Is Agreeing Important? by Ruben Hall

July 30, 2020

When using the scriptures to show God’s authority, or the lack thereof, for some act or practice, it has been my experience that people often become annoyed and usually want to completely stop discussing whatever the subject. To bring a close to the conversation and let it be known they don’t wish to continue the discussion, they often say, "Well, that’s just the way you see. We can’t all agree on everything. Some things are just too hard to understand. We just have to do what we each feel is right." I even had a friend once say while discussing the use of mechanical instruments of music in worship, "Well we can agree to disagree on that. I don’t think that should keep us from fellowshipping". Agreeing to disagree is the basis of a false and absurd doctrine often referred to as "unity in diversity", which teaches we can somehow be united while all believing differently concerning God’s word. Try meshing this teaching with Jesus’ prayer in John 17:11,20-21 and with Paul’s exhortations to the Corinthians in I Cor. 1:10 and you’ll see why its false and absurd. It seems that agreeing on the teaching found within God’s written word simply isn’t important to many people. Since we supposedly "can’t all agree on everything" there is no real need to try to do so, right? Let’s just all agree upon disagreeing and we’ll all get to Heaven. We’ll just take different routes. Is this indeed true? Is agreeing important or can we all just believe the way we desire and be pleasing to God?

First let us examine the statement "We can’t all agree on everything". Is this really true? Why can’t we agree? Isn’t this exactly what Jesus was praying for and what Paul was pleading to the Corinthians concerning in the above mentioned verses. In John 8:31-36, Jesus told those that believed on Him that if they continued in His word that they would know the truth and the truth would make them free from sin. What is truth? The word that they were to continue in, God’s word (v. 28), was truth according to Jesus. In John 17:17 we again find it specifically stated that God’s word is truth. So by the very fact that there is truth, there must be error or false beliefs, doctrines, and concepts. Concerning God’s word/truth, Paul told Timothy in 2 Tim. 3:16, that "All scripture is given by the inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works." Since it is God’s word/truth that thoroughly furnishes unto all good works and makes one free from sin why can’t we agree on its meaning? Jesus very plainly said that if we continue in his word we would know the truth. Now certainly there are things contained in God’s word that "are hard to be understood" (2 Pet. 3:16), but does this mean they can’t be understood and understood alike? Are we saying that the omnipotent and just God of the universe that created all things couldn’t or didn’t create a book containing His word that we could all understand and that alike? Is this "non-understandable" word still going to judge us in the last day (John 12:48)? I, for one, do not intend to make such statements or even imply such. However, when we make statements such as, “We can’t all agree", we are boldly inferring just that!

There is a growing push toward not "overly" concerning ourselves with trying to know and agree on the truth but instead just making sure our hearts are right and we are sincere in what we believe and teach. Certainly having the right kind of heart and being sincere in our beliefs and teachings is critically important (Mt. 5:8; 13:15; 15:19). If our hearts are not right and we are not sincere, why would we even have beliefs or care enough to teach them? Having the right kind of heart and being sincere is but the first step in knowing and agreeing on the truth. Even though, many men are leading others away from the truth and telling them that our interpretation of the Bible and therefore how we establish Bible authority has very little to do with our salvation, instead it is our hearts that matter. This kind of doctrine breeds disagreement in its followers and teaches that it is okay as long as we are each sincere. While indeed this may seem to be a warm and fuzzy doctrine that no doubt brings great comfort to many who are practicing and living in sin while sincerely believing they are living godly lives, it is false and will cause many to lose their eternal soul. We read that the first century Christians "were of one heart" (Acts 4:32). How can we possibly be of one heart if we all don’t believe the scriptures alike?

How we interpret the scriptures and how we establish Bible authority for all that we do as Christians is of utmost importance. And, therefore agreeing is of utmost importance as well. Our souls depend on it because we will be judged by God’s word (John 12:48). We are told that whatever we do "in word or deed do all in the name of the Lord Jesus" (Col. 3:17). How can we do something in someone’s name for which they gave us no authority? The apostle Paul said in 2 Tim 2:15, "Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." What a preacher says, what our loved ones believe, nor what we sincerely but mistakenly thought the Bible said is going to approve us before God. It is study that will approve us unto God. It was those at Berea who where more noble than those at Thessalonica because "they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so" (Acts 17:11). Recall from John 8 that it is Christ’s word/truth that shall makes us free, but only on the condition that we continue in it (v.31). This is how we learn or know God’s will. This is how we are freed from our sins. This is how we agree on God’s word and become of "one mind" (Rom. 15,16; 2 Cor. 13:11; Phil. 1:27; 2:2; 1 Pet. 3:8). We must continue in the scriptures that are by God’s inspiration and that thoroughly furnish us. We must have a sincere, open and receptive heart and study God’s word in light of it (Acts 8:30-35).

Disagreement, at its root, is the result of man’s will conflicting with God’s will. Whether we admit it or not, it starts as man’s desire to do something for which God’s word has given no authorization. Thus men go about twisting and perverting scripture, lifting it from its context to prove their positions (2 Pet. 3:16). Or perhaps sometimes they even seek to "find" authority through some other means than the Bible (the Pope, church creeds, etc), or maybe they just all together do away with the need for authority (at least in their own minds) and let their heart be their guide. After all, it is to them a "sincere" effort to serve God, even though it is as they so desire and not necessarily as God would have it. Then disagreement comes full circle when someone questions someone else’s actions or practices based on scripture or perhaps sometimes even their own false belief. As we can see, the problem is that we let our desires and wishes take precedence over God’s desires and wishes. God certainly has desires and wishes (I Tim 2:4). The pages of His word are filled with His will for man and give “us all things that pertain unto life and godliness" (2 Pet 1:3).

Sadly, there is not an easily executed solution to resolve disagreement. Yet, just to avoid discussing it and take comfort that we are somehow pleasing to God when we mutually agree to disagree is a terrible mistake. It is a mistake that will lead to more division and more souls being lost. As before stated, it requires sincere and continual study of God’s word to "know the truth" (John 8:31). It means studying the Bible to establish God’s will, not searching the Bible in an effort to prove our own (Acts 17:11). This involves putting aside our emotions. This is never a simple task when the beliefs that we may hold so strongly and feel so deeply about come under attack. Yet, it has to be done to see and accept the truth. Was it easy for the children of Israel to see and accept the truth? Certainly not, they killed the Messiah and many others whom taught the truth (Acts 2:36; 7:54-58). Was it easy for Saul/Paul to see and accept the truth? Apparently it wasn’t because it took Christ’s appearing unto Him while on his way to Damascus to persecute more Christians to change his life (Acts 9:1-3). Was Paul sincere in his persecuting of Christians? Did he think he was doing God’s will? Unquestionably he did and even said so (Acts 22:3-5). Did his sincerity make it right and justify him before God? Certainly it did not. It may seem that it would be much easier for us today to see, accept, and agree on the truth if we had a personal encounter with Christ as Paul, but keep in mind we don’t need that. We, unlike Paul, have God’s inspired word in its entirety and neatly contained in one bound book at our disposal (I Cor. 13:12; 2 Tim 3:16,17). It’s just a matter of actually using it. Let’s earnestly use it and learn the truth so that we can all agree in our beliefs. It is vitally important because God’s truth is absolute. It does not change in meaning depending upon the person, neither the situation, nor from generation to generation (2 Pet. 1:20; Psa. 100:5). If you and I each hold to a different belief it means that at least one of the beliefs is erroneous. So let us search the scriptures to insure that our belief is indeed truth and then hold fast to it (Prov. 23:23).

hear Bible Crossfire Sunday nights at 8:00 central on SiriusXM radio Family Talk 131 or at BibleCrossfire.com

Is II John 9 Referring To One Particular Teaching About Christ Or The Whole Of What Christ Taught?

July 23, 2020

II John 9 reads “Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.” So we have to stay inside the teaching of Christ to have God, to be saved. But what does the “doctrine of Christ” refer to here, only to the particular teaching mentioned in verse 7 that Christ came in the flesh, or is verse 9 a general statement used to condemn the specific in verse 7 and many other things? Compare to these parallels for the answer:

· John 8:31 “… If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed” – does “continue in my word” here refer to continuing in one specific teaching about the nature of Christ or to what Christ taught as a whole?

· I John 1:7 “But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.” – does “walking in the light” in this verse mean agreeing with just one specific truth or walking in the whole body of God’s truth?

· II John 4 “I rejoiced greatly that I found of thy children walking in truth, as we have received a commandment from the Father.” – does “walking in truth” here mean walking in only one specific truth or in the whole of God’s word?

· III John 3 “For I rejoiced greatly, when the brethren came and testified of the truth that is in thee, even as thou walkest in the truth.” – does “walkest in the truth” here refer to walking in only one part of truth or in the entirety of God’s truth?

· III John 4 “I have no greater joy than to hear that my children walk in truth.” – does “walk in truth” here refer to continuing in only one specific teaching about the nature of Jesus, or does it mean walking in all of Jesus’ teachings?

· Psa 119:1 “Blessed are the undefiled in the way, who walk in the law of the Lord.” – walk in the whole law of the Lord, right?

· Psa 119:3 “They also do no iniquity: they walk in his ways.” – walk in all God’s ways, correct?

· Gal 2:14 “But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel …” – only one specific truth of the gospel, or the whole thing?

Besides, doesn’t II John 9’s use of the word “transgresseth” make a whole lot more sense if talking about transgressing a law than it would transgressing one fact about Christ’s nature?

Conclusion: II John 9 teaches we must follow Christ’s law to have God.

The Seal Of The Holy Spirit

July 16, 2020

Ephesians 1:13-14 reads “In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise, which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, …”

This passage says Christians are sealed with the Holy Spirit, said Holy Spirit being an “earnest” (“first installment, deposit, down payment, pledge” – Bauer) until we receive heaven.

Notice the following parallels from the NKJV:

· II Cor 1:22 who also has sealed us and given us the spirit in our hearts as a deposit (earnest, KJV).

· II Cor 5:5 … who also has given us the spirit as a guarantee (earnest, KJV).

So based upon the parallels, we see the Holy Spirit (the earnest; what God seals us “with”) is given to us.

Who is promised the Holy Spirit according to these three passages? All Christians! That means these three passages prove all Christians are given the Holy Spirit (not just a select few – so it can’t be the miraculous).

Eph 2:22 And The Personal Indwelling Of The Holy Spirit

July 9, 2020

Ephesians 2:22 reads “In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.” The last part of that verse shows God dwells in Christians representatively through the Spirit. That would mean then the Holy Spirit dwells in us personally (in person). Just like if we were to say “President Bush negotiated with Iran representatively through Condoleezza Rice,” that would mean Bush negotiated representatively, but Rice negotiated personally (in person). See the parallel?

What Made Paul A Great Preacher?

July 2, 2020

Most Christians today measure how good a gospel preacher is by how good a public speaker he is, but that is not what made Paul so great. We know that because Paul says about himself in II Cor 11:6a “Even if I am unskilled in speaking” (ESV) and in I Cor 2:1 “And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God.”

Paul had many great qualities, but let’s mention here three traits that might be lacking in some today. First Paul was willing to warn those he preached to (Acts 20:26-27,31, Ezek 3:18). It is always easier to preach about those who are not there than to have to tell those who are actually present they need to change their belief and/or practice on an issue. Second, Paul (like Jesus) was willing to defend his teaching in public oral debate (Acts 17:17, 19:8-10). How many today are still willing to do that? And third, Paul didn’t just preach “publicly” but also from “house to house.” (Acts 20:20, 28:30-31). Paul made opportunities to teach the lost (Acts 13:5), he didn’t just wait for the lost to come to him. I guess some today just don’t have the time for that (Matt 6:33).

Luke 6:26 says “Woe unto you, when all men shall speak well of you! for so did their fathers to the false prophets.” So preachers the brethren think so highly of are not likely the ones God thinks highly of.

Some Other Approved Examples We Should Emulate Besides Acts 20:7

June 25, 2020

· Acts 2:41 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized

· Acts 2:42 And they continued stedfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.

· Acts 8:4 Therefore they that were scattered abroad went every where preaching the word.

· Acts 9:26 … Saul … assayed to join himself to the disciples …

· Acts 12:5 … prayer was made without ceasing of the church unto God …

· Acts 14:23 And when they had ordained … elders in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they believed.

· Acts 16:40 … when they had seen the brethren, they comforted them …

· Acts 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

· Acts 17:17 Therefore disputed he in the synagogue with the Jews, and with the devout persons, and in the market daily with them that met with him.

· Acts 20:27 I have not shunned to declare … all the counsel of God.

· Acts 28:8 … Paul … prayed (for) … the … sick …

· II Cor 5:11 Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, we persuade men …

Does Jesus’ Divorce And Remarriage Law In Matt 19:9 Only Apply To Christians?

June 18, 2020

Matt 19:9 “Whosoever” (just like the “whosoever” in John 3:16 = everybody)

So God’s law on marriage applies to everyone who qualifies by getting scripturally married:

· Matthew 19:2 “great multitudes” were present (not just saints)

· Matthew 19:4-6 Jesus went back to the beginning of the human race (not Jewish or Christian experience). Was Cain, etc. (who was not a faithful child of God) amenable to the Genesis 2:24 marriage law?

· Matthew 19:5,6 “a man” (so any man)

· Matt 19:8 “from the beginning” (not just Christianity’s beginning)

· Matt 19:9 “Whosoever” was actually spoken to non-Christians

As usual, many only say “context rules” when the context helps their position.

To say the only ones amenable to Matt 19:9 are the ones Jesus was directly speaking to would be saying only those Pharisees are amenable to it, and would be about like saying only Timothy is required to wear modest clothing since that is who I Tim 2:9-10 is written to.

Does The Bible Teach Both Sides Of Every Question?

June 11, 2020

We have to get out of this mode that the Bible teaches both sides of every question and therefore we pick the verses that seem to agree with our pre-conceived theology, and ignore the rest. Instead, since the Bible is the word of God, all verses are true (in the absolute) and so we must figure out how all the verses on any particular topic are true.

For example, the Pentecostals (and many other churches) look at texts like Acts 21:9 and conclude women can preach with no restrictions. Others look at passages like I Cor 14:34-35 and conclude women can never teach the gospel, not even to other women and children in their home. Instead of picking out the verses which seems to support our current view and ignoring the rest, we should figure out how Acts 21:9 and I Cor 14:34-35 are both true. That is when we determine it is okay for a women to teach the gospel as long as it is not in the church assembly or over a man (I Tim 2:11-12). See what I mean?

Similarly on the subject of water baptism, the “hermeneutical” method of many is affecting their salvation. They look at passages that seem to fit their pre-conceived theology that baptism is not necessary to salvation (the passages like John 3:16 that teach faith is necessary) and therefore think it is okay to simply ignore the 6 or 8 clear verses that conclusively prove baptism is also necessary to salvation. And that has kept them from ever being baptized “for the remission of sins” (for that reason) – which is a critical element in what God requires for one to be saved (Acts 2:38). It is parallel to a divorce not for fornication; if it is done for the wrong reason, it is unscriptural and God does not approve of it (Matt 19:9). It is the same with the reason for baptism – if baptism is done for the wrong reason, it is unscriptural and God does not approve of it. See also Mark 16:16, Acts 22:16, and I Pet 3:20-21.

hear Bible Crossfire Sunday nights at 8:00 central on SiriusXM radio Family Talk 131 or at BibleCrossfire.com

We Should Try To Live Perfectly

June 4, 2020

In one of my phone studies recently, the student made the comment that his pastor had told him that we keep the Sabbath today by picking out a day of the week to try to sin less on that day. That bespeaks of an attitude I hear expressed a lot – that “we all sin, therefore it is okay to sin.”

It is true none of us will live without sin (I John 1:8), but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try. I John 2:1 reads “My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not.” In Exod 20:20 “Moses said unto the people, Fear not: for God is come to prove you … that ye sin not.” Psalm 4:4 says “Stand in awe, and sin not.” I Cor 15:34 instructs “Awake to righteousness, and sin not.” I Pet 2:21-22 says “For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps: Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth.” And so God commands us not to sin; God instructs us to follow the example of Christ in living above sin.

And if that is our goal, sinless perfection, then we will be disappointed whenever we do not meet our goal; we will repent. On the other hand, if our goal is to only obey 50 percent of God’s law, then we will be satisfied when we only do 50 percent, and will not repent.

Another who couldn’t dispute the fact that Matt 19:9 showed her marriage was adulterous, replied that “it serves as a reminder that if we could’ve kept the law there would’ve been no reason for Him to die.” Referring to actions like terminating such unscriptural marriages she wrote “when you do that, you’re negating Christ dying on the cross. You’re saying that I don’t need Christ, I can just go back and deal with the (God’s) law.” This is the attitude that I am talking about – that we can just continue in sin because the death of Christ will take care of it (Rom 6:1-2).

In the Old Testament, God told the Israelites in Deut 5:29 “O that there were such an heart in them, that they would fear me, and keep all my commandments always, that it might be well with them, and with their children for ever!” And in the New Testament James 2:10 says “For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.” So God expects us to obey everything in his law, all the time, until we die.

And when we fail, when we sin, I Cor 10:13 proves it is always our fault as it reads “There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it.” We shouldn’t blame our sin on Adam or anybody else.

And if we want to be forgiven of our sin, we have to repent of it. II Pet 3:9 explains that God is “not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.” So those who steal must quit stealing (Eph 4:28) to be forgiven; those who cuss must quit cussing (Eph 4:29); those who lie must quit lying (Rev 21:8); those in homosexual relationships must terminate those relationships (I Cor 6:9-10); and those in adulterous marriages must terminate those marriages (Matt 19:9). There are no ifs ands or buts about it.

Why Adulterous Marriages Must Be Terminated

May 29, 2020

Jesus said in Matt 19:9a “Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery.”  So if a person divorces their spouse for any reason other than fornication and marries another, Jesus calls that second marriage adultery.

Passages like I Cor 6:9-10 say “adulterers” (among other type sinners) “shall not inherit the kingdom of God” – they won’t be saved.  But one can repent of adultery and be forgiven just like any other sin.  The question is – how does one repent of adultery in an unscriptural marriage?

Let’s start to answer that question by talking about what adultery is.  Vines Bible Dictionary defines “adulterer” as “one who has unlawful intercourse with the spouse of another”.”  So adultery involves sexual intercourse.  We see this also from:

  • John 8:4 “They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.” – the woman was not caught in a wedding ceremony but she was caught having sex with a man other than her husband
  • Heb 13:4 “Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.” – adultery is something committed in the bed
  • Matthew 5:28 “… whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.” – not fantasizing about a wedding ceremony

Now if adultery involves sexual intercourse, then we can see why a couple who are married in violation of verses like Matt 19:9 can’t just say “I am sorry” and stay in their marriage.  Because every time they sleep together the sin is repeated; they commit adultery.  Repentance leads to quitting a sin.  We see this from Matt 21:28-29 where a son was asked to go work in his father’s vineyard.  At first he said “I will not:  but afterward he repented, and went.”  His repentance there was a change of mind that led to a change of action.  So repentance means those who steal must quit stealing (Eph 4:28); those who cuss must quit cussing (Eph 4:29); those who lie must quit lying (Rev 21:8); those in homosexual relationships must terminate those relationships (Rom 1:26-27); and those in adulterous marriages must quit committing adultery; they must terminate those marriages (Luke 16:18).  There are no ifs ands or buts about it.

We see this fact illustrated by a story that occurred while the Old Testament was still in effect.  We learn from secular history that Herod had divorced his wife and Herodias had divorced her husband.  Now notice what Mark 6:17-18 states about this marriage – “For Herod himself had sent forth and laid hold upon John, and bound him in prison for Herodias’ sake, his brother Philip’s wife: for he had married her.  For John had said unto Herod, It is not lawful for thee to have thy brother’s wife.”  John the Baptist didn’t just say it was unlawful for Herod to have married Herodias; he said it was unlawful for Herod to have her.

Here in Alabama we have a law against smoking marijuana, a law against selling marijuana, and just in case someone claimed they were going to do neither with their marijuana, a law against possessing marijuana.  So if you live in Alabama and you possess some marijuana and you want to get back right within the law, what would you have to do with that marijuana?  You would have to throw it in the garbage or give it to the police, because it is not lawful to have it.  It is the same with an adulterous marriage.  If it is not lawful for you to have her, then you must get rid of her, that is, terminate the marriage, right?

Jesus went on to say in Matthew 19:9b “whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.”  So when a divorce occurs, not only is it wrong for the one doing the divorcing to remarry; it is also wrong for the one who was put away to remarry.  Neither party may remarry.  Why?

I like to say Matt 19:9 states the facts of the case, the divorced commit adultery if they remarry, while Rom 7:2-3 states the reason.  Here’s how that passage reads – “For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband.  So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.”  So the reason it is wrong for divorced people to remarry is because they are bound (obligated) to one another for life.  Just because the state of Alabama says I have a right to remarry a second time, that doesn’t mean God gives me that right.  He expects me to stay with my wife till she dies, and so if I divorce her for a reason other than fornication and remarry, I am committing adultery (cheating) against her because I am still obligated to her; I am still supposed to be married to her.

Sometimes preachers try to justify staying in second marriages with excuses like “that’s too hard especially with kids.”  But Ezra 10:11,44 illustrates that having kids doesn’t change this iniquity problem.  There the Israelites who married women they weren’t supposed to marry were required to separate from those wives, and the fact that some had children by the forbidden marriage didn’t change that required course of action.

Some say you shouldn’t terminate an adulterous marriage because they say “two wrongs don’t make a right.”  I agree two wrongs never make a right, but in this case, terminating an unscriptural marriage is not a wrong; it is a correct course of action; it is a requirement.  What if I did wrong by taking on a second wife (polygamous)?  Would it be a second wrong to repent and break up with the second wife, and go back to being monogamous with the first?

A passage that illustrates having to leave a spouse because it is the right thing to do is Luke 18:29 which reads “And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house, or parents, or brethren, or wife, or children, for the kingdom of God’s sake, Who shall not receive manifold more in this present time, and in the world to come life everlasting.”  Why would anybody ever have to leave their wife for the kingdom of God’s sake?; I thought God wanted us to stay with our spouses?  Well, if we are married to a woman we have no right to after an unscriptural divorce, then Matt 19:9 calls that marriage adulterous, and so we would have to leave that wife for the kingdom of God’s sake.

Noting how clear these passages are on divorce and remarriage, a friend recently asked me why so many preachers don’t hold to the truth on the subject.  I submitted the following quotes to him to possibly explain why:

  • Some conservative groups believe that divorced people who marry another spouse are living in sin.  However, the number of divorces in the United States has led most denominations away from that teaching. – Anthony Dunnavant in the Orange County (California) Register
  • The (Presbyterian USA) church should “re-evaluate its definition of sin to reflect the changing mores of society. … We feel that marriage is not what legitimates sexual gratification.”  (Roll Over John Calvin, Time Magazine, 5-6-91, p.59)
  • … the Rev. Gene Robinson (first gay bishop in the Episcopal Church) … cited the examples of ordaining women priests and accepting divorce in the church as departures … “Just simply saying it departs from … Scripture does not necessarily make it wrong.” (Birmingham News, Aug 6, 2003)

So preachers and churches have not changed on this issue over the last several decades because of honest investigation of the scriptures.  Instead it is because they have lost respect for the scriptures as their source of religious authority.

Conclusion:  If one can see why a gay marriage must be terminated upon repentance (to be right with God), then apply the same logic to adulterous marriages.  It’s that simple.