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!
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
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!
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.
Just a question, but wouldn’t that presuppose that God has recognized the second marriage? Ending the second relationship could only be seen as divorce if God recognized it as a marriage.
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.
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?
@ of course there is no way to bring someone back from the dead, but isn’t that a straw man argument? If you steal something and decide to keep it while also trying to be right with God, you’re not truly sorry for stealing. That’s not loving your neighbor as yourself.
Two verses in Romans that I think clarify the truth in your statement as well Romans 13:7 Give to everyone what you owe them: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor. Romans 13:9 The commandments, “You shall not commit adultery,” “You shall not murder,” “You shall not steal,” “You shall not covet,” and whatever other command there may be, are summed up in this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” The first seems to me to imply that if you owe someone because you stole from them, you should give them back what you stole, or repay them what it was worth if you don’t have it anymore, it’s owed them. The second says that the law can be summed up in love your neighbor as yourself. The law was holy, righteous, and good. While we aren’t under bondage to the law anymore to try and live perfectly which we can’t, but the nature of the law is still all three of those things. And since loving your neighbor as yourself sums up the law, since we wouldn’t steal from ourselves we shouldn’t steal from others, and since we would hope people would return things they have stolen from us, we should return things we have stolen. I can’t say just how far grace goes, I can’t say what’s the limit grace will cover, it’s not up to me to make that decision, that’s Gods place, but I would think God would have something to say to me if I stole something and said I repented but didn’t make restitution, and because of that I’ll do my dead level best to make sure I repay if I ever steal. But we are all gonna have to answer for ourselves and ourselves only, so that’s just how I would handle it.
Thievery is not a good comparison to divorce and remarriage. In your analogy repentance in the case of theft requires the return of the stolen property, so back to the original state, so by that logic real “repentance” can only occur if a person “divorces” their remarriage and the “adulterous” spouse returns to their first spouse, which brings them back to their original pre-sin state. Your logic is to make wrongs right, but only separating an “sinful remarriage” is only half repentance, if they don’t get back with their original spouse they have not fully repented. What if a thief decides to “repent” decades later, say they came to Christ way later, and they can’t return the property to its owner because the owner has died, how can they repent? Peter in Acts 2:38 told the audience to repent after telling them that they killed Jesus, did they have to raise Jesus from the dead in order to complete their “repentance”? We have a very warped definition and understanding of repentance in our brotherhood, it shapes so many incorrect interpretations like this one. Our baseline definition of repentance is to “stop sinning” or at a more implied level, we use it to mean “sanctify yourself to a certain point where you are then good enough to receive forgiveness through Christ”. Until we work out a better understanding of what true repentance is I think we are perpetuating Christian humanism.
@@Soonertheologian To be honest, and I don’t want to sound rude, but you are mischaracterizing what I said, although I don’t think maliciously. The standard definition I hear from most in the brotherhood I have heard is that repentance is a change of heart or mind that produces a change of life or action, or simply put a submission of my will to the will of the lord, I do not see this as a warped understanding of repentance, in fact I think it is a proper understanding. The lords will is that we do not sin, so in submission to that I am going to give my best to live without sin, knowing that I can not completely stop sinning, but I can do my best not to, and when I fail, when I sin in spite of my best effort, I am still being cleansed by the blood of Christ. Now this is no excuse to not give my best effort, I can’t just rely on grace and not make any change, that wouldn’t be repentance at all. Now as to the so called implied definition, I’ve never met anyone who thinks their repentance (ongoing action) makes them good enough to be forgiven, we know we don’t deserve forgiveness, we transgressed Gods law, but Gods goodness, his love and mercy and willingness to forgive leads me to repent, it leads me to submit my will to his, and God wouldn’t want me to steal, and if I did he would want me to make restitution if I could do that. Your allusion to those commanded to repent in acts 2, it was their own will that led them kill Christ in the first place, they were being commanded to turn that will over to the will of God, they couldn’t raise the Lord from the dead, it wasn’t in their power to do that. It is in our power to return what we’ve stolen, and in the instance that you’ve outlined, where the person we stole from is dead, I could try to make restitution to the family, and if not I am at the mercy of God. Someone who divorced and remarried illegitimately can leave their adulterous marriage, that is within their power. Now they can choose to remain in it and throw themselves at the mercy of God, but don’t you think God would see those two things differently? Don’t you think he would see one as person who wants to do right but can’t because of circumstances and the other as someone who can do right but chooses not to? Honest question, not trying to argue, just enjoy the exchange, iron sharpens iron after all
I'd like to see you and Aaron Gallagher talk about this together.
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!
Thank you for this.
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
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!
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.
Just a question, but wouldn’t that presuppose that God has recognized the second marriage? Ending the second relationship could only be seen as divorce if God recognized it as a marriage.
bingo!@@dustinhuffman8089
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.
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?
How does one repent of murder? How many murderers, in order to repent, have raised their victims from the dead?
@ of course there is no way to bring someone back from the dead, but isn’t that a straw man argument?
If you steal something and decide to keep it while also trying to be right with God, you’re not truly sorry for stealing. That’s not loving your neighbor as yourself.
Two verses in Romans that I think clarify the truth in your statement as well
Romans 13:7 Give to everyone what you owe them: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.
Romans 13:9 The commandments, “You shall not commit adultery,” “You shall not murder,” “You shall not steal,” “You shall not covet,” and whatever other command there may be, are summed up in this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.”
The first seems to me to imply that if you owe someone because you stole from them, you should give them back what you stole, or repay them what it was worth if you don’t have it anymore, it’s owed them.
The second says that the law can be summed up in love your neighbor as yourself. The law was holy, righteous, and good. While we aren’t under bondage to the law anymore to try and live perfectly which we can’t, but the nature of the law is still all three of those things. And since loving your neighbor as yourself sums up the law, since we wouldn’t steal from ourselves we shouldn’t steal from others, and since we would hope people would return things they have stolen from us, we should return things we have stolen.
I can’t say just how far grace goes, I can’t say what’s the limit grace will cover, it’s not up to me to make that decision, that’s Gods place, but I would think God would have something to say to me if I stole something and said I repented but didn’t make restitution, and because of that I’ll do my dead level best to make sure I repay if I ever steal. But we are all gonna have to answer for ourselves and ourselves only, so that’s just how I would handle it.
Thievery is not a good comparison to divorce and remarriage. In your analogy repentance in the case of theft requires the return of the stolen property, so back to the original state, so by that logic real “repentance” can only occur if a person “divorces” their remarriage and the “adulterous” spouse returns to their first spouse, which brings them back to their original pre-sin state. Your logic is to make wrongs right, but only separating an “sinful remarriage” is only half repentance, if they don’t get back with their original spouse they have not fully repented.
What if a thief decides to “repent” decades later, say they came to Christ way later, and they can’t return the property to its owner because the owner has died, how can they repent?
Peter in Acts 2:38 told the audience to repent after telling them that they killed Jesus, did they have to raise Jesus from the dead in order to complete their “repentance”?
We have a very warped definition and understanding of repentance in our brotherhood, it shapes so many incorrect interpretations like this one. Our baseline definition of repentance is to “stop sinning” or at a more implied level, we use it to mean “sanctify yourself to a certain point where you are then good enough to receive forgiveness through Christ”. Until we work out a better understanding of what true repentance is I think we are perpetuating Christian humanism.
@@Soonertheologian To be honest, and I don’t want to sound rude, but you are mischaracterizing what I said, although I don’t think maliciously. The standard definition I hear from most in the brotherhood I have heard is that repentance is a change of heart or mind that produces a change of life or action, or simply put a submission of my will to the will of the lord, I do not see this as a warped understanding of repentance, in fact I think it is a proper understanding. The lords will is that we do not sin, so in submission to that I am going to give my best to live without sin, knowing that I can not completely stop sinning, but I can do my best not to, and when I fail, when I sin in spite of my best effort, I am still being cleansed by the blood of Christ. Now this is no excuse to not give my best effort, I can’t just rely on grace and not make any change, that wouldn’t be repentance at all. Now as to the so called implied definition, I’ve never met anyone who thinks their repentance (ongoing action) makes them good enough to be forgiven, we know we don’t deserve forgiveness, we transgressed Gods law, but Gods goodness, his love and mercy and willingness to forgive leads me to repent, it leads me to submit my will to his, and God wouldn’t want me to steal, and if I did he would want me to make restitution if I could do that. Your allusion to those commanded to repent in acts 2, it was their own will that led them kill Christ in the first place, they were being commanded to turn that will over to the will of God, they couldn’t raise the Lord from the dead, it wasn’t in their power to do that. It is in our power to return what we’ve stolen, and in the instance that you’ve outlined, where the person we stole from is dead, I could try to make restitution to the family, and if not I am at the mercy of God. Someone who divorced and remarried illegitimately can leave their adulterous marriage, that is within their power. Now they can choose to remain in it and throw themselves at the mercy of God, but don’t you think God would see those two things differently? Don’t you think he would see one as person who wants to do right but can’t because of circumstances and the other as someone who can do right but chooses not to? Honest question, not trying to argue, just enjoy the exchange, iron sharpens iron after all