adulterous condition?
18 Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.
1 Corinthians 6
9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
Wouldn’t the pluck out your eye (Stop seeing) and cut off your hand (Stop touching) application in this area require them to separate in order inherit the kingdom?
29 And Jesus answered and said, Verily I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my sake, and the gospel’s,
30 But he shall receive an hundredfold now in this time, houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with persecutions; and in the world to come eternal life.
Of note in the above passage is that wives are not on the list of things that we can receive more of if we have to leave one for the sake of gaining the kingdom.
If the believing adulterous couple refused to separate, wouldn’t it fall to the church to pluck out the eye and cut off the hand (dis-fellowship/excommunicate) in this instance? Isn’t this the proper thing so as to remove the leaven from the church as Paul advises?
I heard you on Dr Brown’s radio show. I can tell by the way you talk that you properly have a nice singing voice.
Would like to hear you sing a tune someday. But if you sing can you sing a praise and worship song to the Lord. I think it would be a true blessing to hear this.
Arrange this with Dr Brown.
Would be nice.
I believe there are some potential grounds for divorce and remarriage, as per Matt 5, 19 and 1 Cor 7.
I heard David Pawson say Matt 5:32, 19:9 doesn’t say, except for adultery, but πορνεία (fornication), which brings to mind,
I realise the ramifications of this are huge, but I say it is for this precise reason that,
I also heard David Pawson expound 1 Corinthians 7:15,
to mean believers don’t have to try and force their spouse to stay in the house with them, but they’re allowed to become separated, but that separation does not give permission for marriage to another, but only that they’re free to live by themselves. And the Believer is free to not try and force the unbelieving spouse to stay in the same house. This is evidenced by the context of the same chapter,
Thus separation is permitted, but permission is not given to marry another as long as the spouse is still alive.
Yes, David, I’m fully aware of these interpretations, and it is a very difficult biblical issue with lots of controversy. I won’t be getting into that debate here myself, but by all means, I encourage the discussion.
I put this together a few months ago.
A woman can be betrothed, and not be taken.
7 And what man is there that hath betrothed a wife, and hath not taken her? let him go and return unto his house, lest he die in the battle, and another man take her.
A woman can be taken, and not be married or gone in unto.
3 But God came to Abimelech in a dream by night, and said to him, Behold, thou art but a dead man, for the woman which thou hast taken; for she is a man’s wife.
4 But Abimelech had not come near her: and he said, Lord, wilt thou slay also a righteous nation?
Going/coming in unto and lying with are the same thing.
31 And the firstborn said unto the younger, Our father is old, and there is not a man in the earth to come in unto us after the manner of all the earth:
32 Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father.
Going in unto/lying with is not the same as being married.
13 and turned aside the raiment of her captivity from off her, and hath dwelt in thy house, and bewailed her father and her mother a month of days, and afterwards thou dost go in unto her and hast married her, and she hath been to thee for a wife:
22 If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel.
The woman above was married to one man but was found lying with another. She was not considered married to the one she was found lying with.
What does the Torah teach about divorce?
13 If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her,
14 And give occasions of speech against her, and bring up an evil name upon her, and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid:
15 Then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel’s virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate:
16 And the damsel’s father shall say unto the elders, I gave my daughter unto this man to wife, and he hateth her;
17 And, lo, he hath given occasions of speech against her, saying, I found not thy daughter a maid; and yet these are the tokens of my daughter’s virginity. And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city.
18 And the elders of that city shall take that man and chastise him;
19 And they shall amerce him in an hundred shekels of silver, and give them unto the father of the damsel, because he hath brought up an evil name upon a virgin of Israel: and she shall be his wife; he may not put her away all his days.
20 But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel:
21 Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father’s house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.
If the husband goes in unto his virgin bride and then wants out some time later, he may not put her away. (Vs. 19) If the husband goes in unto a woman that has been a harlot in her father’s house, he can have her stoned to death. (Vs. 21) It does not say that he may divorce her.
22 If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel.
23 If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her;
24 Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour’s wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.
25 But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die:
26 But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbour, and slayeth him, even so is this matter:
27 For he found her in the field, and the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none to save her.
28 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;
29 Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.
If the woman was found with another man while she was married or betrothed, she was to be stoned to death along with the man she was found with, except in the case of rape. (Deut.22:22-27) If she was found with a man before she was betrothed, she was to be married to him and, once again, there is no divorce allowed. (Deut. 22:28-29)
To be continued.
Continued from above.
When can a Husband divorce his wife?
1 When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house.
2 And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man’s wife.
The man may give the woman a bill of divorcement if he finds “uncleanness” in her when he marries her. The word for “uncleanness” is the word used in Leviticus 18 and 20 for incest. If the man cannot bring himself to accept her (she find no grace/mercy/favor in his sight…he is hard hearted toward her) once her condition is known, he may dissolve the marriage…before it is consummated.
If the man finds that his bride has been defiled, he may divorce her even if the marriage has taken place, as long as it is before he goes in unto her. The only option he has after he goes in unto her is to have her stoned to death if he wants out.
Summing up the Torah instructions
From the above, we find that in all cases but one the defiled woman must die if the husband wants out of the relationship. The only case that is different is the one where the marriage is not consummated. It is only if the man and woman never became one flesh. There is no divorce allowed in any instance when there is a marriage and he has gone in unto her…even when the going in unto came before the marriage. YHWH ratifies the one flesh relationship and joins the two together once there is covenant and consummation.
Did Y’shua say anything different?
3 The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?
4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?
8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.
9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.
10 His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry.
11 But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given.
12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother’s womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.
Y’shua says that it is not lawful to divorce a wife “except it be for fornication.” “Fornication” is used in the specific sense here. He could have said “except if be for adultery” but chose to use the word that means unchastity outside of wedlock. (Adultery, which is unchastity within wedlock, is grounds for stoning not divorce.) The woman, once she is betrothed, is in a state of wedlock. So Y’shua is stating emphatically that the term “uncleanness” in Deuteronomy 24 is limited only to defilement before wedlock. He is also restating that once the couple has been joined by YHWH, via covenant and consummation, there is no option for divorce. Man may not put this one flesh relationship asunder. “They are no more twain.”
Y’shua carries this to its logical conclusion by saying that the only way to gain the kingdom of heaven, if a man has divorced his wife, after they were one flesh, and subsequently is married to another or his first wife has married another, is to remain celibate; because to continue to go in unto the subsequent spouse would cause him to be in a continual state of adultery. And we know that no adulterer can inherit the kingdom of heaven. (1 Cor. 6:9-10; Gal. 5:19-21) This is why it is adultery for a the woman to remarry…except it be for fornication or her first husband dies. (Rom. 7:2, 1 Cor. 7:39)
There is no difference between the full teaching of Torah and Y’shua’s summary. Messiah answered the temptation of the Pharisees with precision and accuracy. His stance is more stringent than the oral law, but exactly what Torah stipulates.
The second man.
3 And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, which took her to be his wife;
4 Her former husband, which sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before the LORD: and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.
In light of all the discussion above, we are reading into the text to assume that the second husband in Deuteronomy 24 can give a legitimate divorce certificate if he has become one flesh with the woman…and there is no indication, either that he has or hasn’t. (It only says that he “took her.”) We only know that YHWH considers it an abomination for the legitimately divorced wife, once she has entered wedlock with another man, to return to the man that divorced her in the first place.
There are some more nuances to this discussion that could still be hashed out, I’m sure, but for sake of brevity and cohesiveness, this should answer most of the bigger and more necessary questions.
Just listening to the show at 78:38 and heard you say,
I think the main thing he meant was a changed heart. When Yeshua talked to Nicodemus about being born again, he expected him to know about it.
So who is an example of someone born again in the Tanakh? God said regarding David,
But unfortunately a lot in the first century, drew near to God with their mouth, and honoured Him with their lips, but their hearts were far removed from Him. Matthew 15:8, Isaiah 29:13
Once people get born again, suddenly their heart feels. They feel something of the heart of God. They feel the ugliness of sin and want to throw it away from themselves as an unclean thing. A born again person is not perfect, but their heart moves them ever closer to walking in God’s ways.
The show today was encouraging for my own life. John 1:12-13 says, “But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.” Today, I am learning that God’s truth is a great tool to battle the lies from the enemy. Truth is very important and Jesus did say that the truth will set us free in the book of John chapter 8 verse 32b. In the brilliant minds of today, I think that they also understand the value of truth. Truth will lead to progress. How can a society have progress if it is controlled by lies? When we have a problem, it is important to know what the problem is in order to find the solution for that particular problem. But if we don’t know what the problem is, then we’re stuck at that point. Lies can hide the real problem from us. In this world, I see a big problem in my life. I always want more of everything. I eat and get hungry and want more food. Even when I have enough, the desire to have more is always present in me. But God wants us to be content. I concluded to myself that in this world, we will never stop wanting more even if we do get what we desire because everything is temporary. Our desires are satisfied only for a limited time and if we don’t keep getting fed, the desire to have more comes back. In Christ, I hope to find true contentment. I desire to understand God’s salvation deeper and deeper. Everlasting life with no troubles and endless joy. It sounds too good to be true. But what if it is the truth? If it is the truth, then it is such a beautiful truth.
That is why it is a heart change when one is born again.
The Lord used me again to show someone their true heart.
I guess this is a perfect example to show one who is born again from above and one who is not.
Ignoring someone such as myself is quite rude. Which is not having the heart of Christ. Jesus is full of compassion and love and He doesn’t ignore.
Thanks a lot guys. Be that way.
For those interested to know what the Bible REALLY means by being “born again/from above” I suggest you carefully read/study the parable of the Sower throughout the Gospels especially Luke 8.12:
You said on air that we cannot argue from the scriptures that the Son is not preexistent. But surely you cannot argue FOR a literal preexistent God the Son [Word] from Matthew & Luke. What we find there is not the story of some divine being, called “the Word”, descending to earth and taking on flesh [as your Catholic-Protestant creeds state]. But rather, the story of a miraculous conception without aid of any man, divine or otherwise! A CREATED being to be sure, if we bother to look at the specific words used like genesis in Mat 1.18 & gennao in Luke 1.35. What about the often used Johannine word of monogenes which denotes a BEGETTING!
I find it baffling that every time we talk about who or what the Son is you immediately go to the prologue in John instead of the other 2 witnesses which actually tell WHO THE SON IS & WHERE THE SON CAME FROM!
There is massive attestation to the pre-existent Son in the OT and throughout the NT, as James White and I demonstrated in our debate with Sir Anthony and Joseph Good, and key passages like John 12, which we referred to over and again, were never rebutted. Even with Matthew and Luke the concept of Jesus being “sent” into the world points to his pre-existence, while other passages in the epistles are even more clear, as are statements in Revelation. In any case, should you want to revive this debate, feel free to find the relevant thread and go for it, but it’s far and away the weakest point you can possibly make.
Chuck, one more point. Matthew and Luke do NOT tell us where the Son came from. They explain the birth of Jesus the Messiah, who is the Son of God coming into the world. All the Gospels are in harmony, and I don’t need to exclude or deny the witness of any of them.
I thought this was the thread? Sounds like ANY thread I go on is wrong and pointing to people to buy your books begs the question as well.
The argument about “sent” is as weak as the argument used in reference to the ‘I am’ statements in John. The Baptiser was “sent”, is he preexistent? The blind man says “I am”, is he YHWH? You sound like an honest man Dr Brown but I wish you would appreciate your audience more and be honest with them [let alone yourself].
Lastly, trinis the Gospels are not in harmony when you put John in conflict with Matthew and Luke on the question of WHO and WHERE the Son came from. Matthew and Luke both point to an ORIGIN [genesis] and a “COMING INTO EXISTENCE” [gennao] specifically of the Son. How are they not answering these questions? Like I said honesty is the best policy. You believe a preexistent “God the Son/Word” took on a body which you call “Jesus”. You have also expressed in the past that it was this “body” who suffered and died. Now is that really in line with the evidence of scripture? Not long ago I had one of my questions answered as to why Catholics and Evangelical differ on the title of Mary as the theotokos, “Mother of God”. The answer went something like this: Catholics are wrong to say Mary was the Mother of God, they should instead say that Mary was the mother of the BODY! I don’t know about anyone else on here but that is quite DISGUSTING and blasphemous to say the least.
The origins and developments of your trinity have pretty much been exhausted but let me add this to the mix for those sensible, truth-seeking readers on here. Just one more evidence of how this doctrine developed and what some of the early witnesses to the scriptures had to say about it:
I do agree with you that the Bible is clear that the Son is not pre-existent. There is ABSOLUTELY NO reference to the Son as a divine person distinct from the Father in the OT. There is only prophecies about the Messiah throughout(Genesis Psalms,Isaiah,Micah..etc) but you will never find any type of dialogue between the Father and Son (Let alone the Holy Spirit).
I do not believe the Son was Second divine person because that would be contrary to scripture. The Bible states clearly from the foundations of the OT, that Shma Yisrael Adonai Eloheinu Adonai Echad, The Lord is One. The Son was the OT Yahweh Manifest in the flesh. Not a different God, but the same God that Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, David knew and prayed to. And the Holy Spirit is the one who comes and dwells in our lives and sanctifies us.
Three Manifestations, One God
Sometimes you go to far. If you want to argue the points then “do” buy the books and that way you can better pick them apart.
“Not long ago I had one of my questions answered as to why Catholics and Evangelical differ on the title of Mary as the theotokos, “Mother of God”. The answer went something like this: Catholics are wrong to say Mary was the Mother of God, they should instead say that Mary was the mother of the BODY! I don’t know about anyone else on here but that is quite DISGUSTING and blasphemous to say the least.”
Mary was the Mother of whose’s body? Say the name…
I answered one caller who asked about God’s triunity, but there are whole shows and threads where we focused on the subject, with hundreds of posts. Feel free to keep the discussion going on those threads. No one is stopping you!
Because I spend my time reading and listening and watching is the reason I challenge these people. And so should you!
Jesus, “God the Son/Word” took on a body [flesh] who the NT writers apparently call “Jesus”. Clear enough?
When you say DB are you referring to me? If you are then…
LOL clear enough. Just testing ya!
If you can’t abide by the guidelines, please refrain from posting. It’s really wearisome to have to address this over and again, and there’s no possible way that you don’t understand the guidelines at this point.
Chuck and Jig,
How can you say that the idea of God being triune is a later Christian doctrine when the Jews from the time of the Babylonian captivity of 586 and which was still taught in 70ad give these explanations in the Zohar:
“‘Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord.’ This verse is the root of our faith, therefore Moses records it after the ten commandments. The reason (that there is said hw:hoyÒ, Lord, !yhiloa>, our God, and hw:hoyÒ, Lord) is, because the word [mv does not here signify ‘Hear;’ but ‘to gather together, to unite,’ as in 1 Samuel 15:4, ‘Saul gathered together the people.’ The meaning implied is The Inherent-Ones are so united together, one in the other without end, they being the exalted God. He mentions the three names mystically to indicate the three exalted original Ones.”
Rabbi Menachem. Commentary on the
Pentateuch. Venice edition. pg. 267
“How can they (the three) be One? Are they verily One, because we call them One?” “How Three can be One, can only be known through the revelation of the Holy Spirit.”
Zohar. Vol. ii. written by Rabbi Simon ben Jochai and his son Rabbi Eliezer
Rabbi Simeon ben Jochai commenting on the Zohar:
“There is a perfect Man, who is an Angel. This Angel is Metatron, the Keeper of Israel; He is a man in the image of the Holy One, blessed be He, who is an Emanation from Him; yea, He is Jehovah; of Him cannot be said, He is created, formed or made; but He is the Emanation from God. This agrees exactly with what is written, Jeremiah 23:5-6, Of jmx dwd, David’s Branch, that though He shall be a perfect man, yet He is ‘The Lord our Righteousness.’”
Rabbi Simeon ben Jochai. The Propositions
of the Zohar. cap. 38, Amsterdam edition.
Aside from Dr. Brown’s books, there is ample evidence that the Jews before the time of Christ understood the nature of God as something deeper than our limited understanding of His being of one essense. There is more information given on the ancient Hebrew understanding about the triune nature and identity of God here:
I am afraid I cannot answer your queries here lest I be banned but I appreciate your efforts.
Understood, Chuck. Perhaps at some future point it may happen that the opportunity will arise again.
Chuck, like I said, join in the very lengthy discussion — that you actually started — and respond to Sheila there, on that thread (as you are already doing — so go for it!). http://www.lineoffireradio.com/2011/11/03/dr-brown-answers-the-rabbis-including-a-recent-video-by-rabbi-asher-meza/comment-page-13/#comment-86121 Just switch your posts from here to there.
Ball is in your court. 😉
I have an open question to anyone who can help me.
The Torah teaches us that the Passover lamb is killed on the 14th and the Feast of unleavened bread starts on the 15th and goes for seven days. (Leviticus 23:5)
Yet Matthew 26:17, Mark 14:12 and Luke 22:7 all say that feast of unleavened bread was on the same day that the Passover lamb was sacrifice. i.e. the 14th of Nisan. Isn’t that a major error in the three gospels?
Yet the gospel of Yoḥanan gets it right talking about the 14th of Nisan being the Passover, not Unleavened Bread.
“Now it was the Preparation Day of the Passover.” 19:14
Wow, just listened to this broadcast yesterday. It was really interesting to finally hear Chuck calling in!
Well, I did some study and got my answer.
Matthew 26:17 says,
When we understand that Matthew was originally written in Hebrew even though we don’t have the original manuscript and we only have the Greek, suddenly it becomes clear.
In the Torah it says,
You’d think HaRishon means the first day of the seven-day period, but Rashi gives the example of HaRishon meaning prior/previous to/before in Job 15:7.
In fact Artscroll translates HaRishon in Exodus 12:15 as ‘the previous day’.
With this knowledge that HaRishon in the context of Passover does not mean the first of the seven, the 15th, but HaRishon means the day before the seven days, the 14th of Nisan.
It means the day when the first activities related to the Passover kick off.
To: Dr. Brown,I have one major question for you.What doctrine of salvation do you teach to souls, that are lost in sin and darkness.
Minister:Fred A. Lindsey,
Solomon’s Temple Church
According to 1 Corinthians 6:16, is the act of sex an act of marriage in The Lord’s Eyes? No one has posted on here in a long time, I know. I’m just desperate for an answer. According to outsidethecamp.com it is.
I have had a sinful past, but never legally married. Now I’m in love and wish to marry the way I feel The Lord intended, yet according to some, according to 1 Cor. 6:16, if I do it is perpetual adultery.
I hate myself for these sins and if I could take them back I would. Can someone please help guide me?
Comments are closed.