Edward Ridenour has been a Bible Teacher for over 35 years and is the author of It's Good For A Man Not To Touch A Woman. For additional information or contact, you may visit www.mbgod.com
Posted 6/29/12 at 1:09 AM | Edward Ridenour
Without controversy or exaggeration, it is fair to declare that there have been plenty of oral arguments made and articles written within Christendom regarding divorce. The commentator’s who claim knowledge and understanding of divorce range from every spectrum of position within the Christian faith.
The primary theme predominantly conveyed by these claimants is the well-known statement, which is considered to be the sum of God’s attitude toward divorce – that being “God hates divorce.”
It is taken from Malachi 2:16 where the prophet speaking in place of God says, “he hateth putting away” (KJV). It means one spouse casting away the other spouse from having a joint fellowship together, removing all obligations, physical connections, and provisions the expelled spouse may require or expect.
If so much of what they declare were not so disturbing and detrimental to all Christendom their declarations and counsel would be entertaining.
Posted 3/11/12 at 11:10 AM | Edward Ridenour
In my previous article "BIBLICAL MARRIAGE? Dear Lord I Messed Up!" I proclaimed a confidence that my theological perceptions/applications toward Biblical marriage "possess a significantly more thorough, contextual, and cohesive rendering...than does any other."
I also stated "If one makes an honest effort to incorporate the marital theology of others into Scripture, it doesn't take long to determine that its application either fosters a confusing outcome or is contradicted by Scripture itself...This is why many trained scholars and revisionists explain and rewrite Scripture as they do, because based on their theology it makes no sense to them, as it is written. So, they change it to fit their theology. They have to...And yet, in spite of their inapplicable re-creations and embellishments, confusion and contradiction remain."
In my article "BIBLICAL MARRIAGE: An Honorable Acquisition, and Knowing It," I explained thoroughly how revisionists changed the wording in Hebrews 13:4 rendering the true meaning in this verse "erroneous and incorrect." Another incorrect rendering of Scripture by them was emphasized in my article "Better To Marry Than To Burn."
Now I want to expound on some verses by the Apostle Paul that: 1) Once again, speaks to my theology of Biblical marriage. 2) Is not understood by most, if not all, because of a secular marital mindset, which makes them appear to be contradictive as it is written in the KJV. 3) Again, are incorrectly rewritten in revisions, with a falsely fabricated and indefensible implication, which still doesn't resolve the presumed discrepancy. FULL POST
Posted 2/3/12 at 2:39 PM | Edward Ridenour
To date, I have attempted to teach all aspects of the truth of Biblical marriage, i.e., how it is made, what violates it, the consequences of those violations, and more, particularly to those who declare to be born again members of the body of Christ.
For those of you who have read my book or my articles on this blog, you should have clearly concluded that the theology I teach concerning marriage and fornication is considerably contrary to the theology that is being taught and promoted.
My hope has been that most who have patiently read my articles (meaning, the subject is too deep to write all aspects of marriage in one article, hence the purpose of my book) have viewed each article as:
1) A building block, defining and supporting the reasons for me teaching as I do on Biblical marriage and why it contradicts other teachings on the topic.
2) An insight through God's Word on just how horrible conditions are sexually within Christendom.
3) A Biblically secure, dependable, and defendable exposition of instruction for the church's future purity, example, and promotion of marriage.
The primary evidence that creates the contradiction between marital theologies is plainly the Biblical view of individual sexual intimacy (connections) - its effects and consequences. FULL POST
Posted 11/18/11 at 8:20 PM | Edward Ridenour
Because we were created as sexual human beings with an innate desire and ability to make sexually intimate connections with another, we must not initiate any connection that is outside of what God has designed sexually for us, as a male or female, which is His will.
If a connection is made within His design, it is a marital connection and is clean before Him. If it is made outside of His design, it is a fornicated connection and is unclean before Him. Therefore, as I have very clearly described in my previous CP articles and book, one's sexual intimacies will determine whether one is legitimately married (in the will of God) or committing fornication (violating the will of God).
Why do I infer sexual intimacy when mentioning fornication? I infer this because, whenever fornication is mentioned in the Bible there will be two contexts to which it will reference: It will either be in a strictly spiritual context, as a consequence of the worshipping of false gods (idolatry), incurring a fornication of one's spirit. Otherwise, it will be in the physical context of an inordinate sexually intimate engagement forbidden by God, which is fornication of one's flesh and spirit. My emphasis is on the physical aspect of fornication. FULL POST
Posted 8/14/11 at 3:11 PM | Edward Ridenour
Yep, a déjà vu experience. Biblical marriage is being redefined again. This time, though, it isn't heterosexuals doing the redefining - it is homosexuals. They are determined to have a piece of the farcical marital façade that is promoted and exercised by heterosexuals. This is what happens when you adopt and promote secular marital concepts and call them Biblical. We now have one fornicated union (homosexuals) joining along with another fornicated union (unqualified heterosexuals) rehearsing a secular civil concoction in the name of God, and both declaring a Biblically viable marital oneness. It is all self-deceiving vanity, of course.
Someone will probably say and ask, "Yeah, but secular and Biblical traditions have always promoted marriage between a man and woman and not between two of the same gender. So, how can you say that heterosexuals have redefined marriage?"
Okay, it is very simple, so bear with me.
Yes, secular marriage has traditionally been between a man and woman. However, secularly, it's just a tradition. Secularly, anyone can be married, as long as the tradition is changed by the present generation that wishes to do so, beginning a new tradition. All one has to do is observe and see who is really the force behind the push for homosexual marriage. It is the approval and help of heterosexuals - both religious and secular. There isn't a homosexual population large enough to succeed on their own in procuring approval of these so-called marriages, which have already been granted in certain states. FULL POST
Posted 7/17/11 at 2:10 PM | Edward Ridenour
In a true Biblical marriage (one that is God approved, and I don't mean by a covenant), no government or religious organization has any power or authority in the making of one or annulling one as well. It is exclusively determined and enacted by God and the Christian individual involved.
Note that I said "God and the Christian individual." The reason I said it this way is because true marriage belongs only to God, a Christian man married to a woman, or a Christian woman married to a man and no other.
Biblical marriage is strictly a Christian institution and is hallowed. It is separate from all other marriages. It is a Godly union to the Christian male or female - exclusively. This is so, because it consists of two human beings becoming one flesh by a God induced and God-centered conjoining, based upon their new creation and being attached to Him.
The purpose of this holy conjoining is for God to be glorified in this world through the Christian man or woman He created and in the heavenly depiction that their marriage emits. Through the Christian's commitment (I will address this shortly) exercised in their physical marriage, according to the order and instruction commanded (not suggested) in Scripture, they exemplify their commitment and order in their marriage to Christ as a member of His body – the church. FULL POST
Posted 5/30/11 at 2:24 PM | Edward Ridenour
There was a recent report by The Christian Post saying,
"In an interview with World Magazine, Focus on the Family Chief Executive and President Jim Daly said that people in their 20s and 30s were especially likely to support same-sex marriage. Daly was asked by the magazine how evangelicals were doing in their efforts to support traditional marriage, in comparison to the success they have had advocating against abortion.
He answered: 'We're losing on that one, especially among the 20- and 30-somethings: 65 to 70 percent of them favor same-sex marriage. I don't know if that's going to change with a little more age – demographers would say probably not. We've probably lost that. I don't want to be an extremist here, but I think we need to start calculating where we are in the culture.'"
Mr. Daly is right about losing the argument against homosexual marriage. Also, to me, what is even worse is the age group supporting so-called homosexual marriage. If homosexuality has progressed as far as it has with the more conservative older generation, what will the status be when this new generation become old. If ever right teaching on marriage is needed, it is needed now. FULL POST
Posted 2/10/11 at 11:41 AM | Edward Ridenour
In the state of Nebraska, legislators are scrambling about wondering what to do with the "high rates of sexually transmitted diseases, including the human immunodeficiency virus, among youths in Douglas County," according to an article written in the Omaha World Herald regarding the statements of Nebraska Senator Brenda Council. "Since 1995, the county's rate of Chlamydia infections has outpaced rates in both Nebraska as a whole and the United States. If you look at the population that's being infected in Douglas County, you're looking at 13-, 14-, 15-year-olds, Council said, adding that too many young men rely on medical treatment for sexually transmitted diseases rather than using protection such as condoms."
Even though the school system has been teaching sex education for a long time, it is miserably unsuccessful. Now, Senator Council wants to introduce the teaching of "the benefits of abstinence" into the mix of the smorgasbord of sexual educational solutions, which includes "instruction in the proper use of all contraceptive methods approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. The FDA has OK'd a variety of devices and medications, among them the "morning after" pill that prevents pregnancy after intercourse." Others say by adding this, it will send the wrong mixed message. FULL POST
Posted 1/17/11 at 1:49 PM | Edward Ridenour
In addition to the unfortunate Scriptural misinterpretation, by the church, in believing that the church is the bride of Christ, which influences false perceptions of Biblical marriage and fornication, there is another erred perception, which does the same. This horrific perception is that God in the book of Hosea had instructed the Prophet Hosea to marry (sexually intimate) a prostitute. In my view, those who believe this theory have seriously failed to consider God's holy character and His Word. It is a theory that truly displays a lack of understanding in Biblical marriage and its sanctity, which He designed, as well as the consequences of its violation.
The church has used this prophetic book to support their perception of the church being the bride of Christ and that Christ is constantly forgiving the church for its sins, past and present, which Hosea symbolized by marrying Gomer and taking her back. This is based upon the interpretation that Hosea supposedly married a prostitute (Gomer) on Yahweh's command and, then, she continued in her whoredom, which Hosea forgives, taking her back, works with her, and continued to be a husband to her, without any consequence. FULL POST
Posted 12/29/10 at 5:32 PM | Edward Ridenour
Okay, here is my purpose for declaring and articulating in part 1 why the false notion of the church being the bride of Christ is incongruent with Scripture and destructive to all who apply the misapprehension of it to Biblical marriage and its violation. It is based on a comment made by an individual, which was brought to my attention from a fellow subscriber, regarding my thesis of fornication in my last article - "Fornication: Sinning Against Your Body."
In regard to an adulterous affair that had occurred and whether the innocent spouse would be defiling their self by not putting them away and taking them back, the individual stated, "Of course the prior fornicator can marry. The fornicator can stay married as well. Isn't the marriage between man and woman to emulate the marriage between Christ and His bride? Does not Christ forgive sin within this marriage? Are we not then supposed to forgive sin in our marriages? Does Christ cast out the sinner or did He come to be a physician?"
This is not to ridicule the person who wrote this. They are only emphasizing what they believe and what the church has taught for a very long time. However, it is mistaken and I hope I can convincingly show the reason why it is. FULL POST