Answer – La Vista Church of Christ

Can you remarry if your spouse abandons you?

Jeffrey Hamilton — Wed, 06 May 2026 20:03:03 +0000

Question:

Good Day,

Is it true that someone can remarry if it is for abandonment of the marriage? Some pastors are saying you can remarry.

Answer:

The general rule is, "But to the married I give instructions, not I, but the Lord, that the wife should not leave her husband (but if she does leave, she must remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband), and that the husband should not divorce his wife" (I Corinthians 7:10-11).

If a person leaves for reasons other than fornication (Matthew 19:9), then neither has the right to another marriage. Their only options are to remain unmarried or to reconcile with their former spouse.

What if one is a non-believer and doesn't want to remain in the marriage? A person who isn't a Christian isn't motivated to keep the laws of God.

While true, the non-Christian will still be held accountable by God regarding His statutes. It is man's duty to keep God's commandments (Ecclesiastes 12:13-14). Even the lost must give an account of their actions (I Peter 4:4-6; John 12:48). Thus, non-Christians are accountable to Christ's marriage laws.

Some will object, pointing out that Paul said, "A brother or sister is not under bondage" (I Corinthians 7:15). The word "bondage" means slavery. Marriage is never viewed as a form of slavery in the Bible. In fact, a subtlety is lacking in our English translations that is present in the Greek. When Paul said, "not under bondage" or "is not in slavery," the phrase is in the perfect indicative tense in Greek. That tense is used to state something that was completed in the past and continues to impact the present. In other words, Paul said the brother or sister didn't become a slave in the past when he or she married, and so does not have to act as a slave presently. Since marriage is not a form of slavery, a Christian is not forced to keep a marriage going when the non-Christian wants to leave. To do so would cause discord, but God called us to peace.

However, this doesn't imply that the Christian whose non-believing spouse abandons the marriage has the right to remarry. The general rule found in I Corinthians 7:10-11 still remains.

Will heaven be here on Earth?

Jeffrey Hamilton — Wed, 06 May 2026 19:46:52 +0000

Question:

Hello,

I am very thankful for the many good articles I read on your website. I've recently been hearing some in the church teaching the idea that heaven will be on earth in the future. I know from many scriptures that this is not the case.

I think one of the main verses used is in the very figurative book of Revelation. 21:2 says that the new heavens and earth came down out of heaven from God. I'm wondering how you would describe the thought that the 'new heavens and earth' are our final, perfect dwelling place, yet they 'come down out of heaven'?

I see the 'new heavens and earth' and 'heaven' as both being descriptions of the same place (the same one Jesus went to prepare in John 14), but I find it hard to put into words the idea that one came down from the other.

If you have any thoughts on this, I'd appreciate hearing from you.

Have a blessed day.

Answer:

"Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth passed away, and there is no longer any sea. And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, made ready as a bride adorned for her husband" (Revelation 21:1-2).

By focusing on Revelation 21:2, the verse before it is ignored. It clearly states that the first heaven and earth are gone, which matches what Peter recorded: "But by His word the present heavens and earth are being reserved for fire, kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men. But do not let this one fact escape your notice, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day. The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance. But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, in which the heavens will pass away with a roar and the elements will be destroyed with intense heat, and the earth and its works will be burned up. Since all these things are to be destroyed in this way, what sort of people ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness, looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be destroyed by burning, and the elements will melt with intense heat! But according to His promise we are looking for new heavens and a new earth, in which righteousness dwells" (II Peter 3:7-13). This earth will not exist after the Lord's return; thus, heaven cannot be here.

The phrase "new heaven and new earth" is often used to talk about a major change in the world (see "New Heavens and a New Earth"). Of course, the destruction of this world does lead to a major change.

The new Jerusalem is a symbol of God's kingdom. Where Jerusalem was a physical place in the Old Testament, in the New Testament the new Jerusalem represents God's redeemed people: "But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, to an innumerable company of angels, to the general assembly and church of the firstborn who are registered in heaven, to God the Judge of all, to the spirits of just men made perfect, to Jesus the Mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling that speaks better things than that of Abel" (Hebrews 12:22-24). In prophetic language, the heavenly Jerusalem is still seen as sitting on a mountain: "And he carried me away in the Spirit to a great and high mountain, and showed me the great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God" (Revelation 21:10). The city is personified as a bride, being pure (Ephesians 5:25-27).

Revelation is in symbolic language. Just as the new Jerusalem is not a physical city, the descent is also a part of the symbolism. There, the people of God join Christ, just as a bride walks down the aisle to meet her husband at the wedding ceremony. It is not about the kingdom's location.

How can someone like me make it to Heaven?

Jeffrey Hamilton — Sun, 03 May 2026 00:44:30 +0000

Question:

I wonder how someone like me could make it to heaven.

I see real Christians, and I'm not really anything like them. I always fall. I repeat the same sins over and over and over. My thoughts are not pure; I'm easily enticed. My faith is knowing that every word of God is true, then I reduce God to "how could He possibly do something like transport people to heaven or hell as soon as they die." Just as an example, being completely firm and leaving the fact that the Word is factual. My fear of God is more of a fear of punishment, not reverence or an appreciation, because I have almost forgotten the truth of Him. I do not know him the way you do. I am afraid to let go of all of my will. I know it requires suffering, and I feel too critical of other people's mistakes when I am trying not to make any.

I hope this makes sense. I don't know what kind of response I'm looking for. Maybe something encouraging, because I'm having incredible anxiety because I do not feel that I have entered through any narrow gate at this point.

Answer:

Going back to the facts often helps combat anxiety. "By this we know that we have come to know Him, if we keep His commandments. The one who says, 'I have come to know Him,' and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him; but whoever keeps His word, in him the love of God has truly been perfected. By this we know that we are in Him: the one who says he abides in Him ought himself to walk in the same manner as He walked" (I John 1:3-6). God isn't expecting you or me to be perfect because that is out of reach for every man (Romans 3:23). However, God does want His people to strive toward His teachings and not to be content to stay in sin.

This means you cannot compromise with the world and its ways. When you know you are doing something wrong, then you make an effort to change for the better. "If we say that we have fellowship with Him and yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth;
7 but if we walk in the Light as He Himself is in the Light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin" (I John 1:6-7). It isn't always easy, but we must try.

Another thing you need to avoid is comparing yourself to others. You don't know other people's thoughts or their past. You don't know the things they are struggling with. However, I can guarantee that everyone is struggling with something. So instead of asking if you are as good as another brother, ask if you are better than you were a few years ago; if so, you are making some progress.

Solomon said, "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge; fools despise wisdom and instruction" (Proverbs 1:7). That was a major problem with the Samaritans; they didn't believe God enough to be afraid of Him. "At the beginning of their living there, they did not fear the LORD" (II Kings 17:25). That you have fear of the consequences of what you are doing is a good sign, so long as that fear actually motivates you to make improvements.

There is a lesson that I think will help you: "Bless the Lord, O My Soul."

Why did Paul wait a week to teach the Gentiles?

Jeffrey Hamilton — Tue, 28 Apr 2026 22:10:58 +0000

Question:

Regarding Acts 13:42, why would Paul have the Gentiles wait a week to hear the word of God? Why would he not simply tell them that the church is meeting tomorrow (the first day of the week) as we are commanded?

Thank you

Answer:

"But going on from Perga, they arrived at Pisidian Antioch, and on the Sabbath day they went into the synagogue and sat down. After the reading of the Law and the Prophets the synagogue officials sent to them, saying, 'Brethren, if you have any word of exhortation for the people, say it.' Paul stood up, and motioning with his hand said, "Men of Israel, and you who fear God, listen: ...'" (Acts 13:14-16).

When Paul and his companions first arrived in Pisidian Antioch, there was no existing church. Paul had come to convert people to Christianity and establish a church. As was his custom, he started by going to the local Jewish synagogue. Here would be people who knew about God and the Law. His initial speech was well received.

"As Paul and Barnabas were going out, the people kept begging that these things might be spoken to them the next Sabbath. Now when the meeting of the synagogue had broken up, many of the Jews and of the God-fearing proselytes followed Paul and Barnabas, who, speaking to them, were urging them to continue in the grace of God. The next Sabbath nearly the whole city assembled to hear the word of the Lord. But when the Jews saw the crowds, they were filled with jealousy and began contradicting the things spoken by Paul, and were blaspheming. Paul and Barnabas spoke out boldly and said, 'It was necessary that the word of God be spoken to you first; since you repudiate it and judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life, behold, we are turning to the Gentiles. For so the Lord has commanded us, 'I have placed you as a light for the Gentiles, that you may bring salvation ot the end of the Earth.' When the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord; and as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed. And the word of the Lord was being spread through the whole region" (Acts 13:42-49).

Paul noted that it was necessary for him to attempt to teach the Jews first. "For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek" (Romans 1:16). This is the order in which God wanted His message taught. Once the Jews showed that they did not want the Gospel on the following Sabbath, Paul moved on to the Greeks. There is nothing in the text that indicates that he waited a week to teach the Gentiles. The only week's delay was between the first and second Sabbaths, to wait for the next gathering of the Jews. However, word had gotten out about Paul and what he was teaching because the second meeting drew nearly the whole city to hear him. The Jews rejected Paul, more for his popularity than for his message.

He began teaching the Gentiles, and this led to the establishment of a church in that town.

Can a man remarry in this situation?

Jeffrey Hamilton — Mon, 27 Apr 2026 22:15:45 +0000

Question:

Please give me the biblical answer to the following situation: A man and woman get married (neither one is a Christian). It is his first marriage and her second marriage. They started dating (and having a sexual relationship) while she was still married to her first husband. They eventually married but later divorced. Is the man free to marry again since his first marriage was adulterous? (He says their divorce was due to her having an affair. She says it was due to his abuse. The divorce papers say they are incompatible.)

Answer:

The man was committing adultery with the woman because they were having sex while she was still married. Thus, her first marriage ended because of her adultery. Even though he was the willing participant in her adultery, he (and any other man) had no right to marry her. "But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for the reason of unchastity, makes her commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery" (Matthew 5:32). His marriage to her was a continuation of their adultery.

She continued to follow the same pattern and started cheating on her second husband. Thus, the marriage that should not have existed ended anyway. Regardless of the reason for the end of the second marriage, she has no right to another marriage (not that she'll pay attention to this).

He has not had a valid marriage and could marry again. However, he needs to do a much better job in selecting a wife that mets the Lord's requirements.

What does it take to start a congregation?

Jeffrey Hamilton — Sat, 25 Apr 2026 16:51:37 +0000

Question:

Greetings,

Hope this email finds you well. I have some questions about the organization and definition of a local church.

My first question is: What are the necessary requirements for a group of Christians to form or constitute a local church in the biblical sense?

I understand that an agreement to work together (worship, evangelism, edification, and benevolence) is required. However, my question is more about the following: Is such an agreement sufficient to make a local church? I know it's necessary, but there's a significant difference between what is "necessary" and what is "sufficient". A "sufficient condition" guarantees the truth of another condition. This would mean that the agreement to work together as a local church is enough to make a local church. A "necessary condition" is required for something else to happen, but it does not guarantee that it will. This would mean that the agreement to work as a local church is required to constitute a local church, but other conditions are necessary as well (the agreement alone is not enough).

My second question is: Can a group of only Christian women form a local church? Can they collect and administer the offering and do all the work a local church is required to do?

Here is the reason for my first question: If the agreement between the members is enough (sufficient), then they can. However, if they can't be a local church, then this means the agreement is necessary but not sufficient (there are other requirements as well).

For the moment, I'll leave it here and wait for your reply. I really appreciate you taking the time to answer my questions and clarify my doubts. I'm not in a hurry, so take as much time as you need. I'll really appreciate a detailed answer with Bible verses supporting your conclusions. If you have any Bible study (written or video) on a topic related to this, I'll appreciate it as well.

May God bless you,

Answer:

A local church is the gathering of Christians in an area to function as a church. It is not one person, but a group.

"... when you come together as a church ..." (I Corinthians 11:17).
"Therefore when you meet together, it is not to eat the Lord's Supper" (I Corinthians 11:20).
"So then, my brethren, when you come together to eat, wait for one another" (I Corinthians 11:33).
"... if the whole church assembles together ..." (I Corinthians 14:23).
"What is the outcome then, brethren? When you assemble, each one has a psalm, has a teaching, has a revelation, has a tongue, has an interpretation. Let all things be done for edification" (I Corinthians 14:26).

An important part of the gathering is to partake of the Lord's Supper together (I Corinthians 10:16-17). However, the congregation also gathers for other aspects of worship to help the members grow stronger in their faith (Ephesians 5:19; Colossians 3:16). "Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for He who promised is faithful; and let us consider how to stimulate one another to love and good deeds, not forsaking our own assembling together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another; and all the more as you see the day drawing near" (Hebrews 10:23-25).

It is implied that there is a mutual agreement to work together -- not in the form of a formal document, but with the intent of each member. Governments typically request more formal documents to determine who represents the group, but such is not biblically required. For instance, to create a treasury for the collections (I Corinthians 16:1-2), a bank will require a formal document stating the organization's identity and who represents the group to the bank.

A congregation typically starts without elders (Acts 14:23). However, elders are needed to make a well-running organization. The church in Jerusalem existed for a while without deacons (Acts 6:1-6), but deacons make a church function better. Sometimes churches start without a preacher because Christians move to an area and start the work (Acts 8:4). Thus, a church can start and fill in the necessary roles later.

In the same way, if all the Christians in an area happen to be females, then a church can still start. It is not ideally organized, but that can happen later as the church grows. Women cannot be elders or deacons because the job description requires them to be husbands (I Timothy 3:1-13). A woman cannot be the preacher, but women can share the duties of teaching each other (Titus 2:3-4).

A congregation that is lacking parts works to mature its members to fulfill the roles, or invites qualified men to move into the area.

How can there be church autonomy when the church in Jerusalem oversaw many house churches?

Jeffrey Hamilton — Fri, 24 Apr 2026 02:03:13 +0000

Question:

Hello brother,

I have a question about the autonomy of the local church. I understand that there were many house congregations in the first century. So, if there were many house congregations in Jerusalem, how can they be considered the church in Jerusalem?

Also, if there were many congregations in one city, it means the elders of the Jerusalem church were overseeing many congregations rather than just one.

If that is so, then how will that compare to the church autonomy that we preach today?

Can it then be said that elders can oversee many congregations in a city?

Answer:

You made a jump in your argument that has no supporting evidence. It is true that some of the early churches met in homes. The church in Rome met in Aquilla and Priscilla's home (Romans 16:3-5). When they lived in Ephesus, the church met in their home there (I Corinthians 16:19). The church in Hierapolis met in Nymphas' home. The church in Laodicia met in Philemon's home (Philemon 1-2). These places were not in Jerusalem but scattered in various areas of the Roman Empire.

Just because some churches met in homes, it does not mean all churches did so. There is no mention of any church overseeing other churches. There is no mention of house churches in Jerusalem.

What does James 4:5 mean?

Jeffrey Hamilton — Thu, 23 Apr 2026 20:13:43 +0000

Question:

Dear Sir,

What does it mean that the Spirit who dwells in us yearns jealously (James 4:5)?

Answer:

"You adulteresses, do you not know that friendship with the world is hostility toward God? Therefore whoever wishes to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God. Or do you think that the Scripture speaks to no purpose: "He jealously desires the Spirit which He has made to dwell in us"? But He gives a greater grace. Therefore it says, "God is opposed to the proud, but gives grace to the humble." Submit therefore to God. Resist the devil and he will flee from you. Draw near to God and He will draw near to you. Cleanse your hands, you sinners; and purify your hearts, you double-minded. Be miserable and mourn and weep; let your laughter be turned into mourning and your joy to gloom. Humble yourselves in the presence of the Lord, and He will exalt you" (James 4:4-10 NASB95).

Some translations render James 4:5 a bit differently: "Or do you think that the Scripture says in vain, 'The Spirit who dwells in us yearns jealously'?" (NKJV).

For a short verse, James 4:5 has caused many headaches for translators. The first problem is the quote. There is no verse in the Old Testament that is worded this way. Thus, many Bible students believe that James is summarizing a principle taught in the Scriptures. Another strong possibility is that James is not making a quote at all. The Greek text doesn't have punctuation. Quote marks were not used. The reason it is placed in quotes is that the phrase "the Scripture speaks" (he graphe legei) is assumed to be a lead into a quote. However, it is not necessarily true, and a few major translations don't render it as a quote. The translators of the NIV chose to render the verse: "Or do you think Scripture says without reason that he jealously longs for the spirit he has caused to dwell in us?" The ASV worded it this way: "Or think ye that the scripture speaketh in vain? Doth the spirit which he made to dwell in us long unto envying?" The HSCB says: "Or do you think it’s without reason the Scripture says that the Spirit who lives in us yearns jealously?"

The second problem concerns the word "spirit." Is James referring to the Holy Spirit or our spirit? The Greek doesn't use a different word, and the word you choose will strongly influence how the rest of the verse is translated. The translations have chosen:

That God longs for the human spirit He has given each of us, and so He jealously works to bring us to Him.
That the Holy Spirit dwells in us, and jealousy works to bring us to God.
That the Holy Spirit dwells in us and causes us to jealously long for God
That the human spirit in us, which God made, lusts after jealousy
That God desires the Holy Spirit that He has made to dwell in us.

In the context, the question leading into this section is: "What is the source of quarrels and conflicts among you?" (James 4:1). James' answer is that it comes from our preference for pleasures. "Is not the source your pleasures that wage war in your members?" (James 4:1). The result is: "You lust and do not have; so you commit murder. You are envious and cannot obtain; so you fight and quarrel. You do not have because you do not ask. You ask and do not receive, because you ask with wrong motives, so that you may spend it on your pleasures" (James 4:2-3).

Thus, James charges the pleasure seekers with adultery. Instead of being in a covenant relationship with God, the pleasure seeker is flirting with the world. "You adulteresses, do you not know that friendship with the world is hostility toward God? Therefore whoever wishes to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God" (James 4:4).

James 4:5 is either seen as a continuation of the charge that we tend to go off into jealousy, or as stating that, despite our sins, God still strongly wants us. To me, the latter makes more sense. Whether James is saying that God longs for us directly or through the Holy Spirit doesn't change the understanding of the text all that much.

It flows into James' next point: "But He gives more grace. Therefore He says: 'God resists the proud, But gives grace to the humble'" (James 4:6). Despite our sins, God has abundant grace to offer. However, it isn't given to everyone. We have to be willing to submit to God.

"God doesn’t give up easily on us. Even when we seek our own pleasures, God reaches out with opportunities to draw near to Him. The Spirit, dwelling in His people, is zealous for us. God reaches out with “greater grace,” offering reconciliation with those who would humble themselves before Him (James 4:5-7). Humility is key. Worldly wisdom opposes God because it is grounded in pride. We somehow think that we know how to order our lives -- in a disorderly way, ironically (see James 3:16 again). We couldn’t be further from the truth" [Doy Moyer, "Friendship with God or the World"].

What is meant by “word of mouth” in II Thessalonians 2:15?

Jeffrey Hamilton — Thu, 23 Apr 2026 15:48:50 +0000

Question:

In II Thessalonians 2:15, Paul states that the brethren must "stand firm and hold fast to the traditions" that they were taught, under the criteria that they were either given by "word of mouth" or by the Apostles. I'm having some trouble trying to understand what "word of mouth" means, because if we're taking that as what a Christian from one congregation would say to another congregation, then that would bring on the risk of that Christian either misinterpreting what was taught to him at that other congregation and accidentally causing another congregation to believe in a false teaching, or, a self-serving brother purposefully leading a congregation away from the truth. However, "of mouth" is in italics, which indicates that it was inserted into the NASB 1995 translation by the translators. If we were to take it as just simply "word", then an argument can be made that this might simply be referring to the word spoken directly (in person) by either Jesus or the Apostles.

Am I misunderstanding the text?

Answer:

"So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us" (II Thessalonians 2:15).

What is missed is that "from us" applies to both "by word of mouth" and "by letter." Paul is not saying to accept anything anyone tells you. He is reminding the Thessalonians to continue in the traditions that Paul taught them in person (by word of mouth) or through one of his letters.

Earlier in this discussion, Paul was concerned that the Thessalonians might be led astray. "Now we request you, brethren, with regard to the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him, that you not be quickly shaken from your composure or be disturbed either by a spirit or a message or a letter as if from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come" (II Thessalonians 2:1-2). The false teachers were attempting to bolster their claims by claiming they had a revelation (by a spirit), or that Paul told them something different from what the Thessalonians remembered (by a message), or that Paul wrote to them something different (by a letter). Their claims were false because God doesn't deliver contradictory messages. This is how Moses told Israel to spot a false prophet. "If a prophet or a dreamer of dreams arises among you and gives you a sign or a wonder, and the sign or the wonder comes true, concerning which he spoke to you, saying, 'Let us go after other gods (whom you have not known) and let us serve them,' you shall not listen to the words of that prophet or that dreamer of dreams; for the LORD your God is testing you to find out if you love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul. You shall follow the LORD your God and fear Him; and you shall keep His commandments, listen to His voice, serve Him, and cling to Him. But that prophet or that dreamer of dreams shall be put to death, because he has counseled rebellion against the LORD your God who brought you from the land of Egypt and redeemed you from the house of slavery, to seduce you from the way in which the LORD your God commanded you to walk. So you shall purge the evil from among you" (Deuteronomy 13:1-5). God's message is consistent because God cannot lie. If you accept that the original message is from God, then any contradictory message cannot be from God.

This is why Paul told the Thessalonians to stand firm in the things they had been taught, regardless of how the message was originally delivered to them. "Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from every brother who leads an unruly life and not according to the tradition which you received from us. For you yourselves know how you ought to follow our example, because we did not act in an undisciplined manner among you" (II Thessalonians 3:6).

Paul told the Corinthians the same thing. "Now I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them to you" (I Corinthians 11:2).

Your article on the Sabbath has all the hallmarks of false teaching

Jeffrey Hamilton — Wed, 22 Apr 2026 03:42:38 +0000

Question:

I stumbled on your article about Sabbath and was left speechless. The article "Was Paul a Sabbath Keeper?" had all the hallmarks of a person more determined to twist the Scriptures in a classic example of "But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men." (Mathew 15:9).

I have also taken note that the very absurd, radical, and false teachings against the Sabbath, the 4th Commandment, and the 7th day of the week, and in defense of Sunday, the 1st day of the week, come from people affiliated with "Church of Christ", which raises many questions. The article is false; your argument against Sabbath reeks of poor Bible study. Your understanding of Colossians 2:16-17 also explains your eisegesis — interpreting the verses (text) by reading your own ideas, biases, and assumptions into them rather than drawing meaning from the text. Do you know there are many sabbaths but only one Sabbath? Even Jesus was crucified just a few hours before one of those sabbaths. Do you know there were other laws being kept by Jews that were known as Ceremonial Laws? Do you know the difference between Ceremonial Laws, Civil Laws, and the Decalogue?

The grace of Christ, His death and resurrection, saves us. Simply put, it pays the penalty of our sin, secures forgiveness for us from God, restores the lost fellowship between God and man, and we become a new creation in Christ. As a saved person, you don't sin, and what is sin? "Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth against also the law: for sin is transgression of the law" (1 John 3:4). The first sin (by Adam and Eve) was the sin of disobedience; any truly born-again believer will NEVER have a problem in being obedient to God's law. Believers are NOT obligated to keep the new moon festivals, holidays, and sabbaths of the ancient Jews because those were specific to their culture as a people, but the 10 Commandments transcends Jews and defines God's constitution and one can't claim to have an issue with one part of the Commandments while pretending to keep another for Sabbath is the 4th and "Do not commit adultery" is the 7th, so think why you are so vehement in arguing against one while pretending to uphold the other. (see James 2:10).

May God's grace locate you and open your eyes, ears, mind, and heart that you may know "the grace of God in truth" (Colossians 1:5-6).

Answer:

Sadly, you mistakenly think that assertions are somehow proof. All you have accomplished is to declare your rejection of the arguments made by Benard Kagaga. You failed to prove that his arguments are flawed.

You claim the Scriptures were twisted, but never show how they were twisted or how they should be properly read.

You argue against the source, but that doesn't mean the article's discussion is wrong.

I'm puzzled by your argument about the number of Sabbaths. In Colossians 2:16, "Sabbaths" is in the plural. I suspect that "The Sabbath as a Type" addresses your attempt at an argument.

Would you like to cite where God says His Law was divided into the Decalogue, ceremonial, and civil laws? This argument is addressed in "Law of God and Law of Moses: Are They the Same?" and "Were the Colossians being told not to worry about being condemned for keeping the Sabbath?"

Your argument that Christians never sin contradicts what John wrote: "If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar and His word is not in us. My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous" (I John 1:8-2:1).

Your final point, claiming that adultery is only condemned because it is condemned in the Ten Commandments, is proven wrong in "What about the Ten Commandments?"