Discussion Jumpstarter
Study leader reference - not a definitive answer
Question 4
Mike argued that “ideas have consequences” and used divorce/remarriage as an example: Jesus calls it adultery, and Paul says adulterers won’t inherit the kingdom; what does this do to common evangelical instincts about assurance, grace, and “God understands,” and what kind of pastoral costs might come from taking Mike’s line seriously?
Another way to ask: If Jesus calls divorce and remarriage adultery, and Paul says adulterers won’t inherit the kingdom, how does that challenge common ideas about assurance and “God understands”? What hard pastoral problems might come from taking that seriously?
Discussion Jumpstarter
Direct Answer
Mike’s approach challenges a casual assurance that ignores Jesus’ warnings, pressing believers to treat ongoing sin as jeopardizing salvation; pastorally, it could require hard conversations, repentance, and costly obedience rather than comforting people with “God understands.”
- He notes his childhood church had “many couples… divorced and remarried,” even leaders in a “Christian band.”
- He quotes Jesus’ standard: “whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery.”
- He connects it to inheritance: “we know from Paul that no adulterer will inherit the kingdom of heaven.”
- He concludes, “So beliefs have consequences,” and earlier: consequences “can be eternal.”
- He describes his earlier mindset: “God will understand… I'm already saved… maybe I'll say another sinner's prayer just in case,” calling it “very dangerous.”
- He admits the personal weight: he realized he was “actually on the road to hell with some of the ways I was living.”