One of mankind’s (men and women alike) most devastating sins is to make excuses for their sins. “Oh, God made me this way and therefore I am innocent.” Check this out. It speaks of women who are just as prone to sexual sins as men,

“The way of an eagle in the air; the way of a serpent upon a rock; the way of a ship in the midst of the sea; and the way of a man with a maid. Such is the way of an adulterous woman; she eateth, and wipeth her mouth, and saith, I have done no wickedness”. (Pro 30:19-20).

It boils down to, “Well, you know, it is quite natural for an eagle to soar through the air and for a reptile to slide on its belly and for a ship to sail on the sea. So, there is nothing wrong or wicked with my sexual desires and practices with many men.” I have heard of so-called hen parties for brides the night before their wedding where male strippers entertain the women. Oh, there is nothing wrong with having a little fun the night before your wedding, so they say. Well, if you compare it to the blinding light of God’s awesome holiness, it is extremely sinful. I am sure you get the drift.

Having levelled the playing field, it is necessary to understand the difference between carnal sin like sexual adultery and spiritual adultery (wrong or false doctrines). Although false doctrine is extremely sinful, it is not the same as the general sins that we do. You can have all your ducks in a row regarding correct biblical doctrine and still sin otherwise. Paul mentions this in Roman 7.

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. But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead. For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died. And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death. For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me. Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good. Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful. For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin. For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I. If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good. Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.” (Rom 7:7-17).

The word “concupiscence,” as you may know means to have strong forbidden sexual or lustful desires for the opposite sex outside the confines of the marital bond. Paul loved God’s laws (doctrines and teachings) and yet it slew him, i.e. it acted like a mirror that made him acutely aware of his inborn carnal nature which had nothing, NOTHING good in it; The only thing it can and could do was to make him sin, no matter how hard and earnestly he tried to please God. It is so strong that Paul compares it to being sold (a complete cop-out) under sin. Those who say, “‘n man is ‘n bok en ‘n bok is ‘n #$@&#*!.” love their cop-out of being sold under sin. They have no desire to be rid of it, and like the woman in Proverbs 30 they eat and wipe their mouth in innocence and say, “I have done no wickedness.” The danger with this is that it eventually hardens the heart so much to the extent that it becomes insensible to the promptings and convictions of the Holy Spirit.

You may argue that Paul was not referring to adultery as in being unfaithful to your spouse because he was not married. He was also referring to porneia from whence the English word “pornography” and the Afrikaans “pornografie” comes and has more to do with looking at scantily dressed and naked women in pictures and videos or hard pornography. Thayer’s Greek Lexicon defines porneia as:

1) illicit sexual intercourse
1a) adultery, fornication, homosexuality, lesbianism, intercourse with animals etc.
1b) sexual intercourse with close relatives; Lev. 18
1c) sexual intercourse with a divorced man or woman; Mark 10:11,Mark 10:12
2) metaphorically the worship of idols
2a) of the defilement of idolatry, as incurred by eating the sacrifices offered to idols

The latter kind of adultery was why God forbade the Israelite to marry pagan women. Look what happened when they disobeyed. They were lured into the most heinous pagan festivals and sacrifices of those days, for instance, sacrificing babies to the idol Molech, a.k.a. King Solomon, and King Ahab.

There is no justification whatsoever for looking at a woman lustfully. Jesus called it adultery and an adulterer cannot enter the Kingdom of God. (Ephesians 5:5). They need to repent and stop doing and justifying their sin. The notion that typical maleness, okay’s lustful desires, is the most anti-biblical one I’ve ever heard. It is as you said, “I do think with this remark they are calling themselves GOATS and not SHEEP!!!”

There is a lot more we can say about the sin of adultery and pornography, but for now it is suffice to say that men in particular have a great problem with this. My heart bleeds for the young Christian men who are being exposed to this kind of thing on a daily basis, even in churches where women dress like harlots rather than like God-fearing Christian women.

Woe unto the world because of offences! For it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man (and woman) by whom the offence cometh! (Mat 18:7).

Does this “not having” the doctrine of Jesus, include the believe many men have, that looking at women lustfully, in other words, whether looking at pornography even if it is only “soft porn” (pictures of scantily clad women), or checking out body parts of women in daily life, is not sin? The reason that I am asking is because most Christian men I know believe that God made them in such a way that they will always look (go looking) at such soft porn type pictures and also that they will always check out women’s breasts and buttocks etc. It is even said that if a man doesn’t do this he should go and see a doctor, because then something is wrong with him (he is not a man).They also say that as long as they “only look” without any thoughts about adultery/undressing/kissing/touching/etc., “the looking wasn’t lustful”. So for example, seeing a woman in a newspaper article stating that she is a nude model, Burlesque stripper or pornstar and then searching her name on Google to “just see pictures” of her to “just admire” (in bikinis, underwear, seductive/see through clothing and poses) – is not lust. It is just looking.

Can this also be considered as ,”not abiding in the doctrine of Christ”? Because I do think that these men make up their own “doctrine” which suits the lust of their eyes/flesh. They proclaim God made them to behave this way permanently and that it is not sin and they use scripture to justify this claim. Apparently Adam exclaimed that Eve is beautiful (Adam actually said “flesh of my flesh”) and David did what he did (not referring to the adultery with Bathsheba but to the many wives) because he is a man (not a sinful man, just a typical male) and Song of Solomon explains that men would always want the most beautiful women because God made them to be this way (It actually describes how a man should see his own wife). There is many verses that I can give which they use to try and justify “just looking”. I think scripture (and mere logic) contradicts this view they have and that scripture actually tells us that this behaviour of men is not God’s design but sinful man’s lusts which is contrary to the Word and Spirit of God. A typical comment I have heard uttered by Christian men is this ” ‘n man is ‘n bok en ‘n bok is ‘n #$@&#*!. The swear word is however not said but implied. I do think with this remark they are calling themselves GOATS and not SHEEP!!!

Your input would be much appreciated. Kind Regards, K (also on your “Exposing false teachings in South Africa” FB page). 😉

Dear Eric

You said “There is no “7 year tribulation” mentioned in the Bible so why not take your argument all the way?”

We do, in another articles. This article is about the falling away.

You can start with this one: https://www.discerningtheworld.com/2013/09/17/daniels-seventy-weeks/

You might want to read this one too: Amillennialism vs Dominionism

You can read all articles on pre-trib rapture and THE 7 year tribulation here: https://www.discerningtheworld.com/category/topics-of-interest/rapture-tribulation/

Sheepdog

If “it’s not pre-trib,” what is it? – A NAR revival?