:: Unregistered? Register for a user account.

Christian Topics

Christian Friends

There are 4 unlogged users and 0 registered users online.

You can log-in or register for a user account here.


Preferred language:

Topic: Food For Thought

The new items published under this topic are as follows.
See all

Food For Thought

Martin Luther often put a political spin on religious ideas as you will see from reading the following letter in which he and his fellow theologians gave consent to a polygamous marriage. I have only included the last portion of that letter as it includes the sections where Luther and his fellow theologians gave their approval of that polygamous marriage. The letter was written and signed by Luther and other well known theologians of the reformation, some of whom attended the marriage as well. Enjoy reading.

XXI. But after all, if your Highness is fully resolved to marry a second wife, we judge it ought to be done secretly, as we have said with respect to the dispensation demanded on the same account, that is, that none but the person you shall wed, and a few trusty persons, know of the matter, and they, too, obliged to secrecy under the seal of confession. Hence no contradiction nor scandal of moment is to be apprehended ; for it is no extraordinary thing for Princes to keep concubines; and though the vulgar should be scandalized thereat, the more intelligent would doubt of the truth, and prudent persons would approve of this moderate kind of life, preferably to adultery, and other brutal actions. There is no need of being much concerned for what men will say, provided all goes right with conscience. So far do we approve it, and in those circumstances only by us specified ; for the Gospel hath neither recalled nor forbid what was permitted in the law of Moses with respect to marriage. Jesus Christ has not changed the external economy, but added justice only, and life everlasting, for reward. He teaches the true way of obeying God, and endeavors to repair the corruption of nature.

XXII. Your Highness hath therefore, in this writing, not only the approbation [approval] of us all, in case of necessity, concerning what you desire, but also the reflections we have made thereupon; we beseech you to weigh them, as becoming a virtuous, wise, and Christian Prince. We also beg of God to direct all for his glory and your Highness's salvation.

XXIII. As to your Highness's thought of communicating this affair to the emperor before it be concluded, it seems to us that this Prince counts adultery among the lesser sort of sins ; and it is very much to be feared lest his faith being of the same stamp with that of the Pope, the Cardinals, the Italians, the Spaniards, and the Saracens, he make light of your Highness's proposal, and turn it to his own advantage by amusing your Highness with vain words. We know he is deceitful and perfidious, and as nothing of the German in him.

XXIV. Your Highness sees, that he uses no sincere endeavor to redress the grievances of Christendom; that he leaves the Turk unmolested, and labors for nothing but to divide the empire, that he may raise up the house of Austria on its ruins. It is therefore very much to be wished that no Christian Prince would give into his pernicious schemes. May God preserve your Highness. We are most ready to serve your Highness.

Given at Wittenberg the Wednesday after the feast of Saint Nicholas, 1539. Your Highness's most humble, and most obedient subjects and servants,


I George Nuspicher, Notary Imperial, bear testimony by this present act, written and signed with my own hand, that I have transcribed this present copy from the true original which is in Melancthon's own handwriting, and hath been faithfully preserved to this present time, at the request of the most serene Prince of Hesse ; and have examined with the greatest exactness every line and every word, and collated them with the same original; and have found them conformable thereunto, not only in the things themselves, but also in the signs manual, and have delivered the present copy in five leaves of good paper, whereof I bear witness. GEORGE NUSPICHER, Notary.

You have just read the letter of Martin Luther, et al, concerning the proposed marriage of Philip, Landgrave of Hesse, with Margaret de Saal. It was taken from:
The History of the Variations of the Protestant Churches By Jacques Bénigne Bossuet - Bishop of Meaux,
"One of his most Christian Majesty's Honorable Privy Council, Heretofore Preceptor to the Dauphin, and Chief Almoner to the Dauphiness."
In Two Volumes - Translated from the last French Edition. VOLUME I Published 1836

The Marriage Contract of Philip, Landgrave of Hesse, with Margaret de Saal.
In the name of God, Amen. Be it known to all those, as well in general as in particular, who shall see, hear, or read this public instrument, that in the year 1540, on Wednesday, the fourth day of the month of March, at two o'clock or thereabouts, in the afternoon, the thirteenth year of the Indiction, and the twenty-first of the reign of the most puissant and most victorious Emperor Charles V, our most gracious lord; the most serene Prince and Lord Philip Landgrave of Hesse, Count of Catznelenbogen, of Dietz, of Ziegenhain, and Nidda, with some of his Highness's Counsellors, on one side, and the good and virtuous Lady Margaret de Saal with some of her relations, on the other side, have appeared before me, Notary, and witness underwritten, in the City of Rotenburg, in the castle of the same city, with the design and will publicly declared before me, Notary public and witness, to unite themselves by marriage; and accordingly my most gracious Lord and Prince Philip the Landgrave hath ordered this to be proposed by the Reverend Denis Melander, preacher to his Highness, much to the sense as follows :—" Whereas the eye of God searches all things, and but little escapes the knowledge of men, his Highness declares that his will is to wed the said Lady Margaret de Saal, although the Princess his wife be still living, and that this action may not be imputed to inconstancy or curiosity; to avoid scandal and maintain the honor of the said Lady, and the reputation of her kindred, his Highness makes oath here before God, and upon his soul and conscience, that he takes her to wife through no levity, nor curiosity, nor from any contempt of law, or superiors; but that he is obliged to it by such important, such inevitable necessities of body and conscience, that it is impossible for him to save either body or soul, without adding another wife to his first. All which his Highness hath laid before many learned, devout, prudent, and Christian preachers, and consulted them upon it. And these great men, after examining the motives represented to them, have advised his Highness to put his soul and conscience at ease by this double marriage. And the same cause and the same necessity have obliged the most serene Princess, Christina Duchess of Saxony, his Highness's first lawful wife, out of her great prudence and sincere devotion, for which she is so much to be commended, freely to consent and admit of a partner, to the end that the soul and body of her most dear spouse may run no further risk, and the glory of God may be increased, as the deed written with this Princess's own hand sufficiently testifies. And lest occasion of scandal be taken from its not being the custom to have two wives, although this be Christian and lawful in the present case, his Highness will not solemnize these nuptials in the ordinary way, that is, publicly before many people, and with the wonted ceremonies, with the said Margaret de Saal; but both the one and the other will join themselves in wedlock, privately and without noise, in presence only of the witnesses underwritten."—After Melander had finished his discourse, the said Philip and the said Margaret accepted of each other for husband and wife, and promised mutual fidelity in the name of God. The said Prince hath required of me, Notary underwritten, to draw him one or more collated copies of this contract, and hath also promised, on the word and faith of a prince, to me a public person, to observe it inviolably, always and without alteration, in presence of the Reverend and most learned masters Philip Melancthon, Martin Bucer, Denis Melander; and likewise in the presence of the illustrious and valiant Eberhard de Than, counsellor of his electoral Highness of Saxony, Herman de Malsberg, Herman de Hundelshausen, the Lord John Fegg of the Chancery, Rudolph Schenck ; and also in the presence of the most honorable and most virtuous Lady Anne of the family of Miltitz, widow of the late John de Saal, and mother of the spouse, all in quality of requisite witnesses for the validity of the present act. And I Balthasar Rand, of Fuld, Notary public imperial, who was present at the discourse, instruction, marriage, espousals, and union aforesaid, with the said witnesses, and have heard and seen all that passed, have written and subscribed the present contract, being requested so to do; and set to it the usual seal, for a testimony of the truth thereof. BALTHASAR RAND.

You have just read the polygamous Marriage Contract of Philip, Landgrave of Hesse, with Margaret de Saal. It was taken from:
The History of the Variations of the Protestant Churches By Jacques Bénigne Bossuet - Bishop of Meaux,
"One of his most Christian Majesty's Honorable Privy Council, Heretofore Preceptor to the Dauphin, and Chief Almoner to the Dauphiness."
In Two Volumes - Translated from the last French Edition. VOLUME I Published 1836

A final note concerning the polygamous marriage of Philip, Landgrave of Hesse. There cannot be a claim that this was simply a divorce which was called polygamy. Philip's wives lived with him and both had relations with him. During the seven years following Philip's polygamous marriage, nine children were born to him by his wives; Christina of Saxony and Margaret de Saal. Each one of these nine children was conceived after the polygamous marriage had taken place. Between his two wives, Philip had a total of nineteen children; twelve sons and seven daughters. May we all be so blessed!

Posted by: Pastor_Don_Milton on Jan 24, 2008 - 11:49 PM  

Food For Thought

Many lay people and homespun ministers have tried to say that 1 Timothy 3:2 and Titus 1:6 are written against polygamy. However theologians throughout history, have not claimed this. The problem with considering 1 Timothy 3:2 and Titus 1:6 as injunctions against polygamy is two fold.

First, the question arises, why ban polygamy to become a Bishop, Elder, or Deacon but not to remain one. This question cannot be overlooked. There is nothing in the text that suggests whatsoever that the man who becomes a Bishop, Elder, or Deacon may not after having received his office, take more wives and there are certainly no punishments outlined for anyone whosoever that takes more than one wife.

Second, if 1 Timothy 3:2 and Titus 1:6 are bans against polygamy then what is 1 Timothy 5:9 for it says, "Let not a widow be taken into the number under threescore years old, having been the wife of o­ne man." This is why theologians throughout history have not considered 1 Timothy or Titus to have anything to do with polygamy. Paul wouldn't write something so silly that banned something that didn't exist in his time; a woman who was really married to more than o­ne husband. So what is the key to this verse? As always, it's found in the surrounding paragraphs.

In 1 Timothy 5:3 Paul says regarding widows - "Honour widows that are widows indeed." What does Paul mean by this? What characteristics do most harlots and widows share? That's right, children. One of the things that Paul is saying here is NOT to consider a harlot to be a widow. Just because she has children don't assume that she's a widow. Check things out. The woman is required to have been married to the father of her children and he must be deceased in order for her to be considered a widow. She cannot be a runaway bride or a harlot.

1 Timothy 5:3 "Honour widows that are widows indeed" precedes and sets up the understanding for 1 Timothy 5:9 "wife of one husband" making it clear that "wife of one husband" simply means that she has been married already.

1 Timothy 5:3 & 5:9 clarify 1 Timothy 3:2 as well as Titus 1:6 since the phrases "wife of o­ne husband" and "husband of o­ne wife" are identical in form. What they clarify is that we're talking about someone who is or who has been married. So "husband of o­ne wife" means "a man who is or has been married."

The expression "husband of one wife" and "wife of one husband" came to mean something other than one and only, but how? Languages have subtleties that cannot be understood when separated by such great time periods as we are from the original writings. If I say to you that you're "one sharp dude" it doesn't mean the number one, it means "a" and sharp doesn't mean sharp like a knife, it means smart, and dude doesn't mean a guy from the city. It just means a guy. In two thousand years from now you'd need a linguist by your side and lots of hours to study comparative texts to find that out.

But finally, a discovery concerning the expression - Husband of One Wife

Paul's intent was not to ban men who were not Husbands of One Wife from the office of Bishop, Elder, and Deacon but to give them the honor of an exemption from that duty! When we look at Paul's statement from the viewpoint of an exemption from duty rather than a ban from eligibility it sheds an entirely new light on both 1 Timothy 3:2 and Titus 1:6. In order to understand this exemption from duty, yes, this privilege, we must look at two things; the definition of Bishop, Elder, and Deacon AND Jus Trium Liberorum*. You say, Jus Trium Liber-or-what? Stick with me, now. This is a point in history that has been long forgotten, and conveniently so, by those who might have come up with the perfect explanation for 1 Timothy 3:2 and Titus 1:6 long before I have here.

Jus Trium Liberorum* was a status granted citizens of Rome who had at least three children. One of the privileges of Jus Trium Liberorum* was to be exempted from all inconvenient offices. In cities other than Rome, a man was required to have at least four children to be granted such an exemption and in remoter parts of the Roman Empire as many as five or even up to seven children were required to gain such an exemption. It is of note that this new law first made its way through legislation a few years before Christ's birth and had already been fully implemented prior to His crucifixion. Every Roman citizen would have been aware of this new law which gave privileges to those men who had the most children and one of the greatest privileges was to be exempted from holding certain public offices. Now, either husband of one wife had come to mean a man without enough children to qualify for the exemption (and this is the most likely since we can imagine those who serve in offices that nobody else wants having their friends coming up to them kidding, "now here you see, the husband of one wife.") or Paul, aware of this new law, granted  men with more than one wife the same exemption that men with many children had, with the understanding that a man with more than one wife would certainly have many children. Thus, Paul was stating that only a man with one wife, specifically, a man with few children, should be considered for the least sought after positions in the church, namely, that of Elder, Bishop and Deacon. Those with more than one wife were given the privilege of an exemption. Now you're probably asking yourself why in the world wouldn't someone want those high positions in the church of Elder, Bishop, and Deacon. The answer is that those were, and would still be if defined according to the Bible, the least sought after offices in the church. So much so, that Paul had to preface his statement concerning his exemption for those with many children by saying, "This [is] a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work."1 Timothy 3:1. Paul is essentially saying, it's not a worthless job. It's a good work. Today we have the expression to do good works which refers to doing charity work. Just like the good works of charity, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the good works of the offices of Elder, Bishop, and Deacon. Performing such functions is a good work but let's make sure to properly define those offices.

The offices of Elder, Bishop, and Deacon have been incorrectly defined in the minds of both layman and church officials for millennia. This is one reason for the current state of the churches wherein we have unchecked fornication, adultery, and debauchery in nearly every church in the United States. If you don't believe me, answer this question concerning your church: Are ninety percent of the single women over the age of twenty, virgins? How about eighty percent? Would anyone believe, seventy percent? You and I both know that it's likely that no more than thirty percent of the single women in the churches who have attained the age of twenty are virgins. In fact, it's probably closer to ten percent, and why is this? It's because the churches do not have Elders or Bishops as defined by the Bible! The comparable civil office to the church office of Elder is Sheriff and the comparable civil office to the church office of Bishop is Deputy. A Deacon is merely an administrative assistant. Take a look at the following Strong's Concordance definitions of these church offices if you don't believe me.

Elder: Those who in separate cities managed public affairs and administered justice.
[This definition applies within the church in the capacity of a prosecutor.]

Bishop: Investigation, inspection, visitation.
[This definition applies within the church in the capacity of a sheriff.]

Now, don't get confused. When you look at Strong's Concordance it will list other definitions concerning what functions are performed by such officials in the church. That is exactly my point. The definitions of the words have been changed by various churches but the words still mean what they meant when they were written and they were written before any such offices existed. They were written when the words meant exactly what you read in the definitions I've listed above!

From these you can see that within the Church, an Elder is a unpaid Sheriff or an unpaid District Attorney or for those of you in Europe an unpaid Chief Inspector whose function is to oversee, i.e., police those who are members of the church. The Elder administers justice. He does NOT administer the church. And again, at the time of Paul, he was unpaid even though the position required a huge amount of work. He worked on behalf of the apostle of the appointed area or on behalf of the pastors of the area but he did not administer the church!

Let's look at what the Bishop does. He is the one who actually goes out to do the investigations, inspections, and visitations. These are not pastoral visitations. They would not likely be welcomed by those being visited and in many cases, the Bishop might dread going on the visitation to determine the facts concerning the the misdeeds of Church members.

So what do we have in a church without Elders and Bishops who carry out the true duties of Elders and Bishops? We have unchecked fornication of the kind that has never been seen in the history of the Christian Church. The sins of the Popes, Cardinals, and Friars pale in comparison to the sins of the present day Protestant Church! Need I say, REPENT!

One of the reasons that these offices have not been filled in accordance with Scripture is that they truly are offices that nobody wants. Would you like to go to someone's house to discuss their wayward son's taking the virginity of two of the young women in the church? If you're normal, the answer is no. This is why the Apostle Paul commanded Timothy to do what? To appoint Elders in every city and as you can see from the definition of Bishop, the Bishops were to be under the supervision of the Elder in each city who, as I've already explained, served at the pleasure of either the Apostle for the region or the Pastors in that region.

Deacon: A servant, attendant, domestic, to serve, wait upon.

No more comment need be made on the office of Deacon other than to say, few would want such an office. All of the aforementioned offices would certainly be categorized when properly defined as "inconvenient" to say the least and therefore Paul exempted those with many children from serving in those offices. Certainly Paul did not err in handing out privileges to those who were following God's command to multiply, not to mention that carrying out the duties of Elder and Bishop could be greatly hindered by a large family. (Again, don't get confused with your own definition of Elder and Bishop. An Elder and Bishop could be required to work long hours. Think of how many officials it would take to clean up all the churches in your community of their present state of immorality!)

From the above explanation we can see that half of the function of the Church is crippled. One part of a church's function is evangelizing and exhorting but the other is to maintain discipline within the congregations. That discipline requires the properly assigned Church offices of Elder and Bishop. Clearing up these definitions and explaining Jus Trium Liberorum* not only takes care of explaining 1 Timothy 3:2 and Titus 1:6 but it also explains 1 Timothy 5:9 for why would Paul say that a widow, in order to be on the widow's list must be the "wife of one man" if not for the fact that the wife of one man would have few children and would not have anyone to take care of her. The wife of more than one man, after the death of the first, of course, would be likely to have many children who could take care of her. Paul further clarifies his point as we see in 1 Timothy 5:16 that it is the relatives who are to take care of their widows so that the church might only take care of those "that are widows indeed."

So we see that 1 Timothy 3:2 and Titus 1:6 are exemptions, not prohibitions. Paul's point isn't that a man who is not the "husband of one wife" is disqualified from becoming an Elder, Bishop, or Deacon, but that the man with more wives, thus, more children, is exempt from such unwanted duties. As I've already pointed out, prior to Paul's giving this exemption he felt it necessary to explain that even though men who are not "a husband of one wife" (men with lots of children) are exempted from such offices, the taking of such an unwanted office is a good thing and that no man should be ashamed of accepting these positions. Read 1 Timothy 3:1 again:

This [is] a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. 1 Timothy 3:1

Again, as I've already said, if such an office were highly sought after, why would Paul need to make such a statement prior to exempting men with many children from the office?

I want to make sure, also, that you understand that neither an apostle, prophet, evangelist, pastor, nor teacher is an Elder, Bishop or Deacon. Whether one could successfully execute both offices is debatable, nonetheless, they are separate and unique functions in the Church.

Before closing I'd like you to consider the following. When Paul gave his instructions to Timothy and Titus, he was giving them with the understanding that Timothy and Titus would be selecting officers from their own congregations. In other words, Timothy and Titus would be selecting from men who had been baptized in their churches, were receiving communion without restriction, and were in good standing. Timothy and Titus surely would not have been so imprudent to do otherwise. If Paul found it necessary to give the exemption from serving as Elder, Bishop, and Deacon to men who were not "the husband of one wife" then we know that there were men who were not "the husband of one wife" within the congregations of both Timothy and Titus, period! If polygamy was so bad then why in the world would Paul give polygamists special privileges?

* Jus Trium Liberorum is the term frequently used to describe what is more accurately called the Lex Papia Poppaea, A.D. 9, which granted special privileges to men with many children and punished celibacy by limiting the rights of single men. This can account for Paul's discussions on celibacy which should not be taken as encouraging celibacy but as defending the right of a man or woman to voluntarily choose marriage instead of feeling compelled to marry by government decree. The Lex Papia Poppaea decreed punishments such as the loss of inheritance rights for those who remained single after having attained puberty up to the age of fifty for women and sixty for men. A man or woman was given one hundred days to get married upon finding out they were the beneficiary of an inheritance or forfeit the inheritance. The Lex Papia Poppaea also specified certain forbidden marriages because of class distinctions. There are many more interesting details of this Roman law which I'll address in another article.

References: A Systematic and Historical Exposition - ROMAN LAW - In the Order of a Code by W. A.Hunter EMBODYING THE INSTITUTES OF GAIUS AND THE INSTITUTES OF JUSTINIAN, TRANSLATED INTO ENGLISH BY J. ASHTON CROSS, B.A. of Balliol College, Oxford, BARRISTER-AT-LAW, Fourth Edition 1803

Note: Pastor Don Milton received his Bachelor of Arts in Linguistics from the University of Washington in 1987, has studied five languages and regularly speaks a language other than his own.

If you have questions or comments concerning this article please
click here
to send a message to Pastor Don.

Posted by: Pastor_Don_Milton on Mar 10, 2005 - 10:24 PM  

Food For Thought

Marriage licenses are not required by God. However, God does require a man to provide a Bill of Divorcement in the event that he divorces his wife. That Bill of Divorcement is not issued by the state. It is issued by the husband. According to the Bible, a woman is not free to remarry without a Bill of Divorcement issued by her husband. A government divorce is not valid unless the husband considers it to represent a Bill of Divorcement from him at the time of the divorce.

Note: If you have questions or comments concerning this article please
click here
to send a message to Pastor Don.

Posted by: Pastor_Don_Milton on Feb 14, 2005 - 11:33 PM  

Food For Thought

Many ministers refer to Rahab as a prostitute and wax eloquent with stories (made up) of what her life may have been like before Israel gave her protection. In fact, in the least inclusive sense of the word "harlot" she could have been a never married woman who was not a virgin; also known as a whore. For those of you who are shocked that I call a woman who has had sexual relations without the benefit of marriage a whore, get out your Bible and read it. You'll find that it is the Bible that calls women who have had sexual relations without the benefit of marriage fornicators and whores. Click Here - to read my article with the scriptural proof.

So if you're a whore or a man who fornicates by having relations with your whore (you probably call her your girlfriend) is there anything you can do? Yes, first recognize who you are. You're a fornicator. Second turn away from your wickedness and turn to the Lord. If the woman was a virgin when you took her then you are commanded by Exodus 22:16 to make her your wife.

By faith the harlot Rahab perished not with them that believed not, when she had received the spies with peace. Hebrews 11:31

Turn to the God of Israel and be saved. Turn away from your sins. Rahab turned to God and her name now appears in the pages of the Bible! Yes, Rahab was a whore just like you may be but after she turned to God in faith she became a woman of faith. She even made it into the genealogy of Jesus.* If you think you are a woman or man of faith but are having sexual relations without the benefit of marriage then you are lying to yourself. You are not a woman or man of faith. You are a fornicating dog and will return to your vomit or a sweathog who will return to your filth.*

Isaiah 55:7
"Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts: and let him return unto the LORD, and He will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for He will abundantly pardon."

*Matthew 1:5&6 And Salmon begat Boaz of Rahab; and Boaz begat Obed of Ruth; and Obed begat Jesse; And Jesse begat David the king; and David the king begat Solomon of her [that had been the wife] of Uriah;

*2Peter 2:22 But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog [is] turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire.

Note: If you're an unmarried woman in America you're probably a harlot, just like Rahab. To be unmarried and not be a virgin is to be a harlot unless you were raped and shouted out for help. Deuteronomy 22:23&24 explains how in order for a virgin to claim she was forced into having sexual intercourse that she must have been heard screaming in resistance. If the intercourse happened in an area where she could not have been heard screaming then her innocence is presumed.

If you have questions or comments concerning this article please
click here
to send a message to Pastor Don.

Posted by: Pastor_Don_Milton on Feb 14, 2005 - 07:13 PM  

Food For Thought
Some of this story actually happened and some didn't.

My son, Josiah, poked his head in the door and said, "Johnny's saying a bad word."

"What bad word?" I said.

"He keeps saying 'Oh my God.' and he won't stop."

"Tell him to stop saying it or he has to go home."

"I did but he won't stop."

I leaned out the door and said to Johnny.

"Johnny, we don't say 'Oh my God' o­n this property. If you want to say that you'll have to go home. When you say 'Oh my God' you're making God into a tiny thing. God is not some tiny expression. He made the world."

Johnny came back later that day. My son, Josiah came in again saying, "Johnny's saying a bad word again."

"What's he saying this time?" I said.

Note: Some might think that I would quote "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain" in regards to using God's name as an expression, however that commandment refers to lying while under an oath taken in God's name. When you say "Oh my God" you're actually admitting a disbelief in God's presence in your life and you are reducing God to a tiny expression, not a personal Savior and the Creator of all things.

If you have questions or comments concerning this article please
click here
to send a message to Pastor Don.

Posted by: Pastor_Don_Milton on Jan 26, 2005 - 04:37 PM  Read full article: 'Have you reduced God to an expression?' (958 more words)

Food For Thought

Gay Marriage or Same Sex Marriage is not marriage at all. It is easiest to explain this by explaining the basis for marriage. Marriage began with the removal of a rib from Adam. God formed Eve from that rib and ever since that day, man has naturally been drawn to his rib, to his Eve and that rib, that Eve, has been drawn back to her man, her Adam. Regardless of what attraction a person may feel toward another person, it is impossible for it to be that same attraction between the sexes that began with the removal of Adam's rib if that attraction is not for a member of the opposite sex. Men who are drawn to the false god of homosexuality must renounce this form of idolatry and turn to the Lord in repentance.

Note: If you're a homosexual and realize that you need treatment for this serious mental and spiritual disorder please visit the following site for more information:http://www.narth.com/docs/repair.html

If you have questions or comments concerning this article please
click here
to send a message to Pastor Don.

Posted by: Pastor_Don_Milton on Jan 26, 2005 - 05:58 AM  Read full article: '"Gay" Marriage' (416 more words)

Food For Thought
Many ministers would like rich Christian men to believe that Jesus came to make life worse for them, specifically, to tell them that they are not allowed to have more than o­ne wife even when they can afford it. I have no idea how their minds could be so fogged as to think such a thing. Jesus made it clear that divorce was because of hardened hearts. He never denied any man more than o­ne wife, rich or poor. Jesus was simply clarifying that a man must not use divorce to get additional wives; that a man must keep his wife and not swap her out for a trophy wife like the monogamists do.

Note: If you have questions or comments concerning this article please
click here
to send a message to Pastor Don.

Posted by: Pastor_Don_Milton on Jan 10, 2005 - 02:45 AM  

Food For Thought
I'm often asked to define adultery. The following is also a common question:

Isn't it adultery when a married man has relations with a single woman?

The Bible defines adultery as sexual relations between any man and the wife or betrothed of another man.

Genesis 20:3 But God came to Abimelech in a dream by night, and said to him, Behold, thou [art but] a dead man, for the woman which thou hast taken; for she [is] a man's wife.

Leviticus 20:10 And the man that committeth adultery with [another] man's wife, [even he] that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.


Pastor Don Milton teaches what the Bible teaches about marriage. Nothing more, nothing less. You're encouraged to write Pastor Don with any questions you may have.

If you have questions or comments concerning this article please
click here
to send a message to Pastor Don.

Posted by: Pastor_Don_Milton on Jan 10, 2005 - 12:52 AM  Read full article: 'Adultery defined.' (129 more words)

Food For Thought
How many do you go to when you seek spiritual advice?

According to the Bible you should not o­nly seek the advice of many but the advice of those who put the Lord's Word above all else. Let's take a look at what the Bible says about "Wise Counsel." Click the Read More text link below to read this entire article.

Note: Pastor Don Milton supports the Biblical teaching of Marriage. His position o­n marriage is that not o­nly must we know what the Bible teaches to have a greater understanding of our own marriages but we must understand Christian Marriage to understand the very nature of our relationship with the Lord.

If you have questions or comments concerning this article please
click here
to send a message to Pastor Don.

Posted by: Pastor_Don_Milton on Jan 09, 2005 - 08:27 AM  Read full article: 'Wise Counsel' (336 more words)

Food For Thought
Pastor Don: If you know anyone with a work visa for the United States we would hire them as a nanny. We'd pay for their ticket too.
Sally: Hmmm getting a US visa is soo difficult Don. Is it hard if you sponsor the visa? I mean provide the supporting documents?
Pastor Don: I don't know what documents you'd need but I think it's very hard.
Sally: Yes I think so too. I mean not for me, but for your nanny
Pastor Don: You can't really petition for a nanny from a third world country.
Sally: Well, I couldn't be a nanny anyway. I like kids so much, but it's a tough job. Ha ha.
Pastor Don: I'm a nanny and a ceo.
Sally: Ha ha.
Pastor Don: And a CDO
Sally: CDO?

Note: This discussion took place between Pastor Don and a friend of his, Sally. Some clarifications were made in this article that were not found in the original discussion. Sally is not the real name of the friend.

If you have questions or comments concerning this article please
click here
to send a message to Pastor Don.

Posted by: Pastor_Don_Milton on Jan 08, 2005 - 08:53 PM  Read full article: 'A friendly conversation.' (1351 more words)

Food For Thought

The flag, improperly used, can become an idolatrous image. Keep in mind that Christians are not even to pray to images of our Lord, how much more are we forbidden from pledging to an object that represents a country which certainly is not God. The Pledge of Allegiance must be rewritten so that it is not an idolatrous act. Christians should demand this. Not one of the Founding Fathers of the United States said the Pledge of Allegiance.

Note: Regardless of recent events, Pastor Don Milton insists that we cannot break the Ten Commandments in order to look patriotic. There is no excuse to pray to anyone other than God nor to pledge to anyone other than the Lord or those who follow him as a people or to pledge oneself to the ideals represented in God's word or those documents that are based on His word such as the U.S. Constitution. To do more is to commit idolatry.

If you have questions or comments concerning this article please
click here
to send a message to Pastor Don.

Posted by: Pastor_Don_Milton on Jan 07, 2005 - 08:11 AM  Read full article: 'The Pledge of Allegiance - Socialistic or Patriotic?' (727 more words)

Food For Thought
It is frequently supposed that Adam had o­nly o­ne wife. It is true that there are no verses saying that Adam had more than o­ne wife but neither are there verses saying that he had o­ne and o­nly o­ne wife. We are left o­nly to conjecture. That conjecture however can lead to lively discussions. In the following discourse I argue that it is highly likely that Adam had more than o­ne wife while the imaginary Zeke argues against me.

How could Adam possibly have had more than o­ne wife when Leviticus 20:14 specifically forbids it? "And if a man take a wife and her mother, it [is] wickedness: they shall be burnt with fire, both he and they; that there be no wickedness among you."

Pastor Don:
Your reference would apply if Adam existed after the "law." For Romans 5:13 states: "For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law." Relations between close relatives were o­nly forbidden after the law. Consider Moses, his mother was Jochebed. Jochebed married Amram, her own nephew. This marriage was forbidden by the very law that Moses himself delivered from Mount Ararat! Exodus 6:20 "And Amram took him Jochebed his father's sister to wife; and she bare him Aaron and Moses: and the years of the life of Amram [were] an hundred and thirty and seven years."

Note: Pastor Don Milton comments on controversial issues concerning marriage that other ministries ignore. You may write him and have your questions discussed as well.

If you have questions or comments concerning this article please
click here
to send a message to Pastor Don.

Posted by: Pastor_Don_Milton on Jan 01, 2005 - 12:54 AM  Read full article: 'Did Adam Marry Other Wives?' (647 more words)

Site Search


You who claim to be enlightened, the great pride that you take in your humility reveals your true nature.

-- Pastor Don Milton --

Other Stories

Chat with Pastor Don