Why does the KJV render Romans 7:7 as “lust” and “covet”?

Is lust the same as covetousness?  Why does the KJV in Romans 7:7 translate one word as “lust” and another as “covetousness” even though in other translations like the NASB and NIV they translate both words as “covet”?

A friend of mine, Emily recently wrote this to me about Romans 7:7.  For my readers who are not familiar with this discussion one of the truths that I believe the Bible teaches is that lust is covetousness.  Specifically in the context of Matthew 5:28 lust is referring to a specific form of covetousness – mainly to covet another man’s wife.

Emily is not alone, there are many good Christians who want to believe that lust is a separate sin from covetousness and that lust refers simply to sexual desire, rather than it applying more accurately to sexual covetousness. I believe based on the whole of Scripture, as well as the meaning of the original languages that this distinction between lust and covetousness is faulty. Lust is a form of covetousness.

Here was Emily’s statement to me:

 “But first… that is not how it is phrased in my Bible, fyi. I just looked it up. It compares coveting to coveting, not to lust. Lust is not mentioned in that passage at all!

In that case, there is not much else in the Bible that equates the two. So I mean, thanks for clarifying what you mean by covet but I still think lust in and of itself is a sin.”

The reason Emily is not seeing see it in her  English translation of the Bible is because some modern English translations have left out the distinction Paul was trying to make.

Here is Romans 7:7 in the KJV, the NASB and NIV:

“What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.” (KJV)

“What shall we say then? Is the Law sin? May it never be! On the contrary, I would not have come to know sin except through the Law; for I would not have known about coveting if the Law had not said, “You shall not covet.” (NASB)

“What shall we say, then? Is the law sinful? Certainly not! Nevertheless, I would not have known what sin was had it not been for the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, “You shall not covet.” (NIV)

Now usually between these three popular translations the KJV is the most literal(but uses older English words), the NASB is more literal than the NIV, but less literal than the KJV with more modern words and then you have the NIV rounding out with the most modern wording, but it is often the least literal out of the three. Each of these have their value and I have used all these and other versions in my studies over the last 20 years.

But occasionally the NASB is more literal than even the KJV, and sometimes even the NIV is more literal or a better translation of a particular verse than the KJV.

So the big question is why does the KJV translate the first word as lust and only the second word as covet while these other two translations translate both words as covet? The reason is because in the Greek these are two different words:

“What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust[Epithumia], except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet[Epithumeo].” (KJV)

Here is the definition of the Greek word Epithumia (which the KJV translates as “lust” in Romans 7:7) according to Thayer and Smith’s Bible dictionary:

“desire, craving, longing, desire for what is forbidden, lust”

Here is the definition of the Greek word Epithumeo (which the KJV translates as “covet” in Romans 7:7) according to Thayer and Smith’s Bible dictionary:

“to turn upon a thing

to have a desire for, long for, to desire

to lust after, covet

of those who seek things forbidden”

So while these words are synonyms they are not identical and the KJV accurately represents that distinction in its translation where the NASB and NIV loose that distinction for the reader. If Paul meant to use the same word twice he would have said “for I had not known [Epithumeo], except the law had said, Thou shalt not [Epithumeo].” but he used a deliberate word play here with these synonyms to get his point across.

Both Epithumia and Epithumeo are used in positive and negative contexts

These words do not always represent wrong desires, lust or covetousness in the bad sense of these words.  The context of the surrounding passage is what tells us if these words are being used in a negative or positive sense.

Here is a positive use of Epithumia(translated as “lust” in Romans 7:7) in another passage of Scripture:

“But if I live in the flesh, this is the fruit of my labour: yet what I shall choose I wot not.  For I am in a strait betwixt two, having a desire[Epithumia]  to depart, and to be with Christ; which is far better: Nevertheless to abide in the flesh is more needful for you.” – Philippians 1:22-24 (KJV)

This is one of those passages of Scripture where I think the NIV does a better job of making this more understandable in modern English while still staying true to the wording in the original language:

“If I am to go on living in the body, this will mean fruitful labor for me. Yet what shall I choose? I do not know! I am torn between the two: I desire[Epithumia] to depart and be with Christ, which is better by far; but it is more necessary for you that I remain in the body.” – Philippians 1:22-24 (NIV)

In either case both the KJV and NIV correctly translate Epithumia as “desire” here. Desire is used in the sense of a positive desire on the Apostle Paul’s part to want to be with the Lord in heaven.

Here is a positive use of Epithumeo in the Scriptures:

“And he said unto the disciples, The days will come, when ye shall desire[Epithumeo] to see one of the days of the Son of man, and ye shall not see it.” – Luke 17:22 (KJV)

Here is a another negative use of Epithumia(translated as “lust” in Romans 7:7) in another passage of Scripture:

“Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection[Pathos], evil concupiscence[Epithumia], and covetousness[Pleonexia], which is idolatry:” – Colossians 3:5 (KJV)

Concupiscence is an English word that means “evil sexual desires”.  Incidentally the word translated “covetousness” here is not the same word “Epithumeo” that is translated as “covet” in Romans 7:7.  This is another Greek word “Pleonexia” which has more to do with the greedy side of covetousness, rather than the desire to possess something that does not belong to us side of covetousness and this is why the NASB translates this same passage using the word “greed” instead of “covetousness”:

“Therefore consider the members of your earthly body as dead to immorality, impurity, passion[Pathos], evil desire[Epithumia], and greed[Pleonexia], which amounts to idolatry.” Colossians 3:5 (NASB)

The NASB except for the word “immorality”, which should be “sexual immorality” is probably the most accurate translation of this verse to the original language of the Bible here in Colossians 3:5. The Greek word “Pathos” which is translated as “passion” in the NASB has the idea of a person being led astray by emotions.

But here we see based on the context of it being “evil” that these are speaking to wrong desires.

Here is another negative use of Epithumeo (translated as “covet” in Romans 7:7) in another passage of Scripture:

“But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after[Epithumeo] her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.” – Matthew 5:28 (KJV)

Conclusion

As I said before every translation of Scripture is just that, a translation of Scripture. Each translation has its strengths and weaknesses. But in this particular case the KJV rendering of Romans 7:7 by using “lust” in comparison to “covet” is accurately communicating the Apostle Paul’s attempt to play these two synonyms off each other.

“What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.” – Romans 7:7 (KJV)

In the context of lust as it is spoke of in Matthew 5:27, this also proves by the fact that Epithumeo is used for lusting after a woman and Epithumeo is used synonymously of the 10th commandment in Romans 7:7 as “covet” that means God equates lust to covetousness.

Do we need to cut the Pauline Epistles from the Bible?

It is no secret that Christian feminists are no fan of the Apostle Paul. But often they try and make more subtle attacks on his authority to write God’s Word. Some like Skip Moen won’t outright deny Paul’s authority in general, but they will simply try to explain away anything he writes that condemns their false doctrine of Christian feminism.

But every once in a while a Christian feminist will come right out and make a full frontal assault on the Apostle Paul. It is refreshing to hear such honesty. A Christian feminist defender named Rosie posted this on my BiblicalGenderRoles Facebook page:

“Paul had NO authority to give commands, and he said it himself. He was a self appointed apostle NOT a prophet”

This statement alone shows the utter lengths those who wish to rebel against God’s Word will go to feed their selfish ambitions. Wow what a bold statement to make.

Paul was not a “self appointed apostle” – Jesus Christ himself appointed him on the road to Damascus:

“14 And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.

15 And I said, Who art thou, Lord? And he said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest.

16 But rise, and stand upon thy feet: for I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness both of these things which thou hast seen, and of those things in the which I will appear unto thee;” – Acts 26:14-16 (KJV)

In Paul’s first letter to the church at Thessalonica he wrote:

“For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, THE WORD OF GOD, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.” – I Thessalonians 2:13 (KJV)

Paul was clear that what he wrote was the very Word of God, and only in a few instances did he give his opinion apart from the Word of God(for instance he thought celibacy was good, but he knew it was not meant most people). But in NO way did he ever say he did not have authority from God – he made it clear everywhere he went that he was an Apostle of God with the authority to speak and write the very Word of God.

In fact Peter affirms the authority of the Pauline Epistles when he writes:

“And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved BROTHER PAUL also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also THE OTHER SCRIPTURES, unto their own destruction.” – II Peter 3:15-16 (KJV)

Notice he compares Paul’s epistles to “the other Scriptures” placing them on equal footing with all Scripture.

So in order for Rose and many other Christian feminists to have their heretical view of Christianity, to basically make up their own Bible – they have to tear out Paul’s 13 Epistles of the New Testament as well as Peters two epistles because he affirmed Paul’s writings as the Word of God. They have to tear out 15 of 27 books, more than half the New Testament in order to follow the selfish ambition and heresy of Christian feminism.

This is why I have said it time and time again. Can you be a Christian and believe in Christian feminism? Sure. If you believe that Jesus Christ was the perfect sinless Son of God, God in the flesh who died for the sins of mankind and specifically for your sin then you can be saved regardless of what other false doctrines you believe.

However you cannot be a Bible believing Christian, a believer in the inerrancy and perfection of Scripture, and be a Christian feminist. The two positions are mutually exclusive.

So as we can see based on her own statement Rose and other Christian feminists have made their choice to reject the Bible consisting of all 66 books as the Word of God. Instead they want their shortened version, the one where they get to take scissors and cut out whatever parts they want.

In their version of Christianity – this beautiful passage of Scripture is not in fact the Word of God, because it was written by a “self appointed Apostle” and a man that had “no authority to give commands”.

“For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:” – Ephesians 2:8 (KJV)

So which version of Christianity do you believe in? The modern Christian feminist version which is based on a shortened version of the Bible or the historic Christian faith which is based on ALL 66 books of the Bible?

The Heresy of Skip Moen and his book Guardian Angel – Part 2

Did God give Adam a wife “for the express purpose of guiding his obedience”? Are Christians wrong in believing that God created Eve as an “an assistant or a co-laborer” or in the role of a “domestic companion” for Adam? Skip Moen would have us to believe the answers to all these questions is – “Yes”.

In the first article in this series we saw that the Bible does in fact tell us what ‘ezer kenegdo’ means by how it refers to women in the context of marriage. God tells us what a woman’s role as help meet looks like. We don’t need a degree in Hebrew or Greek to see that. We can see it by how the Bible speaks to the topic of male and female relationships throughout the entirety of the Scriptures.

In this second article we will examine in more detail Skip’s false doctrine specifically concerning the purpose for which God made woman.

Skip Moen writes in his Book “Guardian Angel” (which we will abbreviate as GA from this point forward):

“What follows the only prohibition God gives Adam? The need for a “suitable helper”, the ‘ezer kenegdo. The argument proceeds from the prohibition concerning the tree of the knowledge of good and evil to the requirement for a helper. Furthermore, the entire story of the first sin focuses on the role of the ‘ezer kenegdo and the tree. How can we ignore the obvious conclusion that the purpose of the ‘ezer kenegdo is somehow connected to the command for Adam to obey?”

Adam doesn’t need an assistant or a co-laborer. The assignment to care for the garden, be fruitful, multiply and take stewardship over the earth is given to both male and female. They equally receive God’s prime directive. But the command prohibiting eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is given to Adam alone. It is not Adam’s productive energy that needs assistance.

It is his faithfulness to God’s instruction. He needs a protector, encourager and spiritual director. He needs someone assigned to keep him on the straight and narrow. He needs one who comes alongside for the express purpose of guiding his obedience. Eve (Havvah) has a role to play, but it is not the role of domestic companion, production assistant or Vice President for Public Works. Unless we recognize this aspect of the description about the Tree, we will not acknowledge that her role is the role of priest and spiritual guide for Adam!

She is designed to make sure Adam stays faithful to God. She is the one who stands between God’s command and Adam’s obedience, watching over him so that he will not go astray. Adam guards the Garden. Eve guards Adam. The help she brings is the help of reminding, rescuing and demonstrating trust. In this role, she parallels God’s ultimate relationship with Israel. God is the protector, provider and deliverer of Israel in the fallen world, but those are roles God takes upon Himself after the Fall. In order to understand the role of the ‘ezer kenegdo, we must look at God’s relationship with human beings before the Fall.” – GA Pg 96-97

So now let’s compare what God’s Word says in the Genesis account:

“15 And the Lord God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.

16 And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:

17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

18 And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

19 And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.” – Genesis 2:15-20 (KJV)

So Skip’s theory is – Since God’s statement about man needing a help meet comes right after his warning to Adam about the tree of the knowledge of good and evil that his purpose in doing this was to give him a “priest and spiritual guide”, someone to “to keep him on the straight and narrow” and someone to come “alongside for the express purpose of guiding his obedience”.

In fact Skip goes out of his way to explain why man did not need a woman for companionship or even child bearing:

“Neither is a woman the solution for domestic labor needs, economic assistance or any other tasks that might be accomplished by animals and/or machines. Furthermore, Adam did not need Havvah for sexual experience. Sex is not the issue here. Neither are offspring since at this point everything created comes directly from the hand of God. Adam could have legitimately assumed that creation by divine fiat was the way things happened. Copulation as a necessity for the birth of offspring had no obvious external evidence to support it. Adam did not lack conversational companionship, psychological interaction or purpose.” – GA Pg. 105-106

So basically in Skip’s mind – Adam did not need a woman to produce children because God could just speak them into existence.  He didn’t need anyone to help him with his labors – he had animals for that. He did not even need companionship, after all he had God to talk to right? God gave him a purpose by placing him charge of the animals and the garden – why would he need a help meet? The only logical reason is someone to guide him and protect him and make sure he obeyed God right?

You know what the problem is with Skip’s theory?

There is not one passage in all the Bible that frames a woman’s relationship to man in the terms that Skip has set forth. Not one.

Despite Skip’s notion that man did not need woman for domestic assistance, companionship or reproduction these are some of the core reasons God ACTUALLY SAYS he did made woman.

Woman was made to bear children

In fact in the Genesis account after the fall God speaks to one of the main reasons he made woman:

“16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;

18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;

19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.” – Genesis 3:16-19 (KJV)

God did not say that a woman bearing children was part of the curse, the pain he added to child birth was part of the curse. The ability to conceive and bear children a blessing to her, and more importantly her ability to bear and care for children was a blessing to Adam and was meant to be a blessing for all men.

Jacob prayed this prayer for his son Joseph before he died:

“5 Even by the God of thy father, who shall help thee; and by the Almighty, who shall bless thee with blessings of heaven above, blessings of the deep that lieth under, blessings of the breasts, and of the womb:” Genesis 49:25 (KJV)

David says this regarding a woman’s fruitfulness in bearing children for her husband:

“Thy wife shall be as a fruitful vine by the sides of thine house: thy children like olive plants round about thy table.” – Psalm 128:3 (KJV)

A woman’s womb – her ability to have children is one the central purposes for which God made woman and he did this as a blessing to man.

God also blessed man with a woman’s breasts –which have a duel symbolism of representing the care and feeding of children as well as representing the blessing of sexual pleasure which God brings to man through woman.

But we can see clearly that one of the main purposes for which God made woman was to bear and care for the children of man – straight from the Genesis account and supported throughout the rest of the Scriptures. In fact we can see throughout the Scriptures that a woman did not feel like a woman if she could not bear children.  If a woman was barren often times she felt that it was worse than death.

“And when Rachel saw that she bare Jacob no children, Rachel envied her sister; and said unto Jacob, Give me children, or else I die.” – Genesis 30:1 (KJV)

This was not because society expected women to bear children as we are so often told today. It was because women were more in tune with the nature God designed them with – the desire to bear and care for children.

Today many women suppress this desire to have children to the detriment of our society and our homes. In fact women that want many children are scolded and mocked and called “baby factories”.  Many modern women see having children as holding them back from doing the things that men do (like having careers outside the home). They are taught to see their value in every other place than one of the core places that God designed them – the bearing of and the caring for children.

Woman was made for man’s companionship

“Yet ye say, Wherefore? Because the Lord hath been witness between thee and the wife of thy youth, against whom thou hast dealt treacherously: yet is she thy companion, and the wife of thy covenant.” – Malachi 2:14 (KJV)

“Live joyfully with the wife whom thou lovest all the days of the life of thy vanity, which he hath given thee under the sun, all the days of thy vanity: for that is thy portion in this life, and in thy labour which thou takest under the sun.” – Ecclesiastes 9:9 (KJV)

Well Skip may not think so, but God knew that man needed a companion. This is one of the reasons God made woman.

Woman was made for man’s sexual pleasure

“Let thy fountain be blessed: and rejoice with the wife of thy youth.  Let her be as the loving hind and pleasant roe; let her breasts satisfy thee at all times; and be thou ravished always with her love.” – Proverbs 5:18-19 (KJV)

One of the reasons that God made woman (but certainly not the only reason) was for her to literally be a source of pleasure to him.

Woman was made to be man’s domestic helper

“She looketh well to the ways of her household, and eateth not the bread of idleness.” – Proverbs 31:27 (KJV)

“That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.” – Titus 2:4-5 (KJV)

“I will therefore that the younger women marry, bear children, guide the house, give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully.” – I Timothy 5:14(KJV)

And before any of Skip’s followers get excited about the KJV phrase “guide the house” thinking this gives credence to her being a guide to her husband let me help you out with that phrase.

The phrase “guide the house” in I Timothy 5:14, is an English translation of the Greek word “Oikodespoteo”, which comes from two Greek words “oikos” (house) and “despoteo” (to rule). This literally means to “to occupy one’s self in the management of a household”.

Titus 2:4, a companion passage to this subject of women and the home, calls women to be “keepers at home”. This is a translation of the Greek word “Oikouros” which literally means “watcher or keeper of the house” or “caring for the affairs of the house”.

So neither the “keepers at home” phrase nor the “guide the house” phrase have anything to do with a woman guiding her husband spiritually or in any other way. It has to do with her guiding the domestic affairs of her home. See Proverbs 31 for more detail on this.

Woman is made to give counsel to her husband, not to contend with him

This is very crucial point. I would never say that God meant for a woman to remain silent and never offer her husband any words of wisdom. But she is to give him kind and respectful counsel – not contention.

“Every wise woman buildeth her house: but the foolish plucketh it down with her hands.” – Proverbs 14:1 (KJV)

“She openeth her mouth with wisdom; and in her tongue is the law of kindness.” – Proverbs 31:26 (KJV)

“It is better to dwell in the wilderness, than with a contentious and an angry woman.” – Proverbs 21:9 (KJV)

“A continual dropping in a very rainy day and a contentious woman are alike.” – Proverbs 27:15 (KJV)

Conclusion

There is not one shred of Biblical support for Skip Moen’s theory that God created woman for man for the purposes of being a “priest and spiritual guide”, someone to “to keep him on the straight and narrow” and someone to come “alongside for the express purpose of guiding his obedience”.

Not one verse of Scripture tells a woman to be a guide to her husband.

Not one verse of Scripture tells a woman to keep her husband on the straight and narrow.

Not one verse of Scripture tells a woman she is a priest to her husband.

Instead the Bible tells us and shows us it is a man’s job to be his wife’s spiritual leader and confronter:

The husband confronts the wife

“9 Then said his wife unto him, Dost thou still retain thine integrity? curse God, and die. 10 But he said unto her, Thou speakest as one of the foolish women speaketh. What? shall we receive good at the hand of God, and shall we not receive evil? In all this did not Job sin with his lips.” – Job 2:9-10 (KJV)

The husband can override his wife’s decisions and commitments

“10 And if she vowed in her husband’s house, or bound her soul by a bond with an oath; 11 And her husband heard it, and held his peace at her, and disallowed her not: then all her vows shall stand, and every bond wherewith she bound her soul shall stand.

12 But if her husband hath utterly made them void on the day he heard them; then whatsoever proceeded out of her lips concerning her vows, or concerning the bond of her soul, shall not stand: her husband hath made them void; and the Lord shall forgive her.” – Numbers 10:30-12 (KJV)

The husband is the spiritual teacher of the wife

“And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.” – I Corinthians 14:35 (KJV)

The husband is the spiritual leader of his wife, as Christ is the leader of the Church

“23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.

24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.” – Ephesians 5:23-24 (KJV)

How is Christ a head to the Church? He is its spiritual guide, its protector and its corrector. This is what a man is to be to his wife. It is not what a wife is to be to her husband.

In upcoming posts we will explore more of the heretical positions of Skip Moen and then at the end we will see how he attempts to deal with what he calls the “bothersome comments” of Paul regarding women in the home and in the Church.

Five Reasons Josh Duggar and Other Christian men fall into sexual immorality

JoshDuggar2

In my first post on Josh Duggar and his sexually immoral behavior, we talked about how God can forgive him and restore him if he has truly confessed his sin and sought the Lord’s forgiveness. We as the body of Christ need to be ready to receive him. In this post though I want to go back and look at what may have been the sources for Josh Duggar’s wrong decisions and ultimately sinful behavior.

This is in NO WAY meant as a judgment on Josh Duggar – God is his judge I am not.   I think if you read this post in its entirety you will see I am not approaching this in some “holier than thou” attitude, but rather I am approaching this with the attitude that all of us a Christian men could fall into this sin if we don’t learn from the mistakes of Josh Duggar.

God hold’s every person accountable for the decisions they make, even if those decisions may have been influenced by the actions or teachings of others. Having said that – nothing happens in a vacuum and I want to look at some things that may have influenced Josh Duggar’s wrong thought processes that ultimately lead him into the sinful situation in which he found himself.

Josh Duggar’s parents had a huge impact on his thought processes about sex

It is good and right for the Duggars and other Christians to stand up for marriage, and to stand against things that God calls immoral like sex outside of marriage and gay marriage. It is also good for Christian parents to try and protect their children from having sex outside of marriage by making sure when they are courting or dating that there are always other people around.

But where the Duggars and so many other Christians fail their children is in the fact that they teach their children to suppress their God given sexuality, rather than channel it in healthy ways that do not violate God’s law.

I use this illustration a lot. Let’s say you have a river running through the middle of a small town. Sometimes when you have bad rains, or in high water years it spills over into the town causing damage to the surrounding structures.

You could build some river walls along the river to the highest height it might go or perhaps you could even build a dam further upstream to control the water level of the river running through your town. But even a dam has to have release valves or eventually the water will overflow the damn and destroy the town.

The water is symbolic of our sexuality. The sea walls and the dam are symbolic of God’s law. Our sexuality is like water, it is a wonderful gift from God. But just as water can be a blessing in measured amounts but a curse when it is uncontrolled, so too our sexuality can be a blessing when channeled, but a curse when it is unbridled. God’s laws about how we may exercise our sexuality are for our own protection and also to fulfill his spiritual and temporal purposes for sex.

I realize both men and women come to sexuality from different positions, but for this conversation we are going to tackle this from the perspective of male sexuality.

As Christian parents we should never tell our sons that they are wrong for having sexual thoughts about girls or wondering what girls look like naked. This is NOT part of their sin nature, but rather by the design of God.

We should not be discouraging our sons from using the natural release valve that God has given them for their sexuality – which is masturbation. Just like that dam needs to release pressure, so too young people need to release sexual tension through masturbation.

There is absolutely no scriptural prohibition against masturbation and contrary to popular belief the Bible is not silent on masturbation. The Bible actually recognizes that masturbation will need to occur at certain points and it regulates the cleanup of masturbation in the cleanliness laws of Israel.   Check out Leviticus 15:16 – 18 where the first part is talking about a man having an emission of semen (and it’s not limited to a nocturnal emission as in Deuteronomy 23:10), then it talks about a man having an emission of semen in the act of sexual intercourse as a separate act.

Besides the fact that there is really no difference between nocturnal emissions and masturbation. A man has a nocturnal emission when he sleeps and has sexual dream. Many Christian’s have falsely taught that nocturnal emissions happen with no sexual dreaming and that is patently false. We as men will dream sexual thoughts whether we want to or not – it is by the design of God.

Josh Duggar like many Christian young people today was taught that he had to suppress his sexuality until he was married, rather than channeling it healthy ways such as masturbation. When people suppress their emotions eventually they end up acting on them in unhealthy ways and sometimes sinful ways. It no different when it comes to someone attempting to suppress their sexuality – eventually they will end up acting on it in unhealthy and sinful ways.

What will Josh be taught in rehab?

Josh Duggar has checked himself into a Reformers Unanimous Christian facility. This is actually a nationwide program that many churches use to help people deal with all types of addictions – including sexual addiction. But I am not confident that this program will work Josh, as it has not always worked for other men. I am familiar with some of their teachings as some of the Churches in the area I live host some of their programs.

This is what Josh Duggar will be taught in this program:

“If you look at any woman beside your wife and find yourself becoming aroused by her beauty or you begin to wonder what she looks like naked you need to quickly turn away or the pleasure you receive from looking at her becomes a sinful and lustful thought.

If you find yourself having any sexual imagination or sexual fantasy about any other woman than your wife you are having lustful thoughts – you need to immediately confess that sin to God and turn from those thoughts.”

Josh will be taught that God’s original intention for man in the Garden of Eden was for him to only have sexual thoughts toward a woman once he was married to her. He will be taught that God originally designed men to have a monogamous sexual nature and that their sexual desire was intended to be focused on one woman for the entirety of their lives.

He will be taught that because sin entered the world – man’s sexual nature was corrupted from a monogamous nature into a polygamous nature. He will be taught that it is the corruption of his sinful nature that causes him to desire to look at any other woman, or have sexual fantasies about any other woman than his wife.

These are two common verse of Scripture that are used in these types of Christian sexual addiction programs:

“Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.” – Matthew 5:27-28 (KJV)

“But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.” – James 1:14-15 (KJV)

Josh will be taught that the root of his problem was his own lustful desire to look at other women and take pleasure from their feminine form. Then that lead to him having sexual fantasies. His sexual fantasies then lead to him going online looking to meet up with women to have sex and eventually he found some women and had sex with them.

He will be taught that the root of all his sin was him not learning to suppress his sinful desire to look at any other woman but his wife.

Lust is not sexual arousal or sexual fantasy

The first mistake that almost every Church and Christian sexual recovery program makes is in teaching an unbiblical (yet traditional) definition of lust. They define lust as a man having sexual thoughts about a woman, instead of the letting the Bible define what it is. In fact in most Christian Churches and sexual recovery programs they will give every verse on lust except this one:

“What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.” – Romans 7:7 (KJV)

This verse is conveniently left out, because the Church wants to make lust into a separate category than covetousness. Covetousness is the desire to actually take possession of something or someone that you have not right to possess. God addresses this in the Ten Commandments:

“Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour’s.” – Exodus 20:10 (KJV)

The Pharisees only looked at outward actions and not the thoughts of the heart that proceeded those actions.   This is why Christ was reminding them that covetous thoughts can proceed adultery, just as in other passages Christ shows that hateful thoughts can proceed murder. God does not just condemn sinful actions – he condemns the sinful thoughts that may or may not proceed sinful actions.

You can’t fight sexual addiction without targeting the real enemy

So where these Christian programs often fail, and even many secular programs fail is in attacking the wrong source of sexual sin.

Make no mistake, sexual addiction and sexual promiscuity are problems that we must tackle as Christians.

But the enemy is NOT our sexuality, but rather it is our addictive and compulsive behavior.

We don’t tell food addicts that food is their enemy, but rather their addictive and compulsive behavior toward food and the same concept applies to our God given sexuality.

Men have visual and polygynous sexual natures whether we want to admit it or not

Josh Duggar like many other men has a very high sex drive and natural need for variety. And by variety I mean a variety of women.

“the average man’s brain is sexually stimulated by visual cues and is built for variety…

Using functional MRI scans, researchers examined the brains of young men as they looked at pictures of beautiful women. They found that feminine beauty affects a man’s brain at a very primal level – similar to what a hungry person gets from a good meal or addict gets from a fix. One of the researchers said, “This is hard core circuitry. This is not a conditioned response.” Another concluded, “Men apparently cannot do anything about their pleasurable feelings [in the presence of beauty]”

Dr. Walt Larimore, MD – pg. 99 “His Brain, Her Brain”

Dr. Walt Lairmore (a Christian physician) stopped short of coming to the conclusion that we know is true from looking at the Bible as well as men from a mental and physical perspective. Men are wired to seek out a variety of women, men are wired to be polygynous (to be a husband to multiple wives).

But because the Roman Empire passed laws that over several centuries greatly diminished the practice of polygamy and enshrined monogamous marriage in Western culture we have the situation where we force polygynous men into monogamous marriages.

In essence when we ask a man to vow to only love one woman, and only have sex with one woman we are asking him to vow to suppress his natural God given desire to have multiple wives. Most men except for the few that have the gift of celibacy have polygynous natures whether they consciously realize it or not.

Some Christian husbands will take offense at what I just said and say “I only love my wife and I have and have never had any desire to take another wife”. But the truth is in most cases these husbands are simply lying to themselves and they have spent so many years telling themselves this because this is what their church and the female side of our society expects from men.

Other Christian men recognize their polygynous desires but they dismiss these desires as a corruption of their God given male nature – in essence they are convinced this is part of their sinful nature or they are trained to by Christian sexual recovery programs like the one Josh Duggar is currently attending to believe this. So they spend their entire lives asking God to forgive them anytime they are aroused by another woman or wonder what another woman beside their wife looks like naked. Every time they have a sexual fantasy or dream they are asking God to forgive them, in essence they live in a perpetual state of war not with their sinful nature, but with their God given sexual nature.

Five reasons Josh Duggar could have fell into sexual immorality

Josh Duggar is not the first Christian husband to watch porn and masturbate and then get on dating sites and finally meet up with women to have sex. To say this same scenario has occurred with thousands of other men or even more would be an understatement.

Here are five reasons Josh Duggar and so many others Christian husbands fall into this type of sexual immorality.

They allowed their sexuality to dominate and overpower their lives, rather than controlling and channeling their sexuality within the bounds of God’s law and design.

“All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any.” – I Corinthians 6:12 (KJV)

Many Christian men rather than controlling and channeling their God given male sexuality – have allowed it to overpower them and control their life. The results of unbridled and uncontrolled sexuality are on display before us in what happened to Josh Duggar.

They allowed their normal visual sexual arousal and imagination to turn into covetousness

Again there is not one passage of the Bible that condemns a man’s visual arousal or sexual imagination. Not one. But what can happen is men can allow that natural visual arousal and imagination to turn into covetous thoughts as we see happened with Josh Duggar.

They allowed their faulty view of their own sexuality to rationalize their sin

I can’t tell you how often I get accused by my fellow conservative Christians of rationalizing sin because of my teachings (based on the Bible) about polygamy, lust and sexuality. But the real rationalizing of sexual sin goes something like this.

Because most Christian Churches and sexual addiction programs teach that a man is committing mental adultery by watching porn or being sexually aroused by any kind of female imagery many Christian men rationalize – “If I am already committing adultery by viewing porn, I might as well do the real thing and have sex with an actual woman instead of just imagining it”.

So in essence the false interpretation of Matthew 5:28 that they have been taught actually promotes sin rather than discouraging it. Christ was saying in Matthew 5:28 if a man looks on a woman “to lust after her” – to covet her (to think about how he would might take possession of her) then he has committed adultery with her in his heart. He was not condemning sexual arousal and sexual imagination as these are part of his natural design of male sexuality.

They allowed their natural polygynous nature to be corrupted into a promiscuous nature

As I mentioned previously God has created men as naturally polygynous creatures, but our sin nature wants to corrupt our God given polygynous nature into a promiscuous nature.

Even in the ancient times of the Bible not every man was able to act on his polygynous nature. For the most part only wealthier men were able to act on their polygynous natures by having more than one wife. Many less wealthy men were fortunate if they could have even one wife. Often poor men or men that were slaves were not able to have wives at all.

But what happens often is when men find themselves frustrated by not being able to find a wife, or even men that have wives desiring more wives they turn to promiscuous activities like going to prostitutes or whorish women.

Because their wives have sexually denied them

Some men because their wives sexually deny, or severely restrict how often or what ways they may have sex feel justified in seeking sex with other women. In their hurt and frustration they act out in sinful ways. But one sin never justifies another. Just as a woman does not have the right to deny her husband sex because of sinful things he might be doing, in the same way a husband does not have the right to go out and have sex with other women because his wife is sexually denying him or not fully giving herself sexually to him. We don’t know if Josh’s wife was sexually denying him, but even she was this does not justify him going out and having sex with other women.

So what is the answer for Christian men like Josh Duggar?

Let me just reiterate when I say “Christian men like Josh Duggar” I am not singling him out in any way trying to say he is some rare case – the only difference is that he was public figure.   All of us as Christian men should have the sixteenth century reformer John Bradford’s attitude toward Josh Duggar’s sin – “there but for the grace of God go I”.

Here are six ways we as Christian men can avoid falling into the same sexual immorality that Josh Duggar did:

We must hide God’s Word in our heart

“Thy word have I hid in mine heart, that I might not sin against thee.” – Psalm 119:11 (KJV)

We can’t distinguish between our sinful nature and the nature God designed us with without knowing God’s Word. God’s Word is the “Cannon” or measure by which we must judge our actions.

We must take every thought captive to Christ

“Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;” – II Corinthians 10:5 (KJV)

Any thought that we have we run through the filter of Christ and his Word.   Oh and for those who always ask me “Would Christ allow himself to have sexual thoughts about a woman” – Christ had the gift of celibacy rather than the gift of sexuality. It would have gone against his mission from God to be married (despite conspiracy theories to the contrary).

Accept our male sexual nature

As Christian men we must accept our male nature (including our sexual nature) as God designed it. Our fight is against our sin nature, not our male nature.

We must fight against sexual excess

We cannot allow ourselves to be over-powered by our own male sexuality.  Satan wants to take a good thing God created – our sexuality – and turn it against us to destroy our families and our lives. We should not suppress our sexuality, but at the same time we must channel it to experience it within the bounds of God’s law.

We must fight against covetousness

We must fight against our flesh that wants to take our normal sexual desires, our visual sexual arousal and our imagination(all which are gifts from God) and turn them into covetous thoughts which eventually could lead us into fornication or adultery.

We must depend on God’s strength

We cannot fight against the sinful desires of flesh in our own strength or will power we can only fight our flesh with the help of the power of God.

“But be not thou far from me, O Lord: O my strength, haste thee to help me.” – Psalm 22:19 (KJV)

Josh Duggar PhotoSource: https://www.flickr.com/photos/96024429@N00/17781684170/in/photostream/

JimBob and Michelle Duggar PhotoSource: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3c/Jim_Bob_%26_Michelle_Duggar.jpg

 

In Defense of Josh Duggar

JoshDuggar1

I had an initial reaction to the story of Josh Duggar having an Ashley Madison account last week but I wanted to wait for more details and really collect my thoughts on this. There is so much I have to say on this that I will need to divide into several articles. In this first one we will deal with “the apology”.

As most people expected after the announcement of his Ashley Madison account Josh Duggar admitted to cheating on his wife. So far one porn star has come out admitting to having sex with him while his wife was pregnant.

John Duggar himself made these admissions:

“I have been the biggest hypocrite ever. While espousing faith and family values, I have secretly over the last several years been viewing pornography on the internet and this became a secret addiction and I became unfaithful to my wife,” he wrote. “I am so ashamed of the double life that I have been living and am grieved for the hurt, pain and disgrace my sin has caused my wife and family, and most of all Jesus and all those who profess faith in Him.”

Those who are enemies of the Christian faith and the Christian morals that Josh Duggar and his whole family espouse are rejoicing in his failings while at the same time disparaging his wife for supporting him and not immediately filing for divorce.

I support the Duggar family – Josh’s family as well as his extended family including his parents and I am praying for them during this dark hour.

A mistake that many non-believers and even some Christians make is to think that just because we believe in God’s law, his ways and his standards that somehow we will never fall short or fail to live up to those standards.

We as believers fail to live up to God’s Word each and every day of our lives and that is why we need his forgiveness each day.

And make no mistake – If Josh has truly sought God’s forgiveness – grieving over his sin –God has already forgiven him. What may take longer is for his wife to forgive him and really for him to forgive himself.

Who does Josh Duggar really owe an apology to?

While Josh feels he has to apologize to his wife, his children, his family and the whole world I am going to refer to another high profile occurrence of adultery that occurred in the Bible and the prayer admission of sin and request for forgiveness that was offered by that man:

“Have mercy upon me, O God, according to thy lovingkindness: according unto the multitude of thy tender mercies blot out my transgressions.

Wash me throughly from mine iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin.

For I acknowledge my transgressions: and my sin is ever before me.

Against thee, thee only, have I sinned, and done this evil in thy sight: that thou mightest be justified when thou speakest, and be clear when thou judgest.

Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me. Behold, thou desirest truth in the inward parts: and in the hidden part thou shalt make me to know wisdom.

Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean: wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow.

Make me to hear joy and gladness; that the bones which thou hast broken may rejoice.

Hide thy face from my sins, and blot out all mine iniquities.

Create in me a clean heart, O God; and renew a right spirit within me.

Cast me not away from thy presence; and take not thy holy spirit from me.

Restore unto me the joy of thy salvation; and uphold me with thy free spirit.

Then will I teach transgressors thy ways; and sinners shall be converted unto thee.”

Psalm 51:1-13 (KJV)

The key verse in this as to whom forgiveness is sought from is found in Psalm 51:4:

“Against thee, thee only, have I sinned, and done this evil in thy sight”

King David when he committed adultery with Bathsheba didn’t go running around to each of his wives (he had several other wives) and apologize to them for “cheating on them”.

King David didn’t go apologize to his children.

King David didn’t go apologize to country men, he made no proclamation to Israel telling them how he had let them all down.

King David apologized to God. I believe if King David had not had Bathsheba’s husband killed – he would have owed him an apology as well for violating his wife. But since Uriah was already dead – King David really only did owe God an apology. You can see his full admission of guilt, and his request for the Lord to restore him.

In fact King David says something here that might shock us today in light of Josh Duggar’s actions – in verse 13 he says this:

“Then will I teach transgressors thy ways; and sinners shall be converted unto thee.”

Wow! He is asking God to forgive him – so he can get back to teaching the people God’s ways. God did not say to David – “Ok now after committing adultery with Bathsheba and having her husband killed, you need to go hide in some deep dark place and never speak in my name again”. No God forgave David! He restored him. David ended up writing some of the most beautiful passages of Scripture in the Psalms that mankind has ever seen!

Doesn’t Josh owe his wife an apology for cheating on her?

The reason that David did not owe his wives an apology for his sin with Bathsheba is because the vows he made to them were very different. The most common vow that a Jewish husband made to his wife when they married was “food, clothing and bed”. This was based on Moses command in Exodus 21:10-11.

There was not a vow that he would love them only and no other woman, or that he would never have sexual relations with another woman.

David’s sin was the sin of adultery but it was adultery against God and Uriah (the husband of Bathsheba). Biblically speaking adultery was a property crime against the husband of the wife a man had sex with. The most literal meaning of adultery in the Old Testament and New Testament is “a man having sex with another man’s wife” – it always has at its center a married woman. In the New Testament Christ expanded the definition of adultery saying that a man committed adultery against his wife when divorced her for reasons that God does not allow. So in essence he dishonors her, and causes her to dishonor herself (when she marries another man) if he divorces her without a proper cause that God allows for.

But in the case of Josh Duggar’s wife Anna – he does owe her an apology because of the fact that he took our modern vows of monogamous marriage. He vowed not to love or have sex with any other woman but Anna and he broke that vow, thus he owes his wife an apology for breaking it and I am sure that he has already apologized and asked for her forgiveness for breaking those vows.

If Josh was still working for the organization he was with where I am sure he signed a morality clause then he might have owed them an apology for breaking that clause and bringing shame on their organization.

But my point in this is – I don’t think Josh needs to run around apologizing to the whole world for what he did. He has sought God’s forgiveness, his wife’s forgiveness and that is all the apologies that he owes.

The Consequences of Sin

While it is true that God forgave David and restored him his sin had some consequences. God spoke these consequences through the prophet Nathan:

“Now therefore the sword shall never depart from thine house; because thou hast despised me, and hast taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be thy wife… Now therefore the sword shall never depart from thine house; because thou hast despised me, and hast taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be thy wife.

Thus saith the Lord, Behold, I will raise up evil against thee out of thine own house, and I will take thy wives before thine eyes, and give them unto thy neighbour, and he shall lie with thy wives in the sight of this sun.

For thou didst it secretly: but I will do this thing before all Israel, and before the sun.

And David said unto Nathan, I have sinned against the Lord. And Nathan said unto David, The Lord also hath put away thy sin; thou shalt not die.

Howbeit, because by this deed thou hast given great occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme, the child also that is born unto thee shall surely die.”

II Samuel 12:10-14 (KJV)

Josh Duggar shut down his Ashley Madison account back in May. But just like with King David’s sin, God saw fit to reveal what Josh Duggar did and God shamed him before the world, as he did King David. If Josh had not lost his job over the previous scandal he certainly would have lost it over this.

If Josh were a Pastor or a Deacon he would have forfeited his position because of the requirement that a Pastor “must be blameless” or above reproach.

Josh has certainly lost the respect of many people because of this. He may even loose his marriage because of this.

Conclusion

So what am I defending about Josh Duggar? I certainly am not defending him seeking out women to have sex with on AshleyMadison.com. I am not defending that he slept with at least one woman that we know of and there may be more revealed in the future.

What I am defending about Josh Duggar is his faith and his God. I am defending the Scriptures which he spoke and the stands for traditional marriage and against gay marriage that he took. God’s Word is just as true today as it was before this scandal broke. I am defending the concept of God’s forgiveness and how it applies to ALL sin – even sexual sin.

There is no question that Josh Duggar sinned against God. But he does not owe you or me an apology. He needs to admit his sin and seek God’s forgiveness (which I think he has already done).

God says in his Word:

“If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” – I John 1:9 (KJV)

He needs to apologize to his wife for breaking his vow of monogamous marriage and she needs to forgive him as Christ commands us all to do:

“For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you: But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.” – Matthew 6:14-15 (KJV)

But if she forgives as God would have her – does that mean she stays with him and does not divorce him? That is a larger question. See my post “Does God allow divorce for Adultery” for a larger discussion on that topic.

This sin committed by Josh Duggar does not have to mean his life is over with or that he needs to hide in some deep dark hole for the rest of his life. It does not mean he can’t tell others about Christ, or teach his children and others about God and his ways just as King David continued to do after he committed adultery with Bathsheba.   While his actions would disqualify him from a leadership position (Pastor or Deacon) in a church, it does not disqualify him from continuing to serve Christ in other ways.

The story of King David tells us two things that relate to Josh Duggar’s sin. The first is that Good men, great men of God have committed sexual immorality. The second is that when they acknowledged their sin before God he restored them and if God forgives and restores Josh Duggar we have no right as the body of Christ to ostracize our brother in Christ.

Photo Source: https://www.flickr.com/photos/96024429@N00/17966165892/in/photostream/

 

Prayer for the Family – Pope John Paul II vs. Pope Francis

Kathy – I have many Catholic friends including you. I know that some believe you have to follow the teachings of the Pope wherever he leads no matter what he says, but I must respectfully disagree with those friends. I am glad that there are Catholics like you that recognize the Pope is actually capable of being wrong on certain things.

I really see this issue of homosexuality as one that has the potential to tear both Protestantism and Catholicism apart.

In both the Catholic and Protestant churches we have those who think Christianity needs to come to an acceptance of homosexuality and then those who believe that God’s moral law does not change even when society’s morals do.

For us as Protestants – we can leave those Protestant churches that have left the Word of God – but where does that leave Catholics since your Christian denomination does not allow you to question your church leadership? I say this with all due respect to your Catholic faith. But I am curious?

It's the Women, Not the Men!

Pope John Paul IIPope John Paul II

Pope John Paul II was Pope from 1978 to 2005. He was the first Polish Pope and was instrumental, along with British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and U. S. President Ronald Reagan, in orchestrating the demise of the Communist Soviet Union and the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989.

Pope John Paul was a holy man whose deep faith permeated everything he undertook. He was not a politician but singularly, and solely, God’s highest representative on earth. 

His continual support for the Christian family unit was one of Pope John Paul’s resounding legacies. He routinely expressed the need to reinforce the family as it was the primary entity responsible for the protection of the innocent children those marriages produced.

Here is one of Pope John Paul’s lovely prayers for the family.

For the Family

Lord God, from You every family in heaven, and on earth, takes…

View original post 226 more words

Good Guys – Catholic Author Steven W. Mosher Wonders If He and Pope Francis Are Living on the Same Planet!

Kathy,

I am glad that you and some of my other Catholic friends are willing to call the Pope out of these issues. I know other Catholics who feel they must defend each and every statement and action the Pope takes because he is the leader of the Church.

I know from you and from some of my other Catholic friends that some Catholics believe the Pope is only perfect on matters of Church doctrine, but he can error in other things as you have pointed out here.

But other Catholics believe that if he could error on anything(even political stances) then that would mean he is capable of error even on Church doctrine.

I am curious what my new Catholic friend Emily(who has recently visited the Vatican) will think of this post so that is why I am re-blogging it. Thanks again for you stand Kathy.

It's the Women, Not the Men!

Vatican in RomeVatican in Rome

I am a life long Catholic, as were ALL of my Irish ancestors, and yet I hate the blatant, irrational, and unsubstantiated political correctness with which the new Pope views the world, and with which he asserts his “authority.”

The last time I checked, Popes were simply and solely, the much-needed authorities on Church doctrine.

This Pope, on the other hand, envisions himself as a political “expert” on everything BUT Church doctrine. And, to make matters worse, his ill-conceived political “expertise” is routinely promulgated at the expense of Church doctrine.

Incredibly, the Pope continues to routinely spew geopolitical hogwash, despite the fact that Our Lady of Fatima herself specifically warned against this type of political overreach by priests.

Our Lady of FatimaOur Lady of Fatima

When Our Lady appeared to the three little shepherds in Portugal between 1916 and 1920, she said, “Priests must be pure, very pure. They should…

View original post 2,920 more words