Видео

You have a valid critique regarding Baucham, but the rest of your complaint is empty. Please give your best example of how this misrepresents reformed theology.

@TruthLewiston Oh. You responded! I usually don't get a desire for a response on these issues, so much appreciated. That said, here's why. • First, already on the wrong axiomatic wavelength by using human-human relationships to describe God's relationship to humanity. God is Eternal, unbound by the universe, the creator of all, the knower of all, and purposeful in everything He does. He is not a human. He is not capable of "force" by definition. He does not operate physically or mentally, He operates spiritually. Therefore, this example is flawed from the get go. • Second, if in this example the pastor is representing God, and his house is the universe/world, He would not have needed to have "brought them over to his house." God would have created them there initially, for a purpose, and have decided to do so before the foundation of the world. There is no force involved. Gods creation of humanity is not by definition forceful, and if it were, the fact that anything exists at all without God consulting His creation about their perspective on their creation would be equally forceful, but God is obviously never criticized for being God in this manner. Overall, this is not an accurate representation of God's relationship to humanity from eternity past til eternity future. • Third, assuming the traintrack analogy makes sense, which it doesn't, it is not an accurate understanding of God's relationship to humanity yet again. God decreed the universal course of operations, correct. Men love the darkness rather than the light, correct. However, God did not predetermine their evil, but instead the capacity for evil. Since God is the only eternally perfect being in existence, and intends to keep it that way, He cannot create perfect beings that choose to serve Him independent of His direct intervention. Therefore, as naturally imperfect beings, God created humanity with the capacity to sin, but not the sin itself. Sinfulness varies relatively widely, and this is the only reasonable ramification of an imperfect reality created by a perfect God. Otherwise, God wouldn't have created anything at all, given that He cannot create something that is inherently perfect like Him. This is the beauty of our God, always working His perfect purposes to their perfect completion through imperfect beings. He is absolutely not wicked in creating imperfect things and people for His perfect purposes that will be achieved for His glory and the good of His elect. • Fourth, the sinner is not aware of the predicament of their impending doom. The "reprobate" live as if there's nothing after death. This life is all there is, and pleasure must be maximized. This is the love of the darkness. They are totally unaware of the train rumbling down the tracks towards them. • Fifth, the idea that God has the free gift interaction within time as if He hadn't predetermined before time who He would give that gift to makes His upcoming decision way to finite. God isn't dangling the gift over the head of the reprobate. He never was, because they never even contemplated needing it, and never sought to want it. This is again a shallow understanding of the sovereignty and nature of God and His relationship to humanity. • Sixth, God is not forcing the elect to respond to Him, He's empowering them to respond to Him. Force does not apply to God, He isn't bound by the universe. Nonetheless, He is impacting the response of the elect to His Freedom from a spiritual perspective, regenerating their hearts so they can desire to glorify Him in righteousness rather than glorify Him in their wickedness. The spirits we subject ourselves to influence the thoughts that we freely speak. God isn't "moving Bobby's lips." He's changing Bobby's desires from a heart perspective, and that impacts Bobby's words by extension. • Seventh, after regeneration, Bobby is not "forced" to praise God. He freely does so with His new ability to desire and live in righteousness, something that the non elect do not possess. Bobby enjoys worshipping His creator, because His creator has given him His Holy Spirit, and the multiplicity of spiritual benefits that make Bobby thankful for God's regeneration and grace. • Eigth, the idea that God is calling out to, pleading with, and/or commanding Joey desperately to accept the gift of faith is the clearest demonstration of the accusation I made earlier. You simply don't understand the axioms of reformed theology. You're applying a human centered, scope limited perspective to a theology that demands a God centered, scope appropriate understanding. God understands that the reprobate will not hear His voice. This is the inherent ramification of humanity being naturally imperfect. They do not seek to do so!! God is not wasting His time calling out to people who He knows do not seek Him. He has given Joey over to His depravity, selfish ambition, and desire for wickedness and pleasure seeking, and He has done so in order to demonstrate the anger, wrath, and justice aspects of His character, through which He derives glory in doing. God is not to be blamed for leaving humanity in their inherent state of disobedience, regardless of their age. He created everything and everyone for a perfect purpose that they will fulfill perfectly. Everything plays it's role to perfection. • Ninth, again, you've defined a concept incorrectly. When scripture says that God wants the children to come to Him, this is not Him making a plea with children. It's God demonstrating a character trait necessary to be in the Kingdom of God. Child-like faith is an absolute must. You've overpracticalized the scripture. Everyone is deserving of receiving a traintrack smashing, children, the elderly, and everyone in between. The real question is, why would God give the gift of faith to anyone at all? The answer to that is clear in Ezekiel 36: For the sake of His name, His fame, and His glory, not because of anything we did or could do. God is totally good. We are totally not. That's a basic critique. And the issue isn't that the rationale of this anti reformed perspective is wrong. It's actually good rationale. The only issue is that you can have the most perfectly reasoned argument in the world, but if it's axiomatic foundation is a toothpick, ya ain't got much 🤷🏽‍♂️.

You're making things up. If Herod and Herodias had confessed their sin, the marriage would be OK? If gay men confess their sin is their gay marriage OK too? Stupidity. No, the truth is that God made marriage, man made divorce. God never recognizes the divorce of men. He only rebukes it, just as John the Baptist did. What part of these words makes you think otherwise? Matt. 6:31-32 "It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: But I say unto you..." Matt. 19:8 "He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so." Jeremiah 3:1 "They say, If a man put away his wife, and she go from him, and become another man's, shall he return unto her again? shall not that land be greatly polluted? but thou hast played the harlot with many lovers; yet return again to me, saith the Lord." Malachi 2:16 "For the Lord, the God of Israel, saith that he hateth putting away: for one covereth violence with his garment, saith the Lord of hosts: therefore take heed to your spirit, that ye deal not treacherously." Does this sound anything like the Mosaic law? No. Yet evil men like you continue to apply Mosaic law to make excuses for sin. Shame on you. Deut. 24:1 "When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house."

@@TruthLewiston Hi Logan None of the verses you posted compels me to read them "as if" the other Prophets or Jesus contradicted the law God gave through Moses. Which in turn reveals you read your own ideas into scripture (eisegesis interpretation) instead of reading out of scripture (exegete). You state to me, "You're making things up. If Herod and Herodias had confessed their sin, the marriage would be OK? If gay men confess their sin is their gay marriage OK too? Stupidity." The "Stupidity" is created by you posing these questions "as if" you know my answer to them, but the truth is you obviously DON'T !!! I've NEVER stated that Herod and Herodias relationship was "OK", nor do I make the mistake of thinking that individuals of the same gender can actually be married. I also do NOT start with the presupposition that heterosexual marriage and homosexual "marriage" is comparing apples to apples, it's NOT. You should NOT conflate the two ideas as the same. Of course I would be wrong if God recognize "gay marriages" as marriages. You conflate the two because you start with the false supposition (as evidenced in your last response) that "God never recognizes the divorce of men" which I'll address shortly. So your conflation would be erroneous if God does recognize divorce and remarriage, correct? You state, "No, the truth is that God made marriage, man made divorce." The truth is Jesus revealed the existence of both having specifically stated that divorce did not exist in the beginning but was conceded to Israel (later) because of their hard hearts (Matthew 19:8). Your teaching follows David Pawson's false supposition of "indissoluble marriage" and NOT that of what Christ revealed Himself. Stop following Pastor Pawson and trust what the scriptures reveal instead. While God's Word does reveal that God designed marriage for life, it does NOT teach marriage cannot end (by divorce) as falsely believe by Pastor Pawson. That theory kept him from seeing the simple point Jesus made about divorce itself, just like you. You state, "God never recognizes the divorce of men. He only rebukes it, just as John the Baptist did." First, you start with the false supposition that John's rebuke was about divorce itself and not the violation of the near kin law of Leviticus 18:16 which reads “16 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy brother's wife: it is thy brother's nakedness”. Thus by starting from a false premise (that overlooks what John actually rebuked) you end up with a false basis of reasoning that makes John's rebuke something it was NOT. Secondly, your supposition that "God never recognizes the divorce of men" is also false because His law in Deuteronomy 24:1-4 reveals that divorce is an effective event that is recognized. It would be ludicrous to extract God from the VERY law that He gave to govern His covenant people Israel. Also Ezra 10:11 reveals divorce was "God's pleasure" which would be impossible if He didn't recognize divorce, right? You state, "Does this sound anything like the Mosaic law? No. Yet evil men like you continue to apply Mosaic law to make excuses for sin. Shame on you." Once again you start from false suppositions because I never make excuses for sin and I only apply "Mosaic law" where the CONTEXT reveals it's applicable. It would be beneficial for you to start observing God's Word from the chronological facts instead of randomly selecting scriptures to support your false suppositions. Blessings and praying for your repentance for calling Believers "fools", "evil men" "Shameful" for defending God's Word over against false teaching. All of those who name the name of Christ should except correction.

@@nealdoster8556 No, Ezra 10:11 does not teach God takes pleasure in divorce. It doesn't even mention the Mosaic bill of divorce. It simply tells them to get away from women that God forbid them from being with. It is actually a proof text for ending adulterous marriages today that God does not recognize. As for Herod and Herodias, according to Mosaic Law (Deut. 24) their former marriages would be over because they both had divorced. Lev. 18:16 would not even apply. And what part of this isn't a contradiction? He says "but"... He doesn't say "and" Matthew 5:31-32 "It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: But I say unto you..."

@@TruthLewiston Grace to you Logan You state, “No, Ezra 10:11 does not teach God takes pleasure in divorce.” I agree because that wasn’t what I said. My point was that divorce was God’s will in this case, thus His pleasure for them to end their marriages. Not that God enjoyed breaking up families for the fun of it. See the difference? You state, “It doesn't even mention the Mosaic bill of divorce.” That’s true “but I say unto you” that there are numerous passages of scripture that deal with divorce but doesn’t mention the “bill of divorce” itself (including one’s that you have posted). We don’t need for the inspired writer to mention the whole process of divorce for them to be speaking of divorce, right? You state, “It simply tells them to get away from women that God forbid them from being with.” Question, who were these “women” in relation to these men? Answer, their wives !!! This is NOT mere separation where the marriage remains intact, rather families are being dissolved here. What’s more interesting about your comment is the fact that you are toning down the language (NOT to exegete the text) but rather to suggest that marriages are not actually being dissolved, right? You state, “It is actually a proof text for ending adulterous marriages today that God does not recognize.” If you actually had “a proof text” where it actually said “God does not recognize” marriage after divorce you would be correct. Neither Ezra 10 or Matthew 5, Matthew 19, Mark 10, Luke 16, 1 Cor. 7, Romans 7 or ANY other verse states that God does not recognize marriages after divorce. That theory was derived NOT from the biblical precedents to which Jesus referred where we can see marriage after divorce, rather from the false conclusion Pastor’s like David Pawson makes when they determine adultery cannot follow a terminated marriage as Jesus described. Don’t you realize by now that was the very supposition Jesus was correcting? You’re going to have to decide (as a Pastor) if you are going to be faithful to the text (God’s Word) or if you’re going to force fit your “indissoluble marriage” theory into passages for the sake of saving face. Stop starting from a false premise and start from the truths of God’s Word where both divorce and ensuing marriages were realities. Both Jesus and Ezra 10 are speaking of marriages recognized by God, or else Jesus Himself made a false statement !!!! Recognize instead that you are purposely using rhetoric to rob both “divorce” and “marriage” of their meaning within a given text. Recognize Logan that that line of reasoning is COMPLETELY unnecessary for properly interpreting Jesus’ teaching on this issue !!! Recognize Logan that you are extracting Jesus’ teaching from the VERY one’s to whom it was relevant. Recognize Logan that the one’s to whom it was relevant was divorced and remarried and both events are recognized by God, “but I say unto you” NOT required to end their present marriages as you contend. Recognize Logan that there is no adultery (this way) without “divorce” and “marries another” (as spoken by Jesus) preceding it. You can’t have Jesus saying one thing and interpreting Him by believing “in God’s eyes” it’s different, understand? David Pawson got it wrong Logan. You don’t have to follow all the false supposition created by thinking adultery only occurs the way Pawson concluded. The sermon on the mount corrected that false supposition by revealing two other ways one can commit adultery (Matthew 5:28, 32). Those who were caused to commit the inadvertent adultery (this way) were married to another (as Jesus states) after being divorce (as Jesus states). This way of committing adultery did not happen by “still being married to the first spouse” (another false supposition derived from a false supposition itself) and after the fact did NOT require ending the present marriage. Try interpreting “divorce” and “marries another” (as spoken by Jesus) just as literally as you do the ensuing adultery and you won't have to interpret Jesus to be in conflict with His Law. You won’t have to read your “indissoluble marriage” theory INTO the aforementioned scriptures. You will find NEEDED balance to your preaching on this issue. (continued in the next post).

Have you ever asked yourself, why am I coming up with a radically different solution for divorce than the law? Why am I having to deny the realities of divorce and remarriage when the law did not? Why am I blaming the second marriage for the adultery when Jesus’ criticism focused on the divorce as the primal cause? The TRUTH is David Pawson’s interpretation went south when he determined adultery only occurs within a marriage. It CHANGED the VERY trajectory for properly understanding Jesus’ teaching, understand? So that left Pastor Pawson with only one alternative, think of the divorce and ensuing marriage “as if” illegitimate, thus “not a marriage in God’s eyes”, right? Isn’t that exactly how you are interpreting Jesus? You state, “As for Herod and Herodias, according to Mosaic Law (Deut. 24) their former marriages would be over because they both had divorced.” Wonderful, Wonderful, wonderful observation. Therefore we both AGREE that under the law divorce and remarriage resulted in one marriage ending and another marriage constituted. That’s what I’ve been wanting you to affirm!! Those biblical truths (along with God’s creative design for marriage / Matthew 19:8b) should be the very basis for your interpretation of Jesus’ teaching !!! Which in turn will lead you to the simple point Jesus actually made, being the divorce concession (He mentions in Matthew 19:8a) did not keep Israel from violating the one-flesh for life principle (intrinsic to marriage / Matthew 19:4-6) when they remarried. The VERY correction Jesus issued to those who wanted to know all the grounds the law allowed for divorce (Matthew 19:3) was to say that if you prematurely end your marriage (where remarriage is allowed), the one-flesh for life principle (Matthew 19:4-6) will be transgressed in the process. We all should agree that is bad, but your interpretation makes it MUCH worse, agreed? Pastor Pawson did not even consider this because he had already determined that an actual divorce would not result in adultery because the marriage would truly be dissolved. That was also the common Jewish belief in the first century (and still is) today. That supposition is exactly what Jesus was correcting in all of His references to divorce. All you have to do is believe it. Violating the one-flesh principle under the law also caused the women (who were repudiated by their former husbands) to be defiled when they remarried (Deuteronomy 24:4). If these men had not divorced their wives there would be no defilement or ensuing adultery (as Jesus revealed). Both events are real and necessary to properly interpreting Jesus. David Pawson (and every other Pastor/Teacher) CHANGES the trajectory for understanding the simple point Jesus made when they mentally cancel the divorce and second marriage, understand? After your aforementioned statement above you conclude, “Lev. 18:16 would not even apply.” Your conclusion is based in the same supposition Jesus was correcting about those who believed that divorce would prevent any kind of transgression. It didn’t, nor did divorce prevent Herod from violating the near kin law of Lev. 18:16 !!!!!! What’s so surprising about your conclusion is that you are claiming that the first marriage didn’t end so that Herod and Herodias couldn’t help but violate Lev. 18:16, correct? You ask and state, “And what part of this isn't a contradiction? He says "but"... He doesn't say "and" Matthew 5:31-32 "It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: But I say unto you..." So here is the question and ensuing passage of scripture that will reveal what Jesus meant in the phrase “but I say unto you” (in your above reference). Did “but” mean Jesus was supplanting the law of Moses or merely revealing that there was more to keeping the law than Israel was acknowledging? In other words does heart issues matter with God under the law or did He merely want external observances? The following text from the sermon on the mount will prove that Jesus WASN’T supplanting the law at all “but” rather affirming the heart should be motivating them to have the right attitudes towards others also. Matthew 5:21 Ye have heard that it was said of them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment: 22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire. The false way to interpret Jesus here is to think He is supplanting the law regarding murder and replacing it with something else. This is the way that those who formulated the view you are defending interprets “but I say unto you” from the sermon on the mount. One Pastor (Stephen Wilcox) even interjects the theory of “abrogation” into the sermon on the mount so that his adherents believe Jesus “abrogated” the law of Moses and re-instituted the Permanence of marriage. So supposedly there is no more divorce and remarriage after the fact. This theory allows Stephen to acknowledge that both divorce and remarriage were realities under the law, so therefore he doesn’t have to maintain the “indissoluble marriage” theory for that time period which other Pastor try to do. What you need to realize is all of this is NOT necessary when one properly understands that Jesus is making an observation from the very facts of remarriage allowed after divorce was conceded. There is absolutely No reason to mentally dismiss an actual divorce and an actual second marriage in Jesus’ teaching with either theory. To do so CHANGES the VERY point Jesus actual made about marriages ending before death!!! What would happen to your view if you realized that the one-flesh principle can be transgressed when remarriage is allowed after the first marriage ended prematurely? Blessings

No, if John were speaking of the Mosaic Law he would apply Deut. 24 which says after a divorce a man should NEVER return to his wife. Yet here is John telling Herodias to return to Philip. The truth is that God made marriage, man made divorce. God never recognizes the divorce of men. He only rebukes it, just as John the Baptist did. God's law from the beginning of time, as preached throughout the prophets and as seen in creation, is the law John is citing. This is why he got his head cut off instead of all of the other Jews who were applying the Mosaic law. The Mosaic laws for marriage and God's laws are not the same. Stop applying the Mosaic law. Listen to Christ instead. Matt. 6:31-32 "It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: But I say unto you..." Matt. 19:8 "He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so." Jeremiah 3:1 "They say, If a man put away his wife, and she go from him, and become another man's, shall he return unto her again? shall not that land be greatly polluted? but thou hast played the harlot with many lovers; yet return again to me, saith the Lord." Malachi 2:16 "For the Lord, the God of Israel, saith that he hateth putting away: for one covereth violence with his garment, saith the Lord of hosts: therefore take heed to your spirit, that ye deal not treacherously." Christ said to apply his teachings. Not the verse below. Stop applying the Mosaic law. Stop making excuses for sin. Shame on you. Deut. 24:1 "When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house."

@@TruthLewiston Hi Logan Thanks for posting all the verses that proves my position right, that's because none of them state that a marriage can't end before death as you claim. Conversely while Jesus did reveal that ending a marriage prematurely carries the consequence He stated, He did NOT teach your "indissoluble marriage" theory. There is a difference in Jesus revealing what is caused by ending a marriage before death through divorce over against you claiming a marriage can't end before death. The "indissoluble marriage" theory is the VERY reason why Jesus' teaching on this issue becomes so exaggerated and the VERY reason you interject that theory into the story of Herod and Herodias !!!!!! Your view disregards Jesus' very words on how and why adultery ensues. Choosing instead to invert the meaning of "divorce" and "marries another" as spoken by Jesus. This is the fundamental error David Pawson makes when interpreting Jesus and you seemed to echo everything he taught. Stop following Pastor Pawson and believe Christ instead, believe that adultery can occur the way Jesus described Logan. Then you won't have to interject the "indissoluble marriage" theory into God's Word when you define "divorce" and "marries another" (as spoken by Jesus), just define those words as literally as you do the ensuing adultery. Then you'll get Jesus' teaching right. You state, "Yet here is John telling Herodias to return to Philip." Please share where John instructed "Herodias to return to Philip" (as you claim). I'm familiar with that story but I can't recall John ever instructing Herodias to do that. I want to see if I'm wrong about it or if you're reading your own ideas into scripture again. This is the issue I have with your teaching on divorce, you disregard biblical truth and replace it with your own ideas (same as David Pawson). This is called eisegesis interpretation, which means - the act of interpreting a text by imposing one's own ideas, or biases, rather than following the author's intended meaning. This video proves that very point because you actually admit in it that you are not interpreting John from the law he referenced, but rather are presuming he was referring to another law (which he did not reference). Your false presuppositions are the VERY reason John's rebuke of Herod gets so exaggerated. Because you exchange the law he referenced and replace it with another law he did NOT reference. Classic eisegesis !!! You tell me, "Stop applying the Mosaic law. Listen to Christ instead." It would be VERY foolish for anyone to "Stop applying the Mosaic law" to a text that was directly referring to it. Hope anyone can reason that out by knowing the biblical facts chronologically !!! Secondly I do listen to Christ and I know I don't have to interpret Him as opposed to the law He (and the Father) gave Israel through Moses. That is plain ridiculous. You state, "The Mosaic laws for marriage and God's laws are not the same." I do believe there is a distinction between marriage principles and the law of God given through Moses, but (unlike you) I do NOT claim that the Old Testament laws that governed the Nation of Israel was not "God's laws". That again would be ridiculous. I want to give you a chance to prove that John was not referring to the law given through Moses (as you claim) by asking you a simple question. You claimed that John did not rebuke Herod and Herodias for violating an actual law given through Moses. Instead you have diverted John’s rebuke to something other than the law. That's clearly stated in the video above by you. So here's the question that can prove you right and me wrong if you can properly answer it. How did Herod and Herodias avoid violating the near kin law of Leviticus 18:16 which reads “16 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy brother's wife: it is thy brother's nakedness”? The TRUTH is, if they avoided breaking that law with their relationship, then John indeed wasn't referring to the Mosaic law as you claimed. Conversely if they did break that law then I'm right and you're wrong. So please explain how they avoided violating that law (as you claim). Thanks in advance.

@susiewoodford2047 Who need to come to repentance? That makes no sense.

​@TruthLewiston keep it in context. Verse1 - who is he talking to? Beloved. Verse 8- who is he talking to? Beloved. Verse 9- who are the you? Beloved. Who are the any? Beloved

@dtaase They're beloved but they haven't repented yet? A person is dead in trespasses and sins before repentance. They are enemies of the cross of Christ. That's why they need to repent.

@@dtaase And while you're struggling with this one, let us know what the word "all" means in this verse: Romans 5:18 "Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life."

Which part? This part? Romans 9:33 "As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed." I have a full look at Romans 9 here: ruclips.net/video/sysigecl60A/видео.html

Try again cultist . Arrogant self centered reasoning. Typical of the reformed Calvinist.

Lolololol, try again, without your cult glasses on. Lord have mercy!

Jesus flipped and whipped those at the temple gates , called Pharisees brood of vipers , and whitewashed tombs. Reformed Calvinists are parallels. The spirit of the christ of Calvinism is demonic.

No inspired writer ever claimed that divorce does not end a marriage? Does God the Father, God the Son, John the Baptist, and Paul not count? Malachi 2:14-15 "Yet ye say, Wherefore? Because the Lord hath been witness between thee and the wife of thy youth, against whom thou hast dealt treacherously: yet is she thy companion, and the wife of thy covenant. And did not he make one?... For the Lord, the God of Israel, saith that he hateth putting away” Jer. 3:1 "They say, If a man put away his wife, and she go from him, and become another man's, shall he return unto her again? shall not that land be greatly polluted? but thou hast played the harlot with many lovers; yet return again to me, saith the Lord." Jer. 3:8, 14 "And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce ... Turn, O backsliding children, saith the Lord; for I am married unto you: and I will take you one of a city, and two of a family, and I will bring you to Zion" Mark 10:10-12 "And in the house his disciples asked him again of the same matter. And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery." Matt. 14:3-4 “For Herod had laid hold on John, and bound him, and put him in prison for Herodias' sake, his brother Philip's wife. For John said unto him, It is not lawful for thee to have her.” 1 Cor. 7:10-11 "And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife." Herod and Herodias both divorced their first spouses, yet John the Baptist said they were still married to their first spouses. Jesus plainly tells us that divorce does not end a marriage. You are very confused. Mark 10:4-9 "And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away. And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept. But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder."

@@TruthLewiston None of those verses claims "divorce does not end a marriage", you are presuming that INTO those text. You are even exchanging Jesus' words "let not man put asunder" (something they were doing) and reinterpreting it to mean "can't put asunder". Thus Jesus' admonition becomes nonsensical because they supposedly can't do the very thing He was admonishing them not to do. Blessings

@nealdoster8556 That's your response? You have no answer for the Bible. Christ's "let not man put asunder" is an imperative statement that is followed by his teaching that divorcing and remarrying is adultery, therefore proving that the marriage still exists despite the divorce. Adultery is the sin of a married person you fool. You are decieving yourself.

@@TruthLewiston The deception is yours for turning Jesus' words inversive. Try believing what He actually said Logan. So you admit that you do not believe adultery can ensue the way Jesus described, correct?

@nealdoster8556 Adultery happens when a person gets divorced and remarried. How are you struggling with this?

@GraceandTruthChurchofAthens What was misrepresented? Your best example please.

@@TruthLewiston I'm not interested in arguing with anyone online, with all due respect. I was just stating in my comment that the Reformed Theology and Calvinistic views of God, man, justice, grace, and the gospel were extremely misrepresented by this brother as a whole. Maybe you disagree, but I believe it's ok to state my belief about this, without having to provide a defense for what I believe... at least on this kind of platform. I don't think it would be fruitful for any of us. I'm not wimping out here, by any means. I just think that this platform allows more room for strife, than for peace, and I'm more interested in peace among all my brothers in Christ, even though we may have some strong disagreements. I simply wanted to state that the beliefs of your brothers who are Reformed and/or Calvinistic (they are two different things, not one and the same thing) were very much misrepresented by this brother who preached this sermon. None of the preachers who were mentioned by name near the beginning of this sermon believe or teach what this brother claims they believe or teach. If you disagree with that, well, I'm not going to argue with you about it. God bless you. I wish you the best.

@@GraceandTruthChurchofAthensCalvinism has its own christ. I’m a follower of Jesus The Messiah, it is impossible to cohere these two figures.

@@bobwood5146 Please provide your best example of how this is a lack of Biblical understanding.

Reread John 3. Christ likens being born again to people looking in faith to the brazen serpent to be healed. That's all it takes. No works, no glorying, just enough faith to look to Christ. And how we we get faith? By random chance? No, by God's Holy Word. Romans 10:17 "So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." Hearing God's word and believing IS being born again. Peter tells us this explicitly. 1 Peter 1:23 "Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever."

1 Tim. 2:5 "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;"

? A really good answer 🙏🔥

Mercy, calvinists reformers as a whole are horrific

@@truthseeker5698 they are the great apostasy

@AlanDeMoss don't go to the Greek, or buy a good concordance if you really want to follow Satan. Calvanism didn't drive you to atheism/nihilism. You did. It's more likely your realization that you actually hate God did. Why wouldn't a sound church excommunicate someone who proclaimed belief, then came clean and refuted their belief? You made your choices, and blame others for it. I don't doubt for a second that a spirit is motivating you, but as you refute Jesus, Paul, and ultimately God, it isn't the Holy Spirit.

@AlanDeMoss You didn't understand the doctrine then, and you just espoused a fairly common Calvinist idea 😂. It's not in the least diabolical when understood from the perspective that the universe exists for God's glory, not humanity's sake.

@@iamthasecond Yes, put on those calvie lenses , devoid of relational basics , where prayer is a trite meaningless facade, sola de closed theists for their gods glory. Such Ridiculousnss bro!

Gladly.

@@TruthLewiston you should contact them and arrange for a debate

@@saab952001 They'd probably only do it if enough people called for it. Please help us make the case! Contact them too!

This is what Paul said and would say today: Gal. 1:8 "But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed." The mormons behind the show and the catholic who plays Christ preach a different gospel!