Can we lose our “faith”?

An important aspect to understand soteriological implications is that “faith” is not the “act of acceptance” like circumcision was to the Covenants. Meaning, an act of acceptance is a “one-time” act that works as a witness or testimony to others that we accepted the free, unilateral gift of salvation. Circumcision was that one-time “act of acceptance” for both the Abrahamic and Mosaic Covenant. As believers, many look for our circumcision, but our circumcision is the putting off of the flesh and getting a new heart. Jer. 4 speaks about Israel as not circumcising their hearts. Matter of fact, Heb. 3-4 is all about the Mosaic Covenant and the importance of “faith” that accompanied their works (because of their unbelieving heart they did not enter into the promise land). The promise was to Abraham and his Seed (Christ). The Mosaic Covenant was a whole different covenant Gal. 3:17 “And this I say, that the law, which was four hundred and thirty years later, cannot annul the covenant that was confirmed before by God in Christ, that it should make the promise of no effect.” Which, I am sure, you already know.

But, what about “eternal salvation”? Can we “lose” our faith. The answer is easy. It cannot be taken from us, but since the ongoing condition of our salvation is faith, we must continue in faith to enter into our promise land. The entire book of Hebrews is dedicated to explaining our enduring faith. That is why Paul said, “holding on to faith and a good conscience, which some have rejected and so have suffered shipwreck with regard to the faith” 1 Tim. 1:19. So, faith is the substance of our salvation and not the act. But, how do we lose our faith. Heb. 3 tells us that sin “hardens the heart.” Our sin can harden our heart and have us doubt our faith so that we will be as blind leading the blind. Our most precious faith. That is why we are told to guard it, “Be on your guard; stand firm in the faith; be courageous; be strong.”

By faith we are saved and our act of acceptance is not only the circumcision of the heart, but the confession of the lips that “Jesus is Lord.”

On a side note, baptism is not necessarily portrayed as the “act of acceptance” but it is clear that is it necessary for salvation. Since an “act of acceptance” is a one-time act, and to have both confession that Jesus is Lord with the lips AND baptism forces me to thing baptism may be its own, separate entity. This is why I say that. When you see our “salvation” mentioned, you will see “faith” and “confession that Jesus is Lord” time and time again. Baptism is not immediately or always mentioned together with these two. Therefore, I go to the Old Testament. When trying to connect baptism as a need for salvation in the Old Testament we are taken a few places. First, it is closely reflected in the Mikvah and Moses/people baptized in the red-sea and the cloud. We also see this previously implied with Elijah and Elisha. And finally, John the Baptist (still under the Law) and those who came confessing/repenting in the Jordan. They were baptized so their eyes could be open to recognize the Christ. It is important to note that the women (for the first time in her life) will be mikvah’d right after she gets betrothed to be married. This worked as a purifier and cleansing unit as the Church was washed with the water of the word. His bride.

I look at baptism/faith/confession of the Lord as I look to God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit (trinity). The close relationship between God the Father and Jesus, His son is often mentioned together. It will mention the Holy Spirit either by itself or with Jesus later. We see a family relationship with the Father and Son right off the bat, even though we understand these three (Father/Son/Holy Spirit) seem to be critically intertwined in the Heavenly. Therefore, I look at the Abrahamic and Mosaic Covenant and see how baptism or mikvah was essential for their covenant and salvation. I don’t see it mentioned as clear as it is with ours, so it makes me wonder if baptism is that first symbolic “work” or “duty” that is needed to be performed. Since baptism is a one-time shot, I see it more as symbolic event rather than a work like those in the Mosaic Covenant.


Posted in bible, Christian, Christian living, Christian sales, complementarian, divorce, Divorce and remarriage, If not for fornication, Matt. 19:9, Matthew 19:9, Paul, remarriage, remarry, Sales, what does the bible say about divorce | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Complementarian vs. Patriarchal

My greatest surprise to this study has been “submission”. The traditional bride price transferred the authority of a woman living under her father’s roof to her new husband (Numbers 30:16).  However, in our Western world we have two young adults under no authority but their own, coming from two separate apartments and marrying in a bilateral marriage. This means there is no foundation of authority to their marriage other than the different roles and responsibilities governed by either societal pressures or religious jargon.

Why would an unbelieving, independent woman submit herself in the twenty-first century? Logically she would not. That is what makes marriages so confusing for believers. When comparing ourselves with the rest of the world, we feel out of touch with reality in our expectations, and find ourselves more in-line with conformity. Meaning, western style marriages are adopting a complementarian or egalitarian lifestyle (woman no longer seen as barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen as the normative) rather than the patriarchal marriage as seen in the Old Testament scriptures.


“…egalitarianism which maintains positions of authority and responsibility in marriage, religion, business, and elsewhere should be equally available to females as well as males, and ‘male chauvinism‘, a generalized bias that in most situations men are of significantly greater value than women.”


Complementarianism. (2018, January 20). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 05:07, February 7, 2018, from

Posted in bible, Christian, Christian living, Christian sales, complementarian, divorce, Divorce and remarriage, If not for fornication, Jesus, Marriage divorce and remarriage, Matt. 19:9, Matthew 19:9, Objections, Paul, remarriage, remarry, Sales | Tagged | Leave a comment

Constitution – Protect your “parental rights”!!!

Many of you are not aware that the individual Sates and the Nation is in a constant struggle regarding your constitutional rights as a parent.

The Constitution is the “law of land” and it protects you as a United States citizen. Under the 14th Amendment, your parental rights is protected under “liberty”. That means, the United States recognizes that the rights to your child is not a perk but a God given right. The United States realizes that “NO ONE” can take away your rights to your children. That is, your rights are for the “care, control and maintenance” of YOUR child.

This means – that “custody” is the “control” of your child.

But sadly, many States do not obey the Constitution and claim that under the “Best Interest of the Child” standards that they are able to superseded your rights and authority of your child. The State does not have power or jurisdiction to take away your kids from you according to the Constitution and your God given rights! For, a parent knows what is best for their children, not the state.

According to Scripture, a parent can forsake their children and put them up for adoption, as we are adopted into the body of Christ, but a parents rights have to be given away. They can not be taken away, against their will or by blackmail.

When going through your divorce trial (mother OR father) when your custody is being in questioned, demand that your rights as a parent be protected under the 1st, 4th, and 14th Amendment. If you do, this will be appealable when they say your unfit or take away your legal custody. States HATE your constitutional rights because it barks against their complete (“in” house) authority as a state, but the Supreme Courts LOVE your constitution rights and wish to uphold them whenever possible holding onto larger principles.

Now, unfortunately, this demonic “Best Interests of the Child” laws are even greater a concern than what we were expecting. Under the Article 3 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child they are saying that the law givers have greater authority than parents “all around the world”. This is like the Child Protection Service on Steroids. It is as if someone were to come into your house and feel that they could serve the interests of your child better than you can.

Posted in bible, Christian, Christian living, Christian sales, divorce, Divorce and remarriage, If not for fornication, Jesus, Marriage divorce and remarriage, Matt. 19:9, Matthew 19:9, remarriage, remarry, Sales | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

75%-80% of all divorces are initiated by the wife. The same percent of women get the children and the money.

“According to the National Center for Health Statistics, about 50 percent of marriages in the United States end in divorce, and about 80 percent of the divorces are initiated by women. That 50 percent is often quoted and it is probably on the high side, but it is illuminating that 80 percent of the divorces are filed by the wife.” From:…/why-women-file-80…/

“Regardless of the standard applied, the great majority of children in single-parent families live with their mothers. Most studies show mother custody at about 70 to 80 percent, with father custody, split custody, and shared custody accounting for the rest (Maccoby and Mnookin 1993; Melli, Brown, and Cancian 1997).” From:…/law/law/child-custody

“In the 1991 data, every step of the process was biased against men, with the end result being that women received over 94% of child support dollars paid. This new data is very similar. All of the steps of the process are biased against men except the percentage of support due which is collected (the two are now roughly equal).” From:…/latest-u-s-custody-and…/

Posted in bible, Christian, Christian living, Christian sales, divorce, Divorce and remarriage, If not for fornication, Jesus, Marriage divorce and remarriage, Matt. 19:9, Matthew 19:9, Paul, remarriage, remarry, what does the bible say about divorce | Leave a comment

Unilateral and Bilateral are the two type of Covenants in the Bible

1) Unilateral comes from “uni” meaning one. Like a unicycle: this is an “Unconditional Covenant” because it is one-sided.

2) Bilateral comes from “bi” meaning two. Like a bicycle: this is a “Conditional Covenant” because each persons promise is dependent on the other.

The Hebrew word for Covenant is “Berith”. This most likely comes from “bara” meaning “to cut”, as Abraham cut the animals in two to prepare God’s covenant in Gen. 15. This is most likely were we understand the term “blood covenant”.

So, a blood covenant symbolizes “life” or more likely “death”. Some say this was communicating, may my blood be required of me if I do not uphold this bond.

A covenant is a confirmed “promise”. This was usually associated with either witnesses, or symbols to establish the promise. God called this a confirmed oath.

Heb. 6 “13 For when God made a promise to Abraham, because He could swear by no one greater, He swore by Himself, 14 saying, “Surely blessing I will bless you, and multiplying I will multiply you.”[d] 15 And so, after he had patiently endured, he obtained the promise. 16 For men indeed swear by the greater, and an oath for confirmation is for them an end of all dispute. 17 Thus God, determining to show more abundantly to the heirs of promise the immutability of His counsel, confirmed it by an oath, 18 that by two immutable things, in which it is impossible for God to lie, we might[e] have strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold of the hope set before us.

Posted in bible, Christian, Christian living, Christian sales, divorce, Divorce and remarriage, If not for fornication, Jesus, Marriage divorce and remarriage, Matt. 19:9, Matthew 19:9, Paul, remarriage, remarry, what does the bible say about divorce | Leave a comment

It’s Not Fair!

Life is not fair!
Marriages that are bilateral (two people making a promise to each other) have “zero” foundation for the headship principles taught in Scripture. This is made apparent by Paul repeatedly instructing the Gentile women to obey their husband (1 Tim. 2:11-14, 1 Cor. 11:2-16, 1 Cor. 14:34, Titus 2:4-5). Gentile women were considered equal in all regards; both before the marriage and during.
Legally speaking, western marriages are considered similar to a business contract 50/50. But marriages were designed to be unilateral “only” and a young woman to be living under her father’s roof before marriage (Deut. 22, Numbers 20:2-16, Ex. 22:16-17). More than likely, Greco-Roman women were not given in “arranged marriages” but either acted independently of their parents or were married/divorce before (similar to our high divorce rate).
The Gentile women in the New Testament married similar to our culture. That means, no one paid a bride price or negotiated a deal to marry her. In their bilateral marriage the contract could be breached by any of the promises broken by either party. This was considered a conditional contract. So, legally speaking, unbelieving Gentile women enjoyed the same privileges as her husband in all regards and there was no foundation for headship.
In a unilateral marriage covenant, though, the woman was paid for or gifted by her father so, his authority was passed on to the young man (Nub. 30:15-16). Moses added the concession later on (sexual immorality by the one under authority Deut. 24:1). Unilateral covenants are unconditional by nature and this is why Jesus responded to the Pharisees and Scribes in saying that in the beginning divorce did not occur “was not so” (Matt. 19:8b).
In a Jewish marriage, the woman never makes a vow, or says “I do” in a wedding ceremony. Only the man traditionally makes all the promises. The Bride only accepts his proposal with a “cup of acceptance” at the betrothal. The bride never signs the marriage covenant but her father, the groom and two witnesses. Therefore, it was “unlawful” for a Jewish woman to initiate a divorce because she was under his complete authority by acquisition and not by vow.
So, yes, we practice marriages incorrectly and women should have a civil right to divorce a husband if he where to ever break any of the promises that he made to her: to cherish her, be faithful, provide for her, love her etc… Therefore, it is correctly understood that the husband is in breach of contract for neglect, abuse or infidelity in a bilateral marriage covenant. But since this is not what Paul, Jesus or the Bible taught it has caused much confusion.
God’s law (Gen. 3:16) and his principles (Adam and Eve) in Scripture supersedes all marriages covenants; either unilateral or bilateral. So although it is not fair for the type of covenant that a woman entered to be submissive to her husband, it is just. Paul made this clear by saying that a woman is bound to the “law under her husband” Rom. 7:1-2 and 1 Cor. 7:39.
Woman today initiate 75% to 80% of all divorces here in America.
Posted in bible, Christian, Christian living, Christian sales, divorce, Divorce and remarriage, If not for fornication, Jesus, Marriage divorce and remarriage, Matt. 19:9, Matthew 19:9, Paul, remarriage, remarry, what does the bible say about divorce | Leave a comment

Matt. 19:9’s “exception clause” (vs.) 1 Cor. 7:15’s “exception clause”

Paul starts off in 1 Corinthians 7:10 telling us that this is the “Lord’s command” and not his. Why? Well, for two reasons. First, Paul wanted to have a platform of authority on which to build. And secondly, he wanted to speak to the women who had an ability to divorce their husband unlike many of the Jewish women before them. There seemed to be some concern in this letter about the authority of Paul’s personal judgments.

Paul then tells the woman not to “separate” from her husband. There has been some controversy over what this meant, but Matt. 19:6 clears it up very quickly. Matt. 19:6 says, “Therefore what God has joined together, let no man SEPARATE.” It makes sense that Paul referencing the Lord’s command would use the same general word for divorce as Jesus.

Paul says next, “But if the woman separates…” This does not mean that Paul is about to slack on the Lord’s former commands. This word in the Greek could be talking about a woman who has divorced her husband in the: past, present or future. Since this is Paul’s response to their former letter (1 Cor. 7:1) it makes sense that some of the Gentile women could have divorced their husband already in which they questioned Paul. Matter of fact, you can pretty much bet your life on it.

Paul then gives a very specific and, shall we say, dangerous message to the women, “remain unmarried or reconcile to her husband”. There are two things to consider here. One, Paul is still referencing the Lord’s command and two, Paul is clearly giving a message to these Gentile woman in Corinth. Although Jesus did not use these words directly “remain or reconcile” but by understanding Matt. 19:9 (in regards to “committing adultery” in remarriage) this message would be fundamentally correct. The women were not allowed to initiate a divorce, according to the Law of Moses, so marriage to a man other than her first husband (while still alive) would have clearly been considered “adultery” to Jesus (Deut. 24:1, Matt. 19:9).

Paul then ends 1 Cor. 7:11 by saying that the man is not to “divorce” his wife. It is important to note that Paul does not tell the men to “remain unmarried or reconcile” as he did to the woman. Paul is simply telling the men not to divorce their wife. But where is the exception clause of Matt. 19:9? And are they allowed to remarry? It is therefore clear that Paul was referencing the “put away” that Jesus spoke of in Matt. 19:9, both by Greek expression (Antiquities of the Jews 15:259) and the intended use of this word in the next two verses (vss. 12-13). Paul talked about the man’s right to remarry in 1 Cor. 7:27-28 by being “bound” or “loosed” from a wife.

“The Greeks would have been divorcing according to Greco-Roman laws, so there would have been no direct use of the Jewish “put away” with a Writ of Divorce, as used in Matt. 19:9.”

Paul then says in 1 Cor. 7:12 this is what I say, “not the Lord”. Paul wanted to be very clear that his next set of instructions is not going to be referencing the Lord’s commands from the Gospels, but as he felt led by the “spirit” (vss. 25, 40). Paul was said to be a man born out of due time. Paul is going to be giving a message on love, grace, forgiveness and mercy as to believing Gentiles not subject under the Law of Moses.

Paul goes on and tells the men/women not to “divorce” their unbelieving spouse if they want to stay. It is important to ask, “why did the Corinthians think it was permissible to divorce a spouse even though they did nothing wrong?” We can see in this chapter that they did have some questions about the practical application of the Law, such as circumcision (vs. 18). 1 Cor. 8:1 Paul goes on and talks to them about the large idol influence in their culture. Therefore, we can conclude, that their unbelieving spouses were definitely influenced by a culture saturated in paganism.

There was also a time of a pagan practicing culture colliding with the Israelite Nation. Ezra said in 9:14, “Should we again break Your commandments, and join in marriage with the people committing these abominations? Would You not be angry with us until You had consumed us, so that there would be no remnant or survivor?” They were eventually commanded to divorce these abominable women and the children that were born unto them (Ezra 10:3). Therefore; 1 Cor. 7:12-14 was obviously a question the Corinthian’s had about being married to unbelieving pagans.

But, it would only be speculation to conclude Paul was talking about Ezra 10:3 if it were not for the following verse in 1 Cor. 7:14, “…otherwise your children would be unclean, but now they are holy.” If it were not for the sanctification of the Holy Spirit the Corinthians would have been correct in their deductions. Paul later tells them to, “Therefore, “Come out from among them (unbelievers) and be separate, says the Lord. Do not touch what is unclean, and I will receive you.” Meaning unbelievers are called “unclean” in which they were commanded to not be “unequally yoked” with. Nevertheless, Paul tells them to remain in the situation in life that the Lord called them to walk in (vs. 17).

Paul commands (Imperative) the believer to “separate” from the unbeliever in 1 Cor. 7:15. But, many miss the first part of this verse. The unbeliever clearly “separated” from them first, “But if the unbeliever separates, let them separate…” Paul is not saying if they do not want to live with you then divorce them, or giving the believer permission to put an unbeliever out of the home, but if the unbeliever was already in the process of a divorce (active tense) give them the divorce.

The next part in 1 Cor. 7:15-16 is fairly easy to decipher. Paul tells the believers that they are “Not in bondage” in such a situation. The “such case” in vs. 15 means that Paul is going to give an “exception clause” about staying married to their unbelieving spouse. The difference between Jesus’ “exception clause” in Matt. 19:9, and Paul’s “exception clause” in 1 Cor. 7:15 is Jesus was focusing on the sins of remarriage, while Paul was focusing on the considerations about divorce. Therefore; Paul is only talking about a permission to divorce their unbelieving spouse (apart from the Law of Moses) and not giving permission to remarry (according to the Law of Moses).

But, as many cases, context can be the key to understanding words in the Greek. Paul then goes on in the next verse and shows us what they felt in bondage too, “For how do you know, O wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, O husband, whether you will save your wife?” There was obviously some question about staying married to their unbelieving spouses in order to try and save them. Paul wanted to insure the believer that holding onto an unbeliever in marriage did not guarantee their salvation. Paul was releasing them from guilt or sorrow by giving the believer permission to allow the unbeliever a divorce to stimulate “peace” in a rather un-peaceful marriage.

P.S. Although the believers understood Paul’s challenging judgments in this chapter, there was still further question of the death of a husband. Paul uses the word “sleeps” for death in 1 Cor. 7:39. That leads us to believe the woman must have felt bound to a husband that did not taste the second death. Paul told these women you may remarry, but only marry “in the Lord”. Paul later suggests that the young widows remarry due to the weakness of their flesh but older ones to continue to serve the Lord (1 Tim. 5) having been the wife of only one husband.


Scripture was taken from the NKJV.

Love you,

Michael Sayen




Posted in bible, Christian, Christian living, Christian sales, divorce, Divorce and remarriage, If not for fornication, Jesus, Marriage divorce and remarriage, Matt. 19:9, Matthew 19:9, Paul, remarriage, remarry, what does the bible say about divorce | Leave a comment