Have you been CONDEMMNED by others as having an "UNBIBLICAL DIVORCE" ?
Posted : 2 Feb, 2012 11:28 PM
Thanks to a question about divorce and remarriage posted on another thread, I felt the need to address those on this site who may be suffering from the weight of guilt and condemnation heaped on them because of their reasons for divorce.
I wrote the following article, "The Stone Thrower", based on actual instances that happened on this site. If you are one of those who have been ostracized by others for having an "Unbiblical Divorce," please take the time to read. May it minister to your heart.
The Stone Thrower
I want to touch on a subject today that has long been regarded in Christendom as taboo . . . and that is . . . DIVORCE. Mention that word around some Christians and their hackles suddenly go up on the back of their neck. They pull out their proverbial stones ready to put to death anyone who they think has been un-biblically divorced. And to my shame, I was one of them�a stone thrower.
We all know the story of the woman caught in adultery in John 8:3-11. The scribes and Pharisees (the religious self-righteous) had arrested this woman and dragged her before Jesus. One has to wonder how these Pharisees caught such a woman "in the very act" of adultery. How convenient for them. It's amazing the depths of depravity the self-righteous will sink to in order to defend their religious arguments. Did they have the paparazzi spy on her to get some juicy pictures for the whole world to see?
At any rate, they dragged this poor woman in front of Jesus and proudly proclaimed, "Now Moses, in the law, commanded us that such should be stoned. But what do You say?" (John 8:5)
Zowie!! These men can quote the Word of God . . . at least the parts that suit their fancy.
I like our Lord's reaction. "But Jesus stooped down and wrote on the ground with His finger, as though He did not hear" (John 8:6b).
Don't you just love it when someone ignores you . . . especially when you're trying to win an argument? But the self-righteous rarely lie down without a fight, and those religious Pharisees were determined to prove that they had the "truth." So they continued pestering Jesus, knowing that the Law of Moses was on their side. It's not a good idea to pester Jesus, especially when it comes to "pointing a finger" at someone.
"So when they continued asking Him, He raised Himself up and said to them, 'He who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first.' And again He stooped down and wrote on the ground. Then those who heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning from the oldest even to the last. And Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst" (John 8:7-9).
This introductory story of the woman caught in adultery has a purpose: I wanted you to have a glimpse of the mentality of a "stone thrower." They are usually self-righteous, ready to condemn, and can quote the Word of God. Ouch . . . I just described me.
I had a clear cut answer for the reasons one might give to justify divorce which I thought was quite Biblical. And in my mind, there was only one reason . . . "But I say to you, that whoever divorces his wife for any reason except for sexual immorality, causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a woman who is divorced commits adultery" (Matthew 5:32). There you have it�plain and simple. Who could argue with such a statement? It is the Word of God! I thought I had the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth . . . yet the truth is . . . I was ignorant of the ways of God. "For judgment is without mercy to the one who has shown no mercy. Mercy triumphs over judgment" (James 2:13).
And it was in my ignorance to God's ways that I threw stones at the divorced ladies on a Christian dating site some time ago. As a widower, I was on this site looking for a prospective wife. I was so appalled at the amount of women who were divorced on this site whose reasons for separating from their husbands did not match my view of scripture. In order to protect myself from these "contaminated souls," I purposely wrote something in my profile for those that I would consider as wife material: "You may be single, widowed, or divorced (must be for Biblical reasons only)."
When I would communicate with these divorced ladies, I would immediately ask them to provide details on the reason for their divorce. If they could not give me an answer of infidelity as the reason for their divorce, then I considered them unmarriageable. Yet God has a way of grabbing His child's attention when that child is in error.
One of the ladies on this dating site told me her story of divorce after I demanded it. Her husband was deep in bondage to pornography and had no interest whatsoever in repentance. The man had not physically hopped into bed with another woman, and so in my self-righteousness, I condemned the poor wife for wanting to opt out on the marriage. And the "stones" that I threw created fresh wounds in her heart while she recounted those painful memories of her husband's infidelity as he lusted after porn. According to Jesus' own words, her husband WAS GUILTY of adultery: "But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart" (Matthew 5:28). I ignored that scripture and concentrated only on Matthew 5:32. She lashed out at me, saying that she was glad Jesus did not condemn her even if I did. I have to admit, I was shaken by her story which moved me to tears.
Then there was another lady whom I demanded to give an account for her divorce. I threw "stones" at her as well when she could not give me a reason of infidelity for her separation. In bitter anger, she struck back at me, stating how her husband had broken her nose and physically abused her. I ignored the scripture which reads, "But God has called us to peace" (1 Corinthians 7:15b) and concentrated again on Matthew 5:32. However, her story bothered me very much just like the other woman's.
I began to seek God earnestly. These were only two of the many ladies who shared with me their heartbreaking stories of divorce. There were so many reasons given for divorce and none of them fell under sexual immorality (fornication) as I saw it. I sincerely asked the Lord to open my eyes. Was there any scriptural evidence to support these women's choices to opt out of a marriage other than infidelity? Yes, there was.
God led me to Matthew 19:3-12. The Pharisees were looking for a reason to trap Jesus in His words. Their previous scheme had not worked with the woman caught in adultery. However, if they could just get Jesus to say something contradictory to the Law of Moses, then they could brand Him as a heretic. So they asked Jesus this question, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for just any reason?" (Matthew 19:3b)
Jesus' answer was, and still is, God's original intention for marriage: "Have you not read . . . the two shall become one flesh? So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate" (Matthew 19:5b-6).
The Pharisees did not like His answer. For Jesus had taken them right back to Genesis before there ever was a Moses or a Law of Moses so that they could hear what GOD SAYS about marriage. Yet the stiff-necked Pharisees persisted with another question: "Why then did Moses command to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?" (Matthew 19:7)
Jesus responds, "Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so" (Matthew 19:8).
The self-righteous Pharisees were using the Law of Moses as an excuse to bail out on marriages for any flippant reason. And because of this, the Lord had some very strong words for them. "And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery" (Matthew 19:9).
I can just hear the stone throwers shouting, "See, I told you . . . it's right there in the word . . . 'sexual immorality!'"
Wait a minute. Like Paul Harvey, let's hear "the rest of the story" before jumping to any conclusions. After verse 9 comes verse 10. Even Jesus' disciples, which would include us, were amazed at the words of Jesus. "His disciples said to Him, 'If such is the case of the man with his wife, it is better not to marry'" (Matthew 19:10). Yeah, I can see their point. If sexual immorality (fornication) is the only reason for divorce, then perhaps we are better off not getting married.
But look at Jesus' response to his own disciples in verse 11. It stands to reason that if the disciples' statement was true, then Jesus would have said something to affirm it as such. He does not!
"But He said to them, 'All cannot accept this saying, but only those to whom it has been given'" (Matthew 19:11).
What saying? The saying in verse 9 of course. NOT ALL can accept the saying that fornication is the ONLY reason for divorce.
Now notice that Jesus goes on to explain what He meant with the following verse:
"For there are eunuchs who were born thus from their mother's womb, and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He who is able to accept it, let him accept it" (Matthew 19:12).
What did Jesus mean by this? He tells us that three different men all became eunuchs for different reasons. One was born a eunuch, another was made a eunuch by men, and still another made himself that way for the kingdom of heaven. They all became eunuchs for different reasons, but who is to say which eunuch is "God approved"? God accepted them all. That's the point!
Likewise, there are many reasons someone might seek a divorce: physical and verbal abuse from a spouse . . . being married to an unbeliever who makes life a literal hell . . . marital unfaithfulness . . . the stress of being married to an alcoholic for 23 years . . . or living with a pornographer who refuses to repent. Which one of these reasons for divorce is "God approved"? That's the point Jesus was making. Just as the eunuchs were acceptable to God regardless of how they became a eunuch, so also is a woman acceptable to God who seeks to be free from an abusive husband, even if infidelity is not involved. You and I cannot see in the heart of that abused person . . . but God can. For God has called them to peace.
And the church has done more harm counselling emotionally and physically battered women to stay in a relationship citing Matthew 5:32 "except for sexual immorality" as the only just cause for divorce. Women have actually committed suicide and murder under the stress of remaining in an abusive situation because their legalistic church counseled them to do so.
You may have heard of the case in the U.S. where a lady killed her husband (a pastor) who had been abusing her for years. God had called her to peace . . . but she never knew it, and one day she snapped. The evidence of abuse was so overwhelming that the courts found this woman not guilty of murder by reason of insanity.
I certainly do not want to imply that people should take their marriage so lightly as to divorce for every whim and fancy. I would not condone that, and neither does the Word of God. Every marriage will have its share of problems which can be worked out with God's help by two committed individuals. Yet there are some women, especially those suffering physical and mental abuse, who have reached the tipping point of no return; and the only thing they can do to preserve their sanity is to get out of that marriage. And ultimately, it is to the Lord they answer to, not you or me. He has called them to peace.
After God opened my eyes to the truth of scripture, I contacted those ladies on the dating site who I had thrown "stones" at and apologized profusely. I was truly grieved that I had been so self-righteous and blind, wounding those precious sisters for whom Christ died.
Now back to the story that I began with. The "stone throwers" had already dropped their rocks and left the scene with a guilty conscience, leaving Jesus alone with the adulterous woman.
"He said to her, 'Woman, where are those accusers of yours? Has no one condemned you?'"
"She said, 'No one, Lord.'"
"And Jesus said to her, 'Neither do I condemn you; go and sin no more'" (John 8:10b-11).
HALLELUJAH�MERCY TRIUMPHS OVER JUDGMENT!!!
Blessings in Christ Jesus,
Paul Janz
(All Scripture quotations are taken from the Holy Bible, New King James Version.)
"The Stone Thrower" Copyright � 2010 by Paul Janz.
Have you been CONDEMMNED by others as having an "UNBIBLICAL DIVORCE" ?
Posted : 8 Jun, 2012 01:05 PM
Singer you wrote: "Teach ib I would like you to answer my point by point refutations but i don't want this guy paul's input. Just yours to continue our conversation on the word. I thank you for going scripture to scripture in dialogue. I can only say bring it! LOL"
Singer you also wrote: "Teach ib, if this paul continues to interupt mine and your correspondence then lets please go email to email and then feel free to copy and paste all we discuss onto this forum. That way the others can see us with back to back postings without paul's rude repostings that don't pertain to the topic at hand in our point by point dialogue. People are trying to learn from our discussions as told to me and paul is distracting their ability to follow our dialogue with his continued postings of his teachings that don't pertain to the point at hand.
I say this for the sake of Messiah and that his word go forth with clarity and conviction to accomplish his will pertaining."
My response:
As I have a job and other responsibilities, you may have to wait for my responses...if I decide to write. �If I choose to continue to respond, it will only be through this thread on this line of discussion. �Paul's post don't bother me anymore than Bob's or anyone else's posts.
The only reason I have continued responding is because of the misrepresentation of verses and teachings I have seen posted with less than brotherly love.�
The beauty of the dialogue here is the opportunity I have had to reinforce my studies on the original topic of this thread as well as present the plan of salvation and provide assurance to those who are under the theory that good works will keep them secure.
Have you been CONDEMMNED by others as having an "UNBIBLICAL DIVORCE" ?
Posted : 8 Jun, 2012 02:40 PM
Bob,�
In response to your private e-mail, I am addressing you in this open forum since you referred to me in a post after you said you were not going to dialog with me. �If you post on the thread, I have as much right to respond as you have to respond or refrain from responding.
I have not misrepresented you, I responded to your posts and derogatory statements. �For you to call me dishonest in public or private is inappropriate because I have not lied about my beliefs or perceptions.
You say you want responses to your questions and when they are given, you mock them. �If no one responds you badger them. �This may not be your intent; however, this is what I conclude.�
I chose not to go back through lengthy posts to refute you because when I did copy and paste your exact words, I was mocked for my reference to them.
As for the 15 consecutive posts, I broke my responses into specific portions because I wanted it clear what I was responding to as both you and Singer repeatedly asked for specific responses. �I may be in a different time zone right now than you and may work a different schedule, so I can only post when I have time.
You and Singer also post multiple posts (sometimes lengthy) without others in between. �Please do not set limits on what I do on this or any other thread. �If the administrators find my posts or the frequency of my posts to be a problem, I will follow their directions.
In your private mail, you ask me to address a post you repeatedly directed to Paul. �I have responded to some of the points on this forum, although I did not necessarily copy your exact statement/question. �
I will not respond to private e-mail on items I post on a public forum. �My answers will be the same. �If you make a post on the thread, I have the option to respond to it...that is why it is public.
Have you been CONDEMMNED by others as having an "UNBIBLICAL DIVORCE" ?
Posted : 8 Jun, 2012 02:41 PM
Bob,�
In response to your private e-mail, I am addressing you in this open forum since you referred to me in a post after you said you were not going to dialog with me. �If you post on the thread, I have as much right to respond as you have to respond or refrain from responding.
I have not misrepresented you, I responded to your posts and derogatory statements. �For you to call me dishonest in public or private is inappropriate because I have not lied about my beliefs or perceptions.
You say you want responses to your questions and when they are given, you mock them. �If no one responds you badger them. �This may not be your intent; however, this is what I conclude.�
I chose not to go back through lengthy posts to refute you because when I did copy and paste your exact words, I was mocked for my reference to them.
As for the 15 consecutive posts, I broke my responses into specific portions because I wanted it clear what I was responding to as both you and Singer repeatedly asked for specific responses. �I may be in a different time zone right now than you and may work a different schedule, so I can only post when I have time.
You and Singer also post multiple posts (sometimes lengthy) without others in between. �Please do not set limits on what I do on this or any other thread. �If the administrators find my posts or the frequency of my posts to be a problem, I will follow their directions.
In your private mail, you ask me to address a post you repeatedly directed to Paul. �I have responded to some of the points on this forum, although I did not necessarily copy your exact statement/question. �
I will not respond to private e-mail on items I post on a public forum. �My answers will be the same. �If you make a post on the thread, I have the option to respond to it...that is why it is public.
Have you been CONDEMMNED by others as having an "UNBIBLICAL DIVORCE" ?
Posted : 8 Jun, 2012 02:47 PM
The ENTIRE contents of my email:
I have stated that I would not address you on the forums. I have not. You claim that you are gracious, etc. I am asking you as a courtesy not to continue to address me or my posts to others on that specific thread. My reason is clear - you continue to willfully misrepresent me over and over. This is just plain dishonest.
When I last confronted you on this issue point by point, your response was to say that you couldn't be bothered to go back and quote my actual words. Again, this is just dishonest.
We can agree to disagree on theological matters As far as I am concerned, the sheer verbosity (15 consecutive posts) that you display is impossible to respond to in a coherent and concise fashion anyway. So, you can claim a victory by default, it matters not to me. I say this in love in sincerity to you, you demonstrate all of the negative qualities that you accuse others of having towards you and more.
I found it most curious and telling that in all 15 of your most recent posts, you simply ignored my post which gets to the meat of the matter. I am including it below for your perusal:
Here is a Paul Janz' teaching in syllogistic form.
A. Jesus commands - Do not divorce (except for fornication)
B. The disciples could not receive that saying.(i.e. it was too hard for them/ they didn't like it, etc.)
C. Therefore, Jesus changes his views to suit his disciples and permits divorce and remarriage for" physical and verbal abuse from a spouse . . . being married to an unbeliever who makes life a literal hell . . . marital unfaithfulness . . . the stress of being married to an alcoholic for 23 years . . . or living with a pornographer who refuses to repent and so on and on. But please "don't take it so lightly as to divorce for every whim and fancy. "
Anyone who believes that this is right, please step forward.
The entire article hinges upon this false foundation. Clearly, this is a sandy foundation. As such, the house that is built upon it can NOT stand.
Have you been CONDEMMNED by others as having an "UNBIBLICAL DIVORCE" ?
Posted : 8 Jun, 2012 03:03 PM
Object lesson for the readers:
My picture is of a Zebra. Someone can believe or perceive that it's an apple but that does not make it an apple in an objective sense. Thus, when they first say that it's an apple they may be saying that sincerely but factually it is still NOT true. This would be excusable ignorance.
However, once I have provided facts supporting the truth that my picture is indeed a Zebra by definition, then the person can not continue to claim it's an apple. To do so would be inexcusable ignorance and willful dishonesty
Have you been CONDEMMNED by others as having an "UNBIBLICAL DIVORCE" ?
Posted : 8 Jun, 2012 04:17 PM
Bob, you wrote: "When I last confronted you on this issue point by point, your response was to say that you couldn't be bothered to go back and quote my actual words. Again, this is just dishonest."
Just how is this dishonest? �I was quite honest that I wasn't going to take the time to look back through the 16+ pages of posts (at the time).
Bob you wrote, "Object lesson for the readers:�
My picture is of a Zebra. Someone can believe or perceive that it's an apple but that does not make it an apple in an objective sense. Thus, when they first say that it's an apple they may be saying that sincerely but factually it is still NOT true. This would be excusable ignorance.
However, once I have provided facts supporting the truth that my picture is indeed a Zebra by definition, then the person can not continue to claim it's an apple. To do so would be inexcusable ignorance and willful dishonesty
Willful dishonesty would make that person a liar."
What are you inferring through this post? �Are inferring that you have provided facts that refute the truth of the Scriptures I posted and that the Scriptures are not true? �Just because someone states something over and over without Biblical backing, does not make it true...I believe you may have written that about Paul.
Have you been CONDEMMNED by others as having an "UNBIBLICAL DIVORCE" ?
Posted : 8 Jun, 2012 05:25 PM
Bob you wrote: "I found it most curious and telling that in all 15 of your most recent posts, you simply ignored my post which gets to the meat of the matter. I am including it below for your perusal:
Here is a Paul Janz' teaching in syllogistic form.
A. Jesus commands - Do not divorce (except for fornication)
B. The disciples could not receive that saying.(i.e. it was too hard for them/ they didn't like it, etc.)
C. Therefore, Jesus changes his views to suit his disciples and permits divorce and remarriage for" physical and verbal abuse from a spouse . . . being married to an unbeliever who makes life a literal hell . . . marital unfaithfulness . . . the stress of being married to an alcoholic for 23 years . . . or living with a pornographer who refuses to repent and so on and on. But please "don't take it so lightly as to divorce for every whim and fancy. "
Anyone who believes that this is right, please step forward.
The entire article hinges upon this false foundation. Clearly, this is a sandy foundation. As such, the house that is built upon it can NOT stand."
Point A - what don't you understand?
Point B - there were many things the disciples could not understand and often times, they reacted rashly. �Jesus reassured them that marriage was still acceptable - although not everyone is called to marriage...hence it is not a command to marry. �We are told who not to marry and the type of person to marry (equally yoked). �If we don't follow those Biblical guidelines...or if the other person doesn't (possibly deceiving the Christian before the marriage...and yes it does happen), then the marriage is in trouble from the beginning. �
Point C - God did not call everyone to celibacy...He called very few to that. �His original intent was a man and woman be joined together. �He allowed Satan to destroy that and He allowed Moses to establish Biblical guidelines to deal with human failures...not just in marriage but in many other areas. �Jesus didn't tell the Pharisees that Moses guidelines were wrong, He just clarified them and set the record straight. �I have provided verses from Deuteronomy to show this.
Have you been CONDEMMNED by others as having an "UNBIBLICAL DIVORCE" ?
Posted : 8 Jun, 2012 05:35 PM
Bob you wrote: "Let the readers decide:
"You claim that you are gracious, etc. I am asking you as a courtesy not to continue to address me or my posts to others on that specific thread.""
I chose to respond to your posts because of the statements you make and questions you ask. When I ignored your posts, you made derogatory remarks directed at me When I respond you make derogatory remarks directed at me.
I have the right to defend myself about my posts and on my reputation.
I know what God thinks of my actions, posts, and beliefs.
Have you been CONDEMMNED by others as having an "UNBIBLICAL DIVORCE" ?
Posted : 8 Jun, 2012 09:12 PM
Teach ib, I had said that any adulterer, but especially an adulterer who is a believer married to a believer who commits adultery has a salvation issue. Why? Because adultery was and is a capital crime -you were stoned for it. Now days if not scripturally repented of it is a spiritual death sentence. Revelation 21 vs 8, 1 corrinthians 6 vs 7-11, When a believer won't repent they are counted as an unbeliever. Matthew 18 vs 17. You said they can confess their sin. i say yes but it won't count if they are 1. Still in adultery 2. married the co-adulterer 3. move on to another to commit more adultery. Why is this? Because when you confess your sin you are saying you have returned to obeying the commandments and forsaken your sin. marrying the co-adulterer makes it chronic and ongoing because Yahushua's blood covers sin repented of not what his will is!!!! (Yahweh brings believers together in marriage and separates them in death. Unbelievers marriages are not ones Yahweh brings together lust does!) It is his will if: The innocent party take back the adulterer if true repentence is shown and fruit proving they no longer are doing adultery, 2. The innocent party is free to remarry another believer because of what Yahushua said in Matthew 19 vs 9 because the adulterer broke the one flesh covenant . However the adulterer can't remarry according to all the context of Mathew 19 vs 9.
Why does the adulterer have a salvation issue=Yahweh gives them a space and time to repent and if they repent fine but if not then its= Ezekiel18 vs 24But when the righteous turn away from their righteousness and commit iniquity and do the same abominable things that the wicked do, shall they live? None of the righteous deeds that they have done shall be remembered; for the treachery of which they are guilty and the sin they have committed, they shall die.
25 Yet you say, �The way of the Lord is unfair.� Hear now, O house of Israel: Is my way unfair? Is it not your ways that are unfair? 26When the righteous turn away from their righteousness and commit iniquity, they shall die for it; for the iniquity that they have committed they shall die. 27Again, when the wicked turn away from the wickedness they have committed and do what is lawful and right, they shall save their life. 28Because they considered and turned away from all the transgressions that they had committed, they shall surely live; they shall not die
Teach ib you said that
my post contradicts itself.
I say not at all!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! These instructions were given to the Apostle Paul for the married believers in their marriage between each other:
1 Corrinthians 7 vs 10 and 11 10 To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. 11 But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife.
1 Corrinthians 7 vs 38 and 39 This is the only 2 choices because a wife is bound for so long time as her husband liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is free to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord. See Yahweh holds them to the covenant! If adultery is committed he lets the innocent out as he said to remarry but he holds the guilty to the covenant because of: Galatians 6 vs 7-8
7 Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.
8 For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption(eternal death); but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting;
Also Hebrews 13 vs 4
4 Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge
See Yahweh will judge adulterers in the here and now and in the world to come unless they repent scripturally!!!
Revelation 21 vs 7 He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son.
and
8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death
Yes someone who is a willful practicing adulterer still in it who hasn't stopped it and confessed it and return to obeying the word has not the blood of Yahushua covering them anymore! Hebrews 10 vs 26-31
If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, but only a fearful expectation of judgement and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God .
Hebrews 10 vs 26 is what you qualify for if you don't do 1 John vs 7-9 correctly. Because Psalm 66 vs 18 says :
If I regard iniquity in my heart, the Lord will not hear me
You can't get forgiven if he won't hear you. Also ties in with
Matthew 6 vs 15 But if you do not forgive others, then your Father will not forgive your transgressions . He won't hear you when this is the case either.
Therefore teach ib my post makes perfect sense!
It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living Yahweh with all our sins not under the blood!
You aked how many sins do you have to commit to lose your salvation?
One if you won't repent for it and it happens to be one of these listed sins of the flesh because we aren't saved completely til Yahushua gives us a new body !
only in the Lord in an earlier post that you referenced, based on your assessment that if someone commits adultery they are no longer saved, then if one spouse commits adultery, the reference to two believers no longer applies. We now have a case of a believer and non-believer. This is based on what you wrote
