Відео

Here we go again; another American pastor sidesteps and explains away the Bible’s clear stance on divorce and remarriage. With love and respect, I must tell you that your beliefs on this topic contradict Jesus, his apostles, and the early Church Fathers.

My thoughts Greek is not needed to understand. God made it so that all could understand and grasp the Law of Christ! Sin is sin whether you are in Christ or not in Christ If you hate for no reason someone before you are in Christ ... baptized ... the goal is that a person would have a change mind toward that person they hate ... whether before or after ... it should not permit someone from being baptized. Sometimes people come to an understanding of Truth later ... and then make the change ... whthee in marriage or theft or hatred or any sin. Sometimes a person has to search his or heart and come to an understanding of Scriptures in what Christ taught to forgive your enemy or leave the adultress marriage or confession of theft. Same would apply to any sin ... As long as one understands what baptism is for ... then baptize them into Christ!

Matthew 3:11, John says I baptized you for repentance, which means to get ready to receive Jesus, and you will be baptized by the Holy Spirit and fire. Baptism means repenting to receive Christ for the forgiveness of sins. Baptism is not required for salvation, but repentance and faith are. This is why we are saved by grace through faith, Ephesians 2:8-9. If anything else is added for salvation, then it is no longer grace but works. God only wants true repentance and true faith to enter heaven just like the thief on the cross. Acts 10:43-44, these Gentiles are saved when they believe Peter's message then baptized after. Baptism after salvation means declared righteous or one has repented and accepted Christ, so to express a good conscience, nothing more.

You need to understand who Jesus was talking to! Jews! Not gentiles.Jews who had the Word of God and killed their Messiah. Gentiles did not.

Brother, I appreciate you having the courage to talk about this because it invites a lot of strong criticism, but in spite of that, there are folks who need to hear this. My father-in-law was married in his early 20s to his first wife. His marriage ended after a few brief years. He married his wife of now almost 40 years. My wife is the product of the second (and current) marriage. My father-in-law recomitted his life to God about 10 years into the second marriage. Now, while I don't believe the first divorce was God's will, does it honestly make sense that for in order for his soul to be saved, he must separate from his now wife whom he has children and grand children with? Does God want that? I just can't see it.

Thank you for this.

In Jeremiah 3, the Lord said that Israel committed adultery against Him. His response wasn’t “you’re okay to keep worshiping idols as long as you repent.” He told them they wouldn’t be in a right relationship until they come back which implies leaving that idolatrous relationship. Jer. 3:13-14 says they needed to leave that relationship, why would he expect any different from his children today in actual adultery? Also I really don’t understand this “repent of the attitude” mindset. It would be like an alcoholic saying he doesn’t have the attitude of an alcoholic while drinking all day and night. It makes zero sense. How does one repent of the attitude of adultery while continuing to stay in a relationship that began with the attitude of adultery.

The bibles states it does. We can be certain a pastors opinion of scripture is always flawed.

People look at coc as a cult because they are under the impression that if they don’t belong to a local coc congregation, or have the same understanding as them, continuing with them, then there’s no salvation. People in the coc press the idea that heaven can only be reached with them and absolutely no other Cristian group.

Bro.Mike..you do have a good argument, It makes no sense that we get our own lives right before being baptized, I think we are to obey the gospel and let the word of God conform us..however repentance is ongoing in a Christians life everyday, my mind goes to 2 Corinthians 5:17..Thank you for these studies..may the Lord continue to bless you!

So is true that we hear...believe...GET OUR OWN LIVES PERFECT(Repentance) Confess...Be baptized? Or do we obey the Gospel and let God decide our purpose in Life..2 Corinthians 5:17...either this verse is true or its false?

The promise of the Holy Spirit is salvation. That’s what Peter was talking about in acts2:38. go to the next sermon Peter gave, and he explains it. Acts 3:17.All through the old testament the prophets were promising that a Messiah would come and save them. That was the promised the Holy Spirit kept making about Jesus.

What about what Gus Nichols in his debate with Roy Deaver in 1973. What about the greek that Roy Deaver used in this debate. Who won this debate? Some think Gus Nichols did. Thomas B Warren can be heard in the background going on and on.

I'd like to see you and Aaron Gallagher talk about this together.

At what point does this subject need to be formally debated? The Church has extremely smart educated Preachers/Elders who can reasonably challenge Mike Hisaw on this important subject. Bruce Reeves comes to mind and I know how to reach him with an offer Let me know

You think that if you steal something that you can keep it and that’s alright with God as long as you repent? That’s pretty wild. Doesn’t repentance imply making wrongs right because you’re sorry for what you did?

If you have to divorce to repent of that sin then there are two interesting facts to contend with - 1) The Bible still says, "God hates divorce", it doesn't say, "God hates the initial divorce but subsequent divorces may or may not be approved, every situation is fact dependent." 2) That would be the ONLY sin that you have to fix in order to repent. For example, if you steal, nothing says you must pay back the person you stole from - it says, repent, go forth and sin no more. I find no where that we are required to perform any action, apart from repenting, to be forgiven, for any sin (I know some people consider this argument sophomoric or weak - but none the less, it's true). I don't give two hoots and a holler about being liberal or conservative. I care that I have studied and I did the best I could do. There are more than a few sound C of C preachers and elders who believe as you do.

Good points 2 views on this passage. 1. Divorce for the cause of sexual immortality, inluding adultery itself, homosexuality, beastiality, and any other types of fornication. 2. She wasn't a virgin. The second reason has a lot of fallacy in it because the penalties in the Old Testament for a woman pretending to be a virgin are the same for adultery...death. Jesus allows you to put away a wife if shes not really a virgin but not for adultery? Not logical. Ill add a little to the 1st reason, which is what you addressed. Ok. So of your spouse commits adultery, the divorce is lawful, and remarriage is acceptable. But if it's an unlawful divorce, then the remarriage is a constant state of adultery. The only way you can commit adultery is if you're currently married, therefore your still married to your first spouse? So why can't the spouse who didn't commit adultery and honored the marriage now go and get a second divorce because your spouse just committed adultery on you? Lastly, Jesus told the woman at the well that she (had) five husbands, not (has).

Most wouldn't believe even if Jesus told them..Mark 16:16

really appreciated the tone you guys struck. It was gentle and firm and stood in stark contrast to the clips you played

We're nothing without the Holy Spirit, but everything with Him. We need the washing and regeneration of the Holy Spirit to help us to love God and others, to conquer sins and the devil, to live holy and righteous as obedience to God. No one can bear fruits and abide in Christ without the Holy Spirit.

This is ridiculous. There is nothing to debate. Scripture is as clear as water on this. NO

The Spirit is absolutely personable and indwells believes . You’d have to rewrite the Bible to say he’s in the word only

You should go by Liberal! Conservative Churches of Christ only authority is the Bible.

I listened to this video -- the one in which your dogets you know she wa ts attention -- two times, from start to finish. I couldn't believe I heard it right the first time. But the second hearing confirmed yku sayi g wbat verb forms Jesus "shod have used". Putting aside the scholarly corrections of the linguistics of the Son of God; you criticise preachers who came before you for wanting to be consistent more than they wanted to be correct linguistically. This is unconscionable.

Like calling a wedding just a "ceremony".-LOL! Baptism-It's not our work, it's God's work in us. He that began a good work in you(by HIs Spirit) see Colossians (2:11). We are not "participating" in any work, unless believing God wlll do what he promises when we submit to baptism in faith is a work. Is believing by itself a meritorious work? Isn't it something You do? Who does it? Is confession something you do or does God do the confession for you? Is repenting something you do or does God do the repenting for you? JUst asking.. Is quoting the Sinners' Prayer something You do? Are you participating? Are you helping God save you when you believe in JEsus? Can he save you without you believing? Can he save you without you repenting? If not, then aren't you "participating" in the saving of your soul? JUst sayin. When Peter said to the Jews on Pentecost in Acts 2, "save yourselves from this untoward generation" was he expecting them to do something? Would it not be what he commaned them in vs:38? Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of JEsus for the remission of your sins? Was Peter telling them to do meritorious works to be saved? Of course not! It's called obeying the gospel. Doing what God through PEter tells you to do to be right with God isn't you meriting anything. If Believing JEsus died for our sins is obeying a command towards salvation and not a work, then why not believing and submitting to let someone dunk you? JUst sayin. Isn't that what JEsus himself said. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved? DId JEsus say that? Some would interpret that verse this way: HE that believeth(grace) and is baptized(works) shall be saved. Can you honestly not see how stupid that reads that way? If belieiveth is grace, then so is and is baptized. lest you make JEsus play some type of mumbo -jumbo word salad deceitful game.

I have a few questions? Elders are to be the husband of one wife. Does that not imply that others in the church had more than one wife or why would this even be a qualification if every Christian already had only one wife? 2nd, In ! Cor 6 it mentions sexual immorality and says, such were some of you but now you are washed? Were they not cleared of adultery and that sin washed away? It doesn't say, that any of them had put away their wives. Is it not true that Roman women counted their age by the number of husbands they had yet there were saints in Ceasars household. Seeing 2 out 3 marriages in America end in divorce and have blended families does that mean they must be celibate or go to hell? Isn't forbidding to marry a doctrine of the Devil according the scriptures? I'm not trying to find loop holes, I want to right with God; yet I find it amazing we would restrict baptizing anyone!

Water baptism in Jesus' name is HOW we show our faith. There's no other way.

With 2 out of 3 marriages ending in divorce and most of those are non-scriptural divorces. Can we truly go into the world and preach the gospel expecting these people who have remarried maybe even numerous times to have to re- divorce to make it to heaven? And live a life of forbidding to marry which is a doctrine of the devil according to Paul

We are saved by grace through faith through water baptism which is the work of God. John 6:28 and Colossians 2:12 and Titus 3:5. I still disagree on James 2:24 but I do understand the important of a living obedient faith to Gods word.

We have to look at the John/Herod exchange in the context of Leviticus 18:16 - a brother could not marry his brother’s wife while the brother was alive. John spoke truthfully on the matter, but we cannot use this passage to expand the MDR doctrine beyond Jesus’ teachings. Ultimately you do not see a screening process for marriage status throughout the book of Acts. Then we have to consider 2 Corinthians 5:17 - is a new creature shackled by old sin? There is danger in legislating from one section of Scripture when we don’t see it practically executed in the rest of the New Testament. “Let not man put asunder” is a prohibition, but does not declare it to be impossible. When Paul declares elders and deacons are to be the husband of one wife, it would seem such candidates must show a special fidelity to be considered. MDR became an issue in the 1930s when the brotherhood papers started examining the concept. It was not widely agreed upon until the 1970s or so when the last of the dissenters died, and our current MDR doctrine was codified by our bishop editors.

The problem is looking at the “remarriage “ as sin when scripture indicates that it is divorce that is sin. We’re breaking a vow we’ve made in front of man and God when we divorce. God hates divorce, so why would God ask me to do something He hates in order to obey the Gospel??? It’s just not logical. Christ also says if a man lust after a woman, he has committed adultery ALREADY with her in his heart… bet the brothers that advocate for couples to divorce before obedience won’t advocate for a woman that wants to divorce her husband for watching porn…

You did a great job. It is a difficult topic to say the least. You almost need a flow chart because of all the different situations people get themselves into when it comes to marriage today. I believe it is a topic that is purposefully overlooked in the CoC now days. I do not see someone asking a person that responds to the invitation whether they are married divorced remarried before they baptize them. I believe Jimmy Allen’s response was we are asking non-Christians to abide by Christian standards when it comes to marriage divorce and remarriage. Which will not happen if it does it is a rarity. This ranks up there with several questions people ask: 1. Does someone go to hell who has never heard the gospel. Answer use to be of course what would be the reason to evangelize. Now I hear God is the judge. 2. Do churches have to have elders to operate. Answer use to be yes. If the answer is no. Then the churches that do not need to be working toward an eldership. We have so many churches doing good just to hang on. Do those need to close? So many questions with difficult answers. I have always liked Jimmy Allen’s quote. If you have not changed your view on a Bible topic in 20 years then your head is not in the Bible.

The call of Jesus was repent for the kingdom of heaven is at had. If your a lair repent and turn away from it. Divorce isn't wrong but what events take place after divorce. Bible seems to imply that remarriage after divorce is sin. This is found in Matthew 5 and Matthew 19. In fact Jesus teaching was so strong most of his disciples said it was better to remain a eunuch and single. No am not doing to speak speak ill of Christians in a remarried relationship while their spouse is still alive, but seems calling on the bible is very strong to follow Jesus, that all sin separates us from God. I couldn't imagine how it would feel to be in a second marriage and learning that every time I am with someone else bible says I am committing adultery. I want to stress these are not my words but Jesus' words

I think you have totally missed the point. You are legislating around Jesus' command which is, they are ONE FLESH and let not MAN PUT ASUNDER, which you haven't even mentioned. You are doing exactly what Jesus says not to do. If all of your little loopholes are true, then divorce and Remarriage is, in the end, ok. I notice you mention nothing of His command, but provide justification for sin. Here's some objections to what you say 1. Jesus does away with Deuteronomy 24, which was due to hardness of heart. By using it to justify your position, you are simply going back to the Mosaic law and demonstrates hardness of heart. 2. You would require any married person engaged in adultery to separate before baptizing, but now, because they have divorced, remarried and said they are sorry, it's now somehow different? 3. Ezra 10:3 is the only precedent for divorce. Therefore, 4. The exception clause is only in the case of the "unlawful marriages" of Leviticus 18. Divorce and remarriage is only permitted in this case. Herod had married his brother's wife and was "unlawful" as declared by John. He lost his head for this. Jesus was passing thru Perea in Matt 19. It was the jurisdiction under Herod's control. This was the snare the Pharisees hoped to entrap him in. Jesus speaks of this without naming Herod directly thus avoiding their snare, but in a sense, gives Herod the answer. He needed to put away his unlawful marriage. Your entire response just legalized what Christ has forbidden. Jesus says, Matthew 5:19-20 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven. The disciples understood what Jesus was saying when they say. "It is not good to marry". They new Jesus was putting an end to divorce and remarriage, that this was a radical new teaching. Why can't you see it?

This is a specious argument and ignore that committing adultery is not at the point of marriage declaration but consumation with attendant sexual meetings. If there would be no sex after spouse who was unlawfully divorced get married, there would be no adultery. Implicit in matthew 5: 32 and Matthew 19 is that there will be sex after this marriage. Your reasoning implies that if they sleep with each other the first day, it is adultery, but the following days, weeks or years, it is no longer adultery. I do not know of any preacher, who asked those are about to be baptised to tell them about their marital status. Most preachers get to know about the adaltureous marriage after the fact. If one was to be exposed to gay married couples and preach to them and they decide to be baptised, it is important to tell them the importance of repentance, but they should be baptised at the time they declare a wish to be baptised. But then, would you fellowship with those gay couples, who are not separated after they are baptised? Jesus takes the sin of adultery and fornication seriously; encouraging and ignoring it by accepting it is tantamount to fastracking people to hell.

Amen Brother

We must be very careful with this power that we have to grant or withhold salvation from others based on whether or not we baptize.. God has entrusted us with quite a responsibility by giving us the option to withhold eternal life from another

Something that comes to mind for me on this topic is 1 Corinthians 6:16 which says: “Or do you not know that he who is joined to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For, as it is written, “The two will become one flesh.”” If we stick with the logic of some CoC preachers, they’d also have to refuse baptize anyone who is married to someone they didn’t lose their virginity to because they’ve already spiritually become one flesh with someone else.

Separation of spirit baptism and water baptism is the most serious and far reaching doctrinal error introduced to Christendom.

@kac0404 I see that in every way you tried to give a convincing and concise explanation of scripture to those who had trouble understanding for whatever reason. Keep up the good work I see that the Lord is working with you. Praise be to God.

Awesome Job!!

Gosh, if only Christians could appeal to the holy spirit and resolve fundamental questions like this about correct beliefs and practice and abide as brothers in peaceful agreement. Of course if the holy spirit didn't prevent Peter from teaching incorrect beliefs and practices in the Jerusalem church requiring Paul to rebuke him publicly then why would modern Christians think they could do any better than Peter did? I have a resolution that will make the problem disappear: both positions are wrong. The new testament texts are just the opinions of fallible first century authors and soteriological claims are imaginary concepts that have to be assumed and can't be verified one way or the other. Problem solved.

Acts 10 does not contradict 2:38 but reinforces it. “Everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name. . . . And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.” (Acts 10:43, 48) Peter says that “forgiveness of sins” comes “through his [Christ’s] name” (v. 43). And then Luke records Peter had them baptized “in the name of Jesus Christ” (v. 48). The obvious implication is that their baptism was for the purpose of having their sins forgiven. In Acts 2:38, Peter explicitly connects baptism in the name of Christ to the forgiveness of sins: “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins.” Baptism, administered “in the name of the Lord,” forgives sins. That’s why Ananias told Saul to “be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord” (22:16). That’s also why Paul uses the same word for “wash away” (apolouo) in connection with the name of the Lord: “But you were washed [apolouo], you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Cor 6:11). It’s obvious!

God is just so I think they will go to heaven. Also baby’s baptized to remove original sin will go to heaven since they are sinless until there next conscious thought to sin (usually around age 7-8)

Ur both wrong tho because neither exist

Well Jesus answers this question himself i believe. Children who are pure and never committed a sin go to heaven. There is that whole verse where Jesus condemns people for making a child sin. So i believe kids are considered pure

The Catholic answer about original sin is for me the best theology and more encompassing

Exactly. His position is very unpopular,not to mention unscriptural,so he wants to have it both ways.