Do we have room for overt sinners in our Churches?

[Thundarstick]

I borrowed this from Wayne in another thread, but when he asks it touched my heart. Do we really have room for the "overt" sinners in our churches, or do you have to meet some kind of standard before you are allowed in, much less welcomed? I know I've felt this judgment from others, what's your take? How do you guard against "looking down" on others with your own judgment? I find this to be extremely so for brothers and sisters whose marriage has failed.

This helps me:Luk 18:10-14
Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican.
The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican.
I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess.
And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner.
I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.

Lord, help me to remember what you have forgiven me of. Protect me in moments of my weakness when I may think too highly of myself. Amen

[Ickisrulz]

In your passage the publican was repentant. He went away forgiven and I think the assumption is that he will get his act together and live a life that is more pleasing to God.

Paul really got on the Corinthians for not dealing with Christians who were openly sinful. The idea is that the local church should confront sin. This is far from being judgemental. When we realize that sin is damaging to the practitioner and those around him, we cannot simply ignore it. The 1st Century Church was not "live and let live" in respect to sin. Jesus wasn't either.

The Church must be open for anyone to come hear the Gospel. This means rich or poor, "good people" or even the overtly sinful. But the disruptive should be shown the door.

[claude]

There is this from Jesus, Matt 9:13, Mark 2:17, and Luke 5:32. However, if there is a member defiantly sinning, there is also this, 1Corinthians Chapter 5, there is a point where one must draw the line for the good of the body (the church) and cut off the offending member. Mark 9:42-47, Matt 5:29-30, and Matt 18:7-11

[jmort]

Paul is crystal clear on this
Discuss with sinner
Sinner has choice cease and desist or get kicked out
No fellowship with determined sinners
As for a non-Christian
Let them come and see if they "get it"
If they are truely Saved, then they will improve
Like a law of physics
Truely Born Again = continual striving to be a better person, and good church member for that matter
You can't have scum polluting a Church
Paul was crystal clear on this

[WebMonkey]

The distinction, for our churches is;
A church member, or
A church visitor.

Card carrying members are not to go undisciplined with regard to continual conscious sin.

Visitors should be welcomed/ministered to and, in His love, discipled in the expectations of Christian membership should they wish to join.

:)

[Thundarstick]

In your passage the publican was repentant. He went away forgiven and I think the assumption is that he will get his act together and live a life that is more pleasing to God.

It is indeed an assumption that the publican stopped any thing he was doing, but he knew he was a sinner.

if there is a member defiantly sinning
As I understand the scriptures, all and any sin is done in defiance.

I'm a little confused with a term I keep seeing thrown around. Truly saved, truly believe, truly repent, I'm of the understanding that ALL Christians are truly SINNERS even though saved??

I'll add another question for this discussion. Does the Church you attend actively practice disfellowshipping or publicly baring someone from your fellowship. If so, who decides what sin fits into the category of scum polluting the church?

[Ickisrulz]

I'll add another question for this discussion. Does the Church you attend actively practice disfellowshipping or publicly baring someone from your fellowship. If so, who decides what sin fits into the category of scum polluting the church?

I knew of one instance where a family was asked to leave a church because the husband was chasing one of the member's wife.

I saw the virtual destruction of a church when one man stole an other's wife and had a baby with her. This could have been avoided by the expulsion of this guy as he was a known problem (it was the same guy that had been thrown out of the church above).

Today's Christian is more apt to understand "judge not" as meaning we ignore others' sins rather than trying to help each other remove sins while not condemning (that speck does need to be removed!). So I doubt many are actually confronted or asked to leave a fellowship.

Obviously a church body cannot be on every member for every little infraction. But there are serious sins that can severely effect unity. Gossip, adultery and lying all come to mind.

[Thundarstick]

So is the answer NO in the church you attend, and no one because it's not practiced?

I would also offer that gossips have destroyed far more fellowships than adulterers, but who knows.

[Ickisrulz]

So is the answer NO in the church you attend, and no one because it's not practiced?

I would also offer that gossips have destroyed far more fellowships than adulterers, but who knows.

Unless one is a pastor or deacon, we probably don't know all the goings on. I just gave my limited knowledge and opinion.

I'll also add that "false teachers" were a known problem in the 1st Century Church. At that time they infiltrated congregations. I think today they set up their own churches where people go to them.

[Soundguy]

remember.. if we close the door to the church to sinners.. NONE of us should be in there. Remember that.

That 'white lie' you told last week... or ommission of fact that you left out of an explanation a month ago.

Those are OVERT sins. Sin is sin. And it's ALL been forgiven.. already.. If we want it.

[jmort]

I will assume that we all have Bibles.
Paul's orders on this issue are crystal clear and unambiguous.
As usual, it is hard to tell if some here are trolling or just never read Paul's Letters
If there is a church member engaged in sin, like sleeping with their father's wife, the pastor/elders are to try and get them to repent. If they do not repent they are to be expelled from the church and no future fellowship is allowed. Real simple deal, but the pot-stirrers love to makes stuff up. Another useless thread designed to cause discord and dissension. The O/P could have made a useful thread, such as "Why is it important to dismiss church members who refuse to give up an egerious sin?"
Paul has made all this so very easy. Want an answer, check with Paul.

[Blackwater]

In answer to the OP's essential question, my own personal answer is "YES!" Casting out members for their behavior appeals to our tendency towards judgmentalism, but being judgmental is something that Christ often warned us about. So for me, if for nobody else, my answer can only be "Yes!" It's rare, but I've seen folks who've almost flaunted (or so it seemed to me at that time) their "sins" by being in church and prominent in it. But later on, they finally humbled themselves, and became good champions for the Lord. It seems to take a while for some Christians to mature. And who among us knows enough to separate those who'll eventually repent, and those who won't? If you think you can tell who's going to be saved eventually and those who will never repent, you surely think a whole LOT more of yourself than I do of my own self! If someone will continually expose themselves to the Word, and gather with mature Christians, who among us can turn such a soul out, effectively casting them "upon the rocks?" Where in the Bible can you find a defense of such action?

I can't and don't set myself up as the greatest interpreter of the Bible, but .... I cannot see turning someone AWAY from Christ and the benefits of His church, providing only that they simply WANT to be there. Who among us can look into their minds and read them, and know what their true inner purposes are in doing what they do? I think Christ warned us not to ever be so haughty as to truly believe we fully "understand" another. So .... this is MY view, and you're entitled to yours. But we ALL must be VERY careful that we're truly looking for the Truth, and not simple rationales to justify (or attempt to) what we simply WANT to do, and feel some compulsion to do. We are very willful creatures, and easily fool our own selves at times. At least when we have someone in church we know doesn't do what seems clearly to be what they're supposed to, as Christians, we DO at least have some empathy with them, and compassion for them. In that, they serve a good purpose for the mature Christians there. And who knows how they'll end up if we simply support the good within them? I don't. I doubt very seriously any of us CAN. But again, that's just me. YMMV, and likely does?

[jmort]

^^^
Where do people get this nonsense??? Just make it up. Play pretend. Apparently some want to disregard parts of the Bible for various reasons. Again I ask, how many pages are left in your Bible? Mine is intact. Let me see, should I listen to Paul, or someone ignorant as to basic Bible truth???

15 “And if your brother sins, go and reprove him in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother. 16 “But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that by the mouth of two or three witnesses every fact may be confirmed. 17 “And if he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax-gatherer. 18 “Truly I say to you, whatever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. 19 “Again I say to you, that if two of you agree on earth about anything that they may ask, it shall be done for them by My Father who is in heaven. 20 “For where two or three have gathered together in My name, there I am in their midst” (Matthew 18:15-20; see also Galatians 6:1-2; 2 Thessalonians 3:6, 14-15; Titus 3:10-11)."

"3 For I, on my part, though absent in body but present in spirit, have already judged him who has so committed this, as though I were present. 4 In the name of our Lord Jesus, when you are assembled, and I with you in spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus, 5 I have decided to deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of his flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus."

(5:9-13)

"9 I wrote you in my letter not to associate with immoral people; 10 I did not at all mean with the immoral people of this world, or with the covetous and swindlers, or with idolaters; for then you would have to go out of the world. 11 But actually, I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he should be an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler— not even to eat with such a one. 12 For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Do you not judge those who are within the church? 13 But those who are outside, God judges. Remove the wicked man from among yourselves (1 Corinthians 5:9-13)."

1 Corinthians 5English Standard Version (ESV)

Sexual Immorality Defiles the Church
5 It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that is not tolerated even among pagans, for a man has his father's wife. 2 And you are arrogant! Ought you not rather to mourn? Let him who has done this be removed from among you.

3 For though absent in body, I am present in spirit; and as if present, I have already pronounced judgment on the one who did such a thing. 4 When you are assembled in the name of the Lord Jesus and my spirit is present, with the power of our Lord Jesus, 5 you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord.[a]

6 Your boasting is not good. Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump? 7 Cleanse out the old leaven that you may be a new lump, as you really are unleavened. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. 8 Let us therefore celebrate the festival, not with the old leaven, the leaven of malice and evil, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.

9 I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— 10 not at all meaning the sexually immoral of this world, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. 11 But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler—not even to eat with such a one. 12 For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? 13 God judges[c] those outside. [B]“Purge the evil person from among you.”

[Thundarstick]

Is it useless that we discuss these things? If I think I have all the answers down, it's it discord to discuss anything here?

I'm going to share this story.

The church my wife grew up in publicly disfellowshiped her when she was in her early 30s. The reason? She had lost a job and took one in a convenient store that sold alcohol and required her to work some Sundays. Do you think any of those church leaders offered her a good paying job, no Sundays and no beer selling? I bet I don't even have to give you the answer, but NO! This was the church she was born into, raised in, and her parents attended till they passed and she has never darkened the door of a church again! So if you want to consider this a troll, so be it! I see churches exclude re married couples, "because you have to assume they are adulterers"! I could go on and on about other disfellowshipping I've witnessed and never once have I seen it do anything except break people and churches! I know I'm a sinner and in my life Ive found that as soon as one sin is beaten back, another steps up to replace it. I'm still not getting straight up and down answers, I know the scriptures allow for it, but does your church DO IT, and who decides, and for what sins?

I'm of the understanding that the theology form is to discuss theological issues and the chapel not so much.

[6bg6ga]

remember.. if we close the door to the church to sinners.. NONE of us should be in there. Remember that.

That 'white lie' you told last week... or ommission of fact that you left out of an explanation a month ago.

Those are OVERT sins. Sin is sin. And it's ALL been forgiven.. already.. If we want it.

Simple pure logic.

[jmort]

^^^
I remember a movie entitled Dumb and Dumber.
No sin is not generic. The consequence is, but not the sin itself. Paul made it clear that the guy "dating" his father's wife was in a distinct class of sins, not even the heathens approved of such a sin as he stated. The childlike logic, all sins are the same, is the reason the discourse in this forum is primitive. I realize not all are gifted mentally, but all are able to purchase a Bible. I guess the sub-forum would be better titled, theads by members who are clueless about simple, fundamental Bible knowledge, or people who have no idea what the Bible says.

[Ickisrulz]

Is it useless that we discuss these things? If I think I have all the answers down, it's it discord to discuss anything here?

I'm going to share this story.

The church my wife grew up in publicly disfellowshiped her when she was in her early 30s. The reason? She had lost a job and took one in a convenient store that sold alcohol and required her to work some Sundays. Do you think any of those church leaders offered her a good paying job, no Sundays and no beer selling? I bet I don't even have to give you the answer, but NO! This was the church she was born into, raised in, and her parents attended till they passed and she has never darkened the door of a church again! So if you want to consider this a troll, so be it! I see churches exclude re married couples, "because you have to assume they are adulterers"! I could go on and on about other disfellowshipping I've witnessed and never once have I seen it do anything except break people and churches! I know I'm a sinner and in my life Ive found that as soon as one sin is beaten back, another steps up to replace it. I'm still not getting straight up and down answers, I know the scriptures allow for it, but does your church DO IT, and who decides, and for what sins?

I'm of the understanding that the theology form is to discuss theological issues and the chapel not so much.

I thought I was pretty clear in my responses. But I'll be more clear. I have never attended a church that threw someone out that I know of. I also acknowledge that showing someone the door or confronting grievous sin is a biblical idea and absolutely necessary at times.

I am of the opinion that your wife was treated poorly in the story you posted. Working on a Sunday or working in a business that sells alcohol would not be anything a church should address publicly or severely. Those are the types of issues that should be left up to the individual Christian to decide on their own. I would not belong to such a church.

We have been around and around on this forum arguing if one sin is worse than another. My reading of the Bible tells me is that all sin is bad...but some sins are much, much worse. Like I said above, a church can ignore most of the sins if its members but there are some that are so potentially damaging they have to be rooted out. We enumerated some of these above.

There is a general lack of biblical knowledge in Christendom and that is where these problems come from.

[Ickisrulz]

Casting out members for their behavior appeals to our tendency towards judgmentalism...

I am not sure I agree with you on this. Most people avoid conflict at all costs. I think the natural human reaction is to avoid confronting the problem (sin)...but then talking about the person behind their back in disapproval.

Edit: Unless it's a mob that is.

[RogerDat]

I know at least one Lutheran church that belongs to a different synod than most around here and at church league softball games they won't pray with the others because it is wrong to fellowship with unbelievers. As much as some try to avoid confrontation others delight in being smug and putting others in their place.

Since the church of the first century how many times has the "body" divided itself on matters of dogma? Most often driven by people who were 100% certain of the rightness of their interpretation of scripture. We can't really know with perfect knowledge, can only strive toward better understanding or knowledge. So yes I think this conversation is worthwhile, and know it can only be fruitful if all participants are willing to accept that not everyone subscribes to exactly their division of the "body" of the church. Heck get right down to it even within a congregation not always going to get unanimous agreement.

In my crankier moments I would think one doesn't need to kick someone out of a church for behaving immorally toward married members, one just has to let them know how much time your going to have to spend asking forgiveness for the butt whupping going to be delivered if they don't see the error of their ways. Don't have to kick someone out over disregarding civilized behavior, administering the correction their daddy should have to learn them right from wrong with interest on account of them being adults now is another option.

When it comes down to it we spend a lot of time and energy trying to deal with just 7 or 8 of the 10 commandments for ourselves, let alone trying to make sure others do it to our satisfaction. If it isn't worth fighting someone over it probably isn't worth getting too upset trying to correct them.

[Thundarstick]

Mat 13:24-30
Jesus told them another parable: “The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field.
But while everyone was sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and went away.
When the wheat sprouted and formed heads, then the weeds also
“The owner’s servants came to him and said, ‘Sir, didn’t you sow good seed in your field? Where then did the weeds come from?’
“ ‘An enemy did this,’ he replied. “The servants asked him, ‘Do you want us to go and pull them
“ ‘No,’ he answered, ‘because while you are pulling the weeds, you may uproot the wheat with them.
Let both grow together until the harvest. At that time I will tell the harvesters: First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles to be burned; then gather the wheat and bring it into my barn.’ ”

Perhaps I'm wrong, but I was taught this parable is the answer to most church problems. I'm in agreement that there are severe instances that it may be warranted but not required. Many of the churches in these parts practiced this 40 years ago, but I don't know of a single church that practices disfellowship today. As in my wife's case it destroys, not saves, in most cases.

In today's legal environment I'm not sure a congregation could bar someone with out risking a law suit.

[jmort]

"In today's legal environment I'm not sure a congregation could bar someone with out risking a law suit"

Wrong
Freedom of Association
Freedom of Religion
Churches can restrict membership any way the want.
This is a fact beyond dispute

[RogerDat]

...... snip.....

In today's legal environment I'm not sure a congregation could bar someone with out risking a law suit.
Well you can sue anyone or any organization but winning a suit against a church that insisted you leave the congregation for not abiding by church rules? Not likely in my opinion to win that one. Any more than a court would back someone attending synagogue and eating a ham sandwhich who was required to leave by the Rabbi.

It is why gay marriage can be legal but one can't demand that a church official perform the ceremony. Can't tell a priest whom they should marry. Can't even tell the elders in a Quaker Meeting who they will or will not marry, never could.

[Blackwater]

There's the "letter of the law" and then there's the decision to observe it totally strictly, or whether, like Christ modeled for us so very, very often, we can "live and let live" and NOT be so judgmental as to throw them out of the church. The case I thought of when I posted what I did was a very mature man and deacon of the church who had a drinking problem, and when he drank, occasionally beat his wife. Throwing him out of the church would have, almost surely, given him no real hope of making his alcoholism better, but would almost surely have made it worse. As it was, he finally got it all together and quit drinking, but even then, it wasn't anyone in the church that helped him quit. It was another alcoholic in AA who finally brought him to the point that he COULD quit.

Yes, there are indeed sinners in most all the churches that exist. In mine, we also had a young teenaged woman who sometimes had her date park behind the church for their trysts. That wasn't appreciated, eihter. She died not long ago now, and I never knew if she'd come to the Lord or not. Never crossed paths with her, and she quit going to church long, long ago. I just hope she found salvation.

So yeah, churches are full of sinners. I'm one, so I guess I ought to know! But throw them out? Yeah, there may well be limits beyond which a church finds itself unwilling to rationally go, and in RARE cases, it may be warranted and needed. But the churches that do this seem to be, in my experience, kind'a selective about who they cast out and who they look over. THIS isn't really surprising, since willful humans were doing the deciding. But wise??? I think not, in all but the most extreme and clearly necessary situations, I say "Yes," there's definitely room for folks in MY church who everyone knows is sinning. Not all may be saved, but some will almost surely be. And isn't that the whole point of what Christ shed his precious and perfect blood for? So we ALL who are sinners, might be saved? Anyone proud enough and haughty enough to throw folks out .... well, they'd not like my church very much, I don't think. We're a pretty loving and well behaved and good natured group. Even the sinners among us - which is ALL of us. Even the near saints, who seem to be the most humble folks IN the church!

As I said, I don't set myself up as the be-all end-all of theology by ANY measure, but I'll always go with what I think Christ modeled and advised most, and if I err, I think I want it to be on the side of continuing to give folks a real chance, rather than forcing them out. Like I said, that's just MY take on it, and anyone who wishes to disagree is perfectly free to. Mainly, I think we Christians sometimes find it a little TOO easy to set ourselves off from everyone else. I'm a Baptist, and it's said that you can tell a Baptist because they won't speak to you at the liquor store. But I will. If anyone can find a verse that PROHIBITS imbibing in moderation, and I mean true moderation, please come forward with that verse. I can't find it. And yes, I HAVE looked.

We lose credibility with the unsaved when we jump to swiftly to accuse our brothers. That, taken to its eventual end, will always create yet more rifts. Love doesn't create rifts, but tends to heal as many of them as are amenable to being healed, even if it takes a while to do so. That's why I take the position I do in this. Feel free to disagree, but until someone convinces me of the judiciousness of such things, I can't very well change my mind on it. If I've erred in this, at least I've erred on the side of love and understanding, and caring for my brother. I'll take that.

[jmort]

Paul made this simple
You make it up
I will follow Paul's clear unambiguous instruction
Not your made up uninspired ideas

[Thundarstick]

Blackwater, I'm so thankful there are people here that can put things in words that I feel.

[Ickisrulz]

The case I thought of when I posted what I did was a very mature man and deacon of the church who had a drinking problem, and when he drank, occasionally beat his wife. Throwing him out of the church would have, almost surely, given him no real hope of making his alcoholism better, but would almost surely have made it worse.

Wow! Do you see "love" operating in ignoring this guy's actions? The church failed the wife and the congregation. He should have been confronted, stripped of his deacon status, told to shape up or get out and jailed. I would have recommended that his wife leave him too for her own safety. I could go on, but I am pretty disturbed by the scenario.

You do know that men who don't take care of their families are" worse than unbelievers", right? I would say the guy you wrote about falls in this category...and he was a deacon!

[claude]

A question was asked,
Do we have room for overt sinners in our Churches?

Some very specific cases were sited saying that no, there is no room for certain openly unrepentant behavior in church, yet the argument goes on and on, endlessly to no end. the specifics were stated in scripture, seemingly ignored.

Much as GOD asked Job, I ask you;

(Job 38:1-2) "Then the LORD answered Job out of the whirlwind, and said, {2} Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge?"

And Job answered;

(Job 42:1-6) "Then Job answered the LORD, and said, {2} I know that thou canst do every thing, and that no thought can be withholden from thee. {3} Who is he that hideth counsel without knowledge? therefore have I uttered that I understood not; things too wonderful for me, which I knew not. {4} Hear, I beseech thee, and I will speak: I will demand of thee, and declare thou unto me. {5} I have heard of thee by the hearing of the ear: but now mine eye seeth thee. {6} Wherefore I abhor myself, and repent in dust and ashes."

Thundarstick, aside from the emotional trauma, that church did your wife a huge favor, it divorced her so she could move on a church that hopefully taught Christ. Additionally, being disfellowshiped from a man made church has absolutely nothing to do with ones salvation, that is decided by a higher authority.

(1 Corinthians 5:5) "To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus."

(John 11:35) "Jesus wept."

[Thundarstick]

Claude please explain to me how that church did my wife any favors? She still has faith in Jesus saving grace, but wants NOTHING to do with ANY church! I think she resents me for going to church services but I know is where I should be. It breaks my heart at the number of people I grew up with who have left church services all together because there seems to be only harsh judgment and very little love for people in their weakness. The church I attend is nothing like I grew up in and I would never attend one like it either! I've seen what true love is, and it involves compassion, not legalism, something that seems to be lacking in many of our churches

[opos]

May I inquire who withing the particular church organization makes the determination to oust or include someone from membership? Aside from the Bible as the "go to" book...where would one go to find the particular church's "rules of conduct"? I sometimes get the feeling that mortal men place themselves in a position of superiority and control where their particular organization is involved. Because someone carries a particular "title" within the organization...does that person have a closer tie to Jesus or God or is it to satisfy some mortal need and ego?

[6bg6ga]

I'm not a bible expert. I've never had the time to sit down and read it but that is something I plan to do when I retire. I do think there are contradictory things that to be blunt don't make any sense to me. You guys are pondering basically if someone can be kicked out of church for a particular behavior? Doesn't it say somewhere that if you ask for forgiveness in his name you will get it? Sins are supposed to be forgiven so is it logical that you want to judge and decide if someone should be allowed to continue going to church or be forgiven? Sound kinda hypocritical to me.

[jmort]

"A question was asked,
Do we have room for overt sinners in our Churches?
Some very specific cases were sited saying that no, there is no room for certain openly unrepentant behavior in church, yet the argument goes on and on, endlessly to no end. the specifics were stated in scripture, seemingly ignored."

Pretty much nails it

[claude]

Claude please explain to me how that church did my wife any favors?

Her mind is not being poisoned with judgmental BS, and lies, she has seen that the veneer of whitewash is thin indeed. Churches do not equal The Church, which is headed by Christ.


She still has faith in Jesus saving grace

What has she lost? Ask her if she has a greater appreciation for Jesus, or a lesser, if greater she is indeed a winner.

You are somewhat answering your own question brother, everything has a time, when she heals of the wounds, she may seek a church. Until then, if she fellowships with Jesus, that is enough. I'm sure some would argue over that, that's to bad.

I'm sorry she was ill treated by ignorant legalists, but the lesson is that Satan loves to act from the pulpit, one sees it everyday.

[jmort]

I'm not a bible expert. I've never had the time to sit down and read it but that is something I plan to do when I retire. I do think there are contradictory things that to be blunt don't make any sense to me. You guys are pondering basically if someone can be kicked out of church for a particular behavior? Doesn't it say somewhere that if you ask for forgiveness in his name you will get it? Sins are supposed to be forgiven so is it logical that you want to judge and decide if someone should be allowed to continue going to church or be forgiven? Sound kinda hypocritical to me.

When you do decide to read the Bible, start with Paul. He was specifically sent to non-Jews to provide instruction to the Saints. He makes it real clear. All this hand-wringing over a simple clear issue where there is no ambuguity. I think such argument shines a light on how little people know about Bibical instruction.

[jmort]

May I inquire who withing the particular church organization makes the determination to oust or include someone from membership? Aside from the Bible as the "go to" book...where would one go to find the particular church's "rules of conduct"? I sometimes get the feeling that mortal men place themselves in a position of superiority and control where their particular organization is involved. Because someone carries a particular "title" within the organization...does that person have a closer tie to Jesus or God or is it to satisfy some mortal need and ego?

Again, I would refer you to Paul who makes it very clear on who is to run the churches and what qualifications they must have. Simple deal. Read it and you will know the answer. Amazing how little people know. Read Paul's letters which contain simple, clear, and umambigious instruction on how the churches are to be run and by who.

[Wayne Smith]

I know of nowhere in the Bible where it says "don't judge". It rather says 'be very careful and examine yourself closely before you judge. Read the Lord's Prayer carefully and ask yourself "how am I asking God to judge me?" The principle is clear, we are to judge, but graciously and carefully. Judgment is necessary in any organization. The Church is no different, just how we do it is to be very different.

[claude]

Doesn't it say somewhere that if you ask for forgiveness in his name you will get it?

You are missing the point, OVERT, doesn't care, has no repentance. ASKS NO FORGIVENESS, could care less who it effects,.....taking shape now? Starting to catch the drift of the conversation?


Sound kinda hypocritical to me.

Under those conditions, does it still sound that way? Put it together in your mind, open your spiritual eyes, and think about it.

let me site an example, I walk into your house as a guest, urinate on your floor, defecate in your favorite chair, pat your wife on the bum, and teach your kids to do so, then walk out smiling, laughing in your face, think you're gonna invite me back?

[DCP]

Wow! Do you see "love" operating in ignoring this guy's actions? The church failed the wife and the congregation. He should have been confronted, stripped of his deacon status, told to shape up or get out and jailed. I would have recommended that his wife leave him too for her own safety. I could go on, but I am pretty disturbed by the scenario.

You do know that men who don't take care of their families are" worse than unbelievers", right? I would say the guy you wrote about falls in this category...and he was a deacon!

All sins are equal and the wage of sin is death- This is why Christ died on the CROSS so we can be saved.
Only one unforgivable sin unbelief

[Ickisrulz]

All sins are equal and the wage of sin is death- This is why Christ died on the CROSS so we can be saved.
Only one unforgivable sin unbelief

Like I said we've been down this road before. I will just refer you to John 19:11 for my "proof text" and leave it at that.

Jesus answered, "You would have no power over me if it were not given to you from above. Therefore the one who handed me over to you is guilty of a greater sin."

[Ickisrulz]

I'm not a bible expert. I've never had the time to sit down and read it but that is something I plan to do when I retire. I do think there are contradictory things that to be blunt don't make any sense to me. You guys are pondering basically if someone can be kicked out of church for a particular behavior? Doesn't it say somewhere that if you ask for forgiveness in his name you will get it? Sins are supposed to be forgiven so is it logical that you want to judge and decide if someone should be allowed to continue going to church or be forgiven? Sound kinda hypocritical to me.

If you haven't read the Bible or done serious study, why in the world are you offering your opinion on such a serious matter?

[DCP]

Like I said we've been down this road before. I will just refer you to John 19:11 for my "proof text" and leave it at that.

Jesus answered, "You would have no power over me if it were not given to you from above. Therefore the one who handed me over to you is guilty of a greater sin."



My point being

men who don't take care of their families are" worse than unbelievers", right?
Only one unforgivable sin unbelief

[Ickisrulz]

May I inquire who withing the particular church organization makes the determination to oust or include someone from membership? Aside from the Bible as the "go to" book...where would one go to find the particular church's "rules of conduct"? I sometimes get the feeling that mortal men place themselves in a position of superiority and control where their particular organization is involved. Because someone carries a particular "title" within the organization...does that person have a closer tie to Jesus or God or is it to satisfy some mortal need and ego?

Churches have leadership and it varies depending on how things are set up. Sometimes it's the pastor making all the decisions, sometimes deacons work with the pastor, sometimes there is a board. These are the people who are in authority to make decisions. Hopefully these decisions will be based on the Bible. Like any authority, church authority can be abused.

I am a little surprised to see so many here push aside the Bible's guidance because it doesn't mesh with their own ideas of how a church is supposed to function. It isn't even ignorance. It is willful disregard.

What would you have church leadership do if a guy came in and started smoking in the middle of the service? What if he wouldn't put it out and refused to leave? I guess you'd better let him do what he wants because he needs to hear the Word, right?

[Ickisrulz]

My point being

men who don't take care of their families are" worse than unbelievers", right?
Only one unforgivable sin unbelief

I honestly don't understand your point and I think you missed mine. A guy who doesn't take care of his family is worse than an unbeliever and should not be a deacon or in any position of church leadership. This would be Paul's line of thinking anyway.

[Thundarstick]

Thank you for those answers Claude!

[DCP]

I honestly don't understand your point and I think you missed mine. A guy who doesn't take care of his family is worse than an unbeliever

Unbelief is a unforgivable sin

A deadbeat father can and have been forgiven
An unbeliever cant be forgiven because he or she doesn't believe

and should not be a deacon or in any position of church leadership.
I agree

This would be Paul's line of thinking anyway.

How is that?

[jmort]

Where in the Bible does it say all sin is equal. If I cut in line at the theater, is that equal to murder?
The Bible provides the answer. Why not read it. Here, let me do it for you:

◄ Mark 14:21 ►
Verse (Click for Chapter)
New International Version
The Son of Man will go just as it is written about him. But woe to that man who betrays the Son of Man! It would be better for him if he had not been born."

◄ Luke 17:2 ►
Verse (Click for Chapter)
New International Version
It would be better for them to be thrown into the sea with a millstone tied around their neck than to cause one of these little ones to stumble.

◄ Matthew 18:6 ►
Verse (Click for Chapter)
New International Version
"If anyone causes one of these little ones--those who believe in me--to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.

1 Corinthians 5:1

Immorality Rebuked
1It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that is intolerable even among pagans: A man has his father’s wife. 2And you are proud! Shouldn’t you rather have been stricken with grief and removed from your fellowship the man who did this?…

In the Old testament many sins were capital offenses, like sodomy
Penalty was death
Many other enumerated sins not capital offenses.
All sin is not the same.

How we get to all sin is the same is crazy. It is not Bibical and makes no sense. Why do people just make it up when the Bible is clear and unambigious on simple issues like this.

[NoAngel]

All sins are equal and the wage of sin is death- This is why Christ died on the CROSS so we can be saved.
Only one unforgivable sin unbelief

Unbelief is not the only unforgivable sin. There are going to be people who beleive but blaspheme against the Holy Spirit. According to the third chapter of Mark, 29th verse, they will remain unclean forever.

[DCP]

I hope this helps you understand my position

Are all sins the same in God’s eyes?


It is always difficult and dangerous to attempt to list sins according to their degree of seriousness. In one sense, all sins are equal in that they all separate us from God. The Bible’s statement, “For the wages of sin is death …” (Romans 6:23), applies to all sin, whether in thought, word, or deed.

At the same time, it seems obvious that some sins are worse than others in both motivation and effects, and should be judged accordingly. Stealing a loaf of bread is vastly different than exterminating a million people. Sins may also differ at their root.

Theologians have sought for centuries to determine what the essence of sin is. Some have chosen sensuality, others selfishness, and still others pride or unbelief. In the Old Testament, God applied different penalties to different sins, suggesting variations in the seriousness of some sins. A thief paid restitution; an occult practitioner was cut off from Israel; one who committed adultery or a homosexual act or cursed his parents was put to death (see Exodus, chapter 22 and Leviticus, chapter 20).

In the New Testament Jesus said it would be more bearable on the day of judgment for Sodom than for Capernaum because of Capernaum’s unbelief and refusal to repent after witnessing His miracles (Matthew 11:23-24). The sins of Sodom were identified in Ezekiel 16:21 as arrogance, gluttony, indifference to the poor and needy, haughtiness, and “detestable things.”

When Jesus spoke of his second coming and judgment, he warned that among those deserving punishment some would “be beaten with many blows” and others “with few blows” (Luke 12:47-48). He also reserved His most fierce denunciations for the pride and unbelief of the religious leaders, not the sexually immoral (Matthew 23:13-36).

However, remember that whether our sins are relatively small or great, they will place us in hell apart from God’s grace. The good news is that Jesus paid the penalty for our sins and the sins of the whole world at the Cross. If we will repent and turn to Jesus in faith, our sins will be forgiven, and we will receive the gift of eternal life.

[DCP]

Unbelief is not the only unforgivable sin. There are going to be people who beleive but blaspheme against the Holy Spirit. According to the third chapter of Mark, 29th verse, they will remain unclean forever.

blaspheme against the Holy Spirit is UNBELIEF
I was taught this when I was 13 years old

[Ickisrulz]

I honestly don't understand your point and I think you missed mine. A guy who doesn't take care of his family is worse than an unbeliever

Unbelief is a unforgivable sin

A deadbeat father can and have been forgiven
An unbeliever cant be forgiven because he or she doesn't believe

and should not be a deacon or in any position of church leadership.
I agree

This would be Paul's line of thinking anyway.

How is that?


When Paul said a man who doesn't take care of his family is worse than an unbeliever, he was speaking of conduct not whether or not the individual was saved. Christians are supposed to act better than those in the world. Although the ground truth is that there are some really decent people who don't give God a second thought and some really crummy people who identify as Christians.

We cannot know exactly where people stand with God because we don't know thoughts and motivations. But we are supposed to examine behaviors to get some idea. In John's 1st Epistle he gave guidance on knowing if one is a Christian: following Christ's commandments, not living a life characterized by sin and loving our brothers and sister.

Would a man who gets drunk and beats his wife strike you as meeting John's litmus test?

[DCP]

When Paul said a man who doesn't take care of his family is worse than an unbeliever, he was speaking of conduct not whether or not the individual was saved. Christians are supposed to act better than those in the world. Although the ground truth is that there are some really decent people who don't give God a second thought and some really crummy people who identify as Christians.

We cannot know exactly where people stand with God because we don't know thoughts and motivations. But we are supposed to examine behaviors to get some idea. In John's 1st Epistle he gave guidance on knowing if one is a Christian: following Christ's commandments, not living a life characterized by sin and loving our brothers and sister.

Would a man who gets drunk and beats his wife strike you as meeting John's litmus test?

Lets say a man is 18 he runs out on a young lady he got in trouble he also abused her physically. 20 years later he finds the lord. He is forgiven. An unbeliever will not be forgiven unless he believes.

[Ickisrulz]

The Unpardonable Sin is mentioned in Matthew 12:32. It is specially identified as "blasphemy against the Spirit." The occasion is that the Pharisees claimed Jesus used the power of Satan to drive out a demon from a man.

After witnessing such a powerful sign that could only have come from God, the Pharisees chose to ignore it and claimed it was done through Satan. They didn't keep this idea to themselves, but they spread this lie among those who saw the miracle hoping to influence them.

So, my opinion is that the Unpardonable Sin is speaking falsehoods against overwhelming evidence of the Holy Spirit's works claiming them to be the work of Satan in order to adversely influence people.

I do not believe unbelief to be the Unpardonable Sin because:

1. It is a generic state of man, why specifically mention it?
2. Unbelief is forgivable as show time and again in the Bible.
3. Simple unbelief doesn't fit the context of the biblical passage.

[DCP]

The unpardonable sin today is the state of continued unbelief. The Spirit currently convicts the unsaved world of sin, righteousness, and judgment (John 16:8). To resist that conviction and willfully remain unrepentant is to “blaspheme” the Spirit. There is no pardon, either in this age or in the age to come, for a person who rejects the Spirit’s promptings to trust in Jesus Christ and then dies in unbelief. The love of God is evident: “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life” (John 3:16). And the choice is clear: “Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on him” (John 3:36).

[Ickisrulz]

Lets say a man is 18 he runs out on a young lady he got in trouble he also abused her physically. 20 years later he finds the lord. He is forgiven. An unbeliever will not be forgiven unless he believes.

Does he stop beating women? Biblical belief is not merely mental assent. Biblical belief brings about a change in behavior. Without a change in conduct and worldview, belief is of little value.

So if a former wife-beater hears the Gospel and repents resulting in Christian conduct he is no longer worse than an unbeliever. He is a new creature. The young lady he abused still hates his guts probably.

[Thundarstick]

Would a man who gets drunk and beats his wife strike you as meeting John's litmus test?

What if a man gets cancer, say from smoking, and can't take care of his family. What about a man that eats too much and becomes so obese he can't provide? Does that put him in the same seat as the alcoholic because he can't take care of his family? Sin caused it. Where the church let this family down was by having no understanding of the disease of alcoholism and rallying around them both! Thank God my son was able to find freedom from his addiction, grace , and faith through a Christ based program. Having dealings with these Christians helped open my eyes to how legalism destroys and love and understanding saves.

[NoAngel]

blaspheme against the Holy Spirit is UNBELIEF
I was taught this when I was 13 years old


Well it's not.
I've met a couple guys over the years. One in particular would tell you in a heartbeat that there absolutely WAS a God and he could go pound sand.
Okay, that's not what he said but I'm not so inclined to repeat it. Pretty scary individual to talk to to be honest.

There is no point of view conceivable that doesn't have some human, somewhere, believing it wholeheartedly.

[Ickisrulz]

The unpardonable sin today is the state of continued unbelief. The Spirit currently convicts the unsaved world of sin, righteousness, and judgment (John 16:8). To resist that conviction and willfully remain unrepentant is to “blaspheme” the Spirit. There is no pardon, either in this age or in the age to come, for a person who rejects the Spirit’s promptings to trust in Jesus Christ and then dies in unbelief. The love of God is evident: “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life” (John 3:16). And the choice is clear: “Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on him” (John 3:36).

You are ignoring the very definition of "blasphemy." Blasphemy means irreverent, profane and/or slanderous speech about God. You cannot blaspheme unless you open your mouth.

Unbelief is a condition of intellect, emotion and will. An individual can be an unbeliever their entire life without being a blasphemer.

[Ickisrulz]

Would a man who gets drunk and beats his wife strike you as meeting John's litmus test?

What if a man gets cancer, say from smoking, and can't take care of his family. What about a man that eats too much and becomes so obese he can't provide? Does that put him in the same seat as the alcoholic because he can't take care of his family? Sin caused it. Where the church let this family down was by having no understanding of the disease of alcoholism and rallying around them both! Thank God my son was able to find freedom from his addiction, grace , and faith through a Christ based program. Having dealings with these Christians helped open my eyes to how legalism destroys and love and understanding saves.

What are you looking for in this post? Sin has consequences for the sinner and those around him. Our job as Christians is to avoid sins so we do not adversely effect ourselves or our loved ones (sins are a choice). If we don't we have failed in our duties.

[NoAngel]

To me, unbelief is not as black and white as it seems on the surface.

When Christians first came to North America, no doubt many Native Americans laughed it off. Here comes foreign invaders with an incredible story. Hearing the truth doesn't always get the point home.
You have to admit, the power of the Lord is a big pill to swallow the first time you hear it, especially if you've lived for a number of years.
So, are we to beleive an aborigine in the Northern Territory of Oz who only heard the story once in passing will be cast into a lake of fire? Or the ones who never heard it at all.
The church I was raised in said they will all burn. *sigh*

Thankfully it will not fall to the judgement of men but to one with a touch more wisdom. Some things are black and white, but not everything.

[DCP]

You are ignoring the very definition of "blasphemy." Blasphemy means irreverent, profane and/or slanderous speech about God. You cannot blaspheme unless you open your mouth.

Unbelief is a condition of intellect, emotion and will. An individual can be an unbeliever their entire life without being a blasphemer.

Taking your words if you take the Lords name in vain or use JC in a heated moment. You are a blasphemer and cant be forgiven.

[Thundarstick]

What are you looking for in this post?

The fact that churches judge one sin more harshly than another that has the same consequences, and it's easier to kick'em out than minister to the calamity that's the human condition!

[DCP]

Dear Lord

May just one hear your words and understand.

Amen

[Ickisrulz]

Taking your words if you take the Lords name in vain or use JC in a heated moment. You are a blasphemer and cant be forgiven.

No, I said no such thing and what you said is not a logical conclusion of what I did say. Everything I said concerning the context of the passage and my understanding of it are in post #51.

[DCP]

No, I said no such thing and what you said is not a logical conclusion of what I did say. Everything I said concerning the context of the passage and my understanding of it are in post #51.

The unpardonable sin today is the state of continued unbelief. The Spirit currently convicts the unsaved world of sin, righteousness, and judgment (John 16:8). To resist that conviction and willfully remain unrepentant is to “blaspheme” the Spirit. There is no pardon, either in this age or in the age to come, for a person who rejects the Spirit’s promptings to trust in Jesus Christ and then dies in unbelief. The love of God is evident: “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life” (John 3:16). And the choice is clear: “Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on him” (John 3:36).

[DCP]

The Lord has give insight to some and to some he has not.
Its no wonder we do not agree

This has become a ..........................

I think this place will not stand(Deep Theological Discussion)

[Soundguy]

I'm thankfull we live in a place that we can discuss our faith openly.. even if we disagree slightly on some of the application of it.

[Preacher Jim]

An Unashamed Workman

14 Remind them of these things, and solemnly charge them in the presence of God not to wrangle about words, which is useless and leads to the ruin of the hearers. 15 Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth. 16 But avoid worldly and empty chatter, for [e]it will lead to further ungodliness, 17 and their [f]talk will spread like [g]gangrene

[DCP]

an unashamed workman

14 remind them of these things, and solemnly charge them in the presence of god not to wrangle about words, which is useless and leads to the ruin of the hearers. 15 be diligent to present yourself approved to god as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth. 16 but avoid worldly and empty chatter, for [e]it will lead to further ungodliness, 17 and their [f]talk will spread like [g]gangrene

amen!

[Char-Gar]

A church should be a hospital for sinners rather than a refuge for saint's. "For all have sinned and fallen short of the grace of God.".

Sin is an interesting concept and I believe I understand what is essential Biblical sin. Not content with that, far too many preacher types, love to expand the concept and beat the drum of behavior and ignore the essence of sin which is rampant even in the most holy of churches.

[Char-Gar]

The Unpardonable Sin is mentioned in Matthew 12:32. It is specially identified as "blasphemy against the Spirit." The occasion is that the Pharisees claimed Jesus used the power of Satan to drive out a demon from a man.

After witnessing such a powerful sign that could only have come from God, the Pharisees chose to ignore it and claimed it was done through Satan. They didn't keep this idea to themselves, but they spread this lie among those who saw the miracle hoping to influence them.

So, my opinion is that the Unpardonable Sin is speaking falsehoods against overwhelming evidence of the Holy Spirit's works claiming them to be the work of Satan in order to adversely influence people.

I do not believe unbelief to be the Unpardonable Sin because:

1. It is a generic state of man, why specifically mention it?
2. Unbelief is forgivable as show time and again in the Bible.
3. Simple unbelief doesn't fit the context of the biblical passage.

The "unpardonable sin" in your post is such a state of spiritual blindness and moral confusion that one confuses the works of God and the works of Satan. Folks like this cannot distinguish between good and evil. It is more common than we might realize. In such a state it is impossible to repent because of the moral confusion. Lack of ability to repent equals lack of pardon. In short, it is a spiritual condition and not a word or act.

If somebody is worried they might have done it, that is a sure sign they have not.

[Ickisrulz]

The "unpardonable sin" in your post is such a state of spiritual blindness and moral confusion that one confuses the works of God and the works of Satan. Folks like this cannot distinguish between good and evil. It is more common than we might realize. In such a state it is impossible to repent because of the moral confusion. Lack of ability to repent equals lack of pardon. In short, it is a spiritual condition and not a word or act.

If somebody is worried they might have done it, that is a sure sign they have not.

I don't agree that Jesus is referring to a state of spiritual blindness and moral confusion. I believe Jesus was pinpointing a specific act.

The Pharisees knew the works Jesus did came from God. The miracles were overwhelming proof of this. They willfully ignored this and started telling everyone Satan was responsible so the people would not believe. I firmly believe they knew what they were doing. The Pharisees were attempting to drive people from Jesus with slander. This seems clear to me looking at the verse below:

"Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters. Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven people, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven."

That's my take anyway. I agree that if you are worried about doing it, you haven't.

[claude]

To refuse to allow the Spirit of Your Father to speak through you in that day, at that time, that is the unpardonable sin. Back track G988 to G989 which is derived from G984 to hinder + G5345 a saying. It's really very simple, and quite frankly, cannot be committed until then. FWIW I don't believe anyone will commit that particular sin. YMMV


(Matthew 10:19-20) "But when they deliver you up, take no thought how or what ye shall speak: for it shall be given you in that same hour what ye shall speak. {20} For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you."

[6bg6ga]

If you haven't read the Bible or done serious study, why in the world are you offering your opinion on such a serious matter?


Overt means obvious, or visible. Overt behavior is that which can be seen and measured. Any sort of behavior that you can observe would be overt. Who here can actually say they live a sin free life? Who here should be judging anyone? I'm wondering right now how many posting on this thread are hypocrites. Who can say they don't take the name of our Lord in vane? Drink, smoke? Eyeball women? Cast judgement on others? My guess is probably none.

I'm sorry but I don't believe its necessary to live and breathe the Bible. I personally believe if I sin and ask forgiveness I will be forgiven. I try to live a decent life but sometimes I do cuss, have a few drinks, maybe watch a racy movie, and maybe take a look at the neighbors wife in a bikini. I'm sure that all of these are considered to be sins and probably overt behavior. Having said this I should be banned from church because I did it openly where people could observe me?

Me thinks some of you guys should take a good look in the mirror and quit trying to judge others.

Yes, Ickisrulz I also have or maybe I should say I should have the right to an opinion.

[Ickisrulz]

Overt means obvious, or visible. Overt behavior is that which can be seen and measured. Any sort of behavior that you can observe would be overt. Who here can actually say they live a sin free life? Who here should be judging anyone? I'm wondering right now how many posting on this thread are hypocrites. Who can say they don't take the name of our Lord in vane? Drink, smoke? Eyeball women? Cast judgement on others? My guess is probably none.

I'm sorry but I don't believe its necessary to live and breathe the Bible. I personally believe if I sin and ask forgiveness I will be forgiven. I try to live a decent life but sometimes I do cuss, have a few drinks, maybe watch a racy movie, and maybe take a look at the neighbors wife in a bikini. I'm sure that all of these are considered to be sins and probably overt behavior. Having said this I should be banned from church because I did it openly where people could observe me?

Me thinks some of you guys should take a good look in the mirror and quit trying to judge others.

Yes, Ickisrulz I also have or maybe I should say I should have the right to an opinion.

One doesn't have to be sinless to say, "Hey brother, you shouldn't be dating that guy's wife!"

I think the fact that the Bible expects churches to confront openly sinful Christians has been demonstrated enough for me to leave it at that.

[DCP]

Unpardonable Sin - Can I commit it?

The thought of an unpardonable sin has brought grief to many people throughout history. Perhaps the guilt and fear is unnecessary. If you are afraid that you have committed the unpardonable sin, that is sure proof that you have not! Those who committed the unpardonable sin had no godly regrets. They had no interest in the forgiveness of God. Remember, Peter denied Jesus three times, yet Jesus forgave him.

It appears that the situation of this unpardonable sin against the Holy Spirit existed only while Christ was ministering on earth. The unpardonable sin, like the one in Matthew 12; cannot be committed today. We are not able to attribute to Satan the miracles of God, as performed by Jesus Christ.

However, when people reject Jesus Christ and His gift of eternal life, they are in a sense committing the unpardonable sin of unbelief. Anyone who desires to be saved by God's grace, has not committed the unpardonable sin. However, a person who lives in rejection and unbelief until his death, will not be pardoned. This person will spend an eternity in hell apart from God. 2 Corinthians 7:10 says, "Godly sorrow brings repentance that leads to salvation and leaves no regret, but worldly sorrow brings death." Those who sincerely desire God's forgiveness will receive it! All you need to do is to believe that Jesus died for your sins and rose three days later. Then you confess and repent of your sins and ask Jesus into your life as your Lord and Savior. You are then saved by grace through faith.

http://www.allaboutgod.com/unpardonable-sin.htm

[Ickisrulz]

It appears that the situation of this unpardonable sin against the Holy Spirit existed only while Christ was ministering on earth. The unpardonable sin, like the one in Matthew 12; cannot be committed today. We are not able to attribute to Satan the miracles of God, as performed by Jesus Christ.

The sin is against the Spirit not the Son. The Holy Spirit is still on earth today doing miraculous things. Why would someone not be able commit blasphemy of the Holy Spirit today just because Jesus is not the one in physical form performing miracles? This is like claiming you cannot blaspheme the Holy Spirit because you are not a Pharisee.

[DCP]

The sin is against the Spirit not the Son. The Holy Spirit is still on earth today doing miraculous things. Why would someone not be able commit blasphemy of the Holy Spirit today just because Jesus is not the one in physical form performing miracles? This is like claiming you cannot blaspheme the Holy Spirit because you are not a Pharisee.

Well we are making progress aren't we, only one point of the writing you disagreed with.

Good for you

Vaya con Dios

[Preacher Jim]

do you all remember Jesus parable in Luke 15 about a lost sheep?????
read it study it then tell us should we go after sinners????

[Ickisrulz]

Well we are making progress aren't we, only one point of the writing you disagreed with.

Good for you

Vaya con Dios

The author did not say the same things you did yesterday. The writer of your article states blasphemy "could also mean relating evil to God." So he acknowledges what actually happened on the occasion we are discussing.

He takes it into another direction showing a similarity, "However, when people reject Jesus Christ and His gift of eternal life, they are in a sense committing the unpardonable sin of unbelief." It seems clear he does not think Jesus was identifying unbelief as the unpardonable sin, but that people who die unbelieving cannot be forgiven in the same way those who blaspheme the Holy Spirit cannot be.

So while I don't agree with this guy 100%, he is closer to what I was saying yesterday than you were.

[DCP]

The author did not say the same things you did yesterday. The writer of your article states blasphemy "could also mean relating evil to God." So he acknowledges what actually happened on the occasion we are discussing.

He takes it into another direction showing a similarity, "However, when people reject Jesus Christ and His gift of eternal life, they are in a sense committing the unpardonable sin of unbelief." It seems clear he does not think Jesus was identifying unbelief as the unpardonable sin, but that people who die unbelieving cannot be forgiven in the same way those who blaspheme the Holy Spirit cannot be.

So while I don't agree with this guy 100%, he is closer to what I was saying yesterday than you were.

Again good for you, Yes he says it much better that I do. Good to see we are in agreement

[Ickisrulz]

do you all remember Jesus parable in Luke 15 about a lost sheep?????
read it study it then tell us should we go after sinners????

What position are you taking and on what issue? Of course we are to spread the Gospel in an attempt to reach all sinners. But we are also to confront evil and disruptive conduct in our assemblies. These are not contradictory tasks and are both prescribed in Scripture by the same Apostle.

[DCP]

What position are you taking and on what issue? Of course we are to spread the Gospel in an attempt to reach all sinners. But we are also to confront evil and disruptive conduct in our assemblies. These are not contradictory tasks and are both prescribed in Scripture by the same Apostle.

I am sure he will let you know what his point is!

[opos]

Again, I would refer you to Paul who makes it very clear on who is to run the churches and what qualifications they must have. Simple deal. Read it and you will know the answer. Amazing how little people know. Read Paul's letters which contain simple, clear, and umambigious instruction on how the churches are to be run and by who.

The O/P asks the question about overt sinners in our churches....he didn't identify the Bible in his opening...the discussion "morphed" into a discussion of the Bible..not of the congregation....there are many houses of God that do not have the Bible and don't have Paul's letters...

No trying to pick a fight but it again comes back to a question (I'll rephrase) that who makes a decision to oust a sinner considering there may not be a guideline like Paul's letters.....I am not a Mormon..I'm not a Jew...I'm not an Arab nor an Asian and I think they would have to look elsewhere to see who makes decisions in their churches..I also know of religions with churches that forbid certain behaviors like dancing, and encourage certain behaviors that some might consider sinful like the consumption of alcohol as part of a service.

Guess I grew up (in the church) being taught things and as I grew and watched it seemed many of the same "mortals" made decisions for the partcular congregation that I felt were "exclusive rather than "inclusive" and I guess that doesn't match what the God I understand has tried to instill.

A friend died recently ...a group of us attended the services in his church...during the funeral the minister stopped the rite and said that "Earl would want all his friends to join him in his faith"..the minister then offered to welcome any "visitors" during the service should they want to go through the ritual right there and then to join...Again I've seen this happen before and while I don't particularly understand I accept...but then he said "and any of you that refuse to join Earl and resist will not be allowed to join him in Heaven"...I left along with a number of other "sinners". That minister was making a judgement of my spiritual condition based on his personal beliefs and he was excluding me from God's world because of his personal ideas...

I was probably considered an "overt" sinner by refusing Baptism at that time..I was Baptised and Confirmed decades ago...but in a different place and under different circumstances.

I attend a particular spiritual group as part of my life...a portion of what we believe is "The ultimate authority is a loving God as He may express himself in our group conscience...our leaders are but trusted servants...they do not govern". Kind of like that.

[Ickisrulz]

[QUOTE=jmort;4098954]Again, I would refer you to Paul who makes it very clear on who is to run the churches and what qualifications they must have. Simple deal. Read it and you will know the answer. Amazing how little people know. Read Paul's letters which contain simple, clear, and umambigious instruction on how the churches are to be run and by who.[/QUOTE

The O/P asks the question about overt sinners in our churches....he didn't identify the Bible in his opening...the discussion "morphed" into a discussion of the Bible..not of the congregation....there are many houses of God that do not have the Bible and don't have Paul's letters...

No trying to pick a fight but it again comes back to a question (I'll rephrase) that who makes a decision to oust a sinner considering there may not be a guideline like Paul's letters.....I am not a Mormon..I'm not a Jew...I'm not an Arab nor an Asian and I think they would have to look elsewhere to see who makes decisions in their churches..I also know of religions with churches that forbid certain behaviors like dancing, and encourage certain behaviors that some might consider sinful like the consumption of alcohol as part of a service.

Guess I grew up (in the church) being taught things and as I grew and watched it seemed many of the same "mortals" made decisions for the partcular congregation that I felt were "exclusive rather than "inclusive" and I guess that doesn't match what the God I understand has tried to instill.

A friend died recently ...a group of us attended the services in his church...during the funeral the minister stopped the rite and said that "Earl would want all his friends to join him in his faith"..the minister then offered to welcome any "visitors" during the service should they want to go through the ritual right there and then to join...Again I've seen this happen before and while I don't particularly understand I accept...but then he said "and any of you that refuse to join Earl and resist will not be allowed to join him in Heaven"...I left along with a number of other "sinners". That minister was making a judgement of my spiritual condition based on his personal beliefs and he was excluding me from God's world because of his personal ideas...

I was probably considered an "overt" sinner by refusing Baptism at that time..I was Baptised and Confirmed decades ago...but in a different place and under different circumstances.

I attend a particular spiritual group as part of my life...a portion of what we believe is "The ultimate authority is a loving God as He may express himself in our group conscience...our leaders are but trusted servants...they do not govern". Kind of like that.

A group of people who do not use the Bible as the authority for their faith and conduct would not be considered a "church" as understood by the majority of the posters in this thread. Such a group would do whatever they decided I suppose. There are lots of organizations and clubs that have by-laws for the removal of a member.

[Blackwater]

Wow, Opos! I'd probably have left, too! But that's me. I might have stayed just to see if somebody was going to force me out, but I doubt it. I just came back from the funderal home for a very old friend, who'd fought many battles in his life. There weren't many people there. PJ was never a "social animal." Like Sammy and Frank, he always did things HIS way. He had learned few social skills when young, but was one of the most heartfelt people I've ever known, and liked privacy or being with a few good friends whom he trusted implicityly. He didn't have the best judgment, and didn't use foresight much, but he was one heck of a man, however you wanted to measure him. I'm not really sure if he found Christ before he died, but I suspect strongly that he did. He was looking for Him all his life, really. I will miss my friend, despite all his clear faults that he often acknowledged himself, and fought with for many years. I can't help but feel that I should have had more contact with him, and witnessed to him. He was not one to take well to the usual Bible pounding and citing of scripture. You had to really touch his heart, and if you did that, you'd hit paydirt, for his was as big as anyone's I've ever known.

Many churches would ostracize him or even cast him out. In so doing, they'd have prevented a man who was really searching for a real understanding of our Lord, from attaining that understanding. I cannot for the life of me understand a church that did something like that. But that may just be me, admittedly. But each one of us HAS to find an answer to questions like these, and follow them and our consciences, and hope we're right. For me, I'll never cast someone out or have much patience with a church that did that, barring extremely grievous behavior that might endanger the congregation. I've yet to see an example of that, though, so .... I remain in favor of going to the individual displaying such "abhorent" behavior, and counsel with them. If that didn't work, after enough tries to convince even the reluctant to carry them on, then maybe .... MAYBE ..... then I could understand a church turning someone out. But knowing how churches tend to operate, and many within them, I doubt those inclined to oust members would really put forth a lot of effort towards bringing them into more reasonable compliance with the church's teachings. That's just been what my EXPERIENCE has been through the years regarding this principle. Others and their views may well vary, and are certain to do just that, but that's MY view, if it's noone else's.

Casting people out of a church has very far-reaching consequences, and not only for those cast out, but for the members remaining within the church, too. I've never seen judgmentalism NOT grow, over time, once it's given in to. It's Christ's job to judge. Not ours, ultimately, unless and until it becomes SO egregious that it cannot be ignored nor tolerated. IMO, casting someone out is the very last resort, and should be VERY rare. But where I've seen it done, it always seemed to be those of meager means, and those who contributed heavily to the church got a lot more "free rein" than those who were "easier targets." Maybe this varies in other locales, but that's been my experience around here. And human behavior doesn't vary much, no matter where you are, what language you speak, etc., so I'll always err on the side of hoping the church and its members will do the "backsliders" some good. That's just my essential nature, and I know we've been given instructions that are supposed to contribute to building and maintaining a healthy and vibrant institution in the community. But those instructions CAN, IMO, be taken too literally and with way too much relish, and CAN be applied way too soon by us mortals. We all have a tendency to try to "think" with our hearts, and "feel" with our heads, and that's exactly backwards from what God intended us to do with our hearts and heads! That's one of the reasons I tend to err on the side of possibly saving another soul, and that also has a lot to do with the simple fact that I've seen some people respond that I'd NEVER have anticipated would, and I've also seen some who I thought surely would respond, who just walked away, on occasion, even laughing.

We never know who's going to respond to the Word and who won't. We may THINK we know, but all too often, we're just "supposing" and NOT really "knowing!" With that in mind, how can anyone stand in judgment over someone so as to throw them out of a church, when Christ is THE thing they need most?

[Thundarstick]

100% brother, 100%!

I got no responses regarding Jesus parable of the tares. It still seems to me it covers most of this kind of situations. In pulling up the weeds you pull up the crop as well, but I suppose you wouldn't leave the bull in the bean field all season either.


Sometimes it's hard to tell if you are in a church or a cult! If it feels like a cult, find another church!

[OS OK]

Don't be chasing the sinners off, after all Christ came to see them primarily.
If you have a problem sinner in the Church you go to him and confront him with another Church member...you explain the sin and help them to get squared away. If they continue then you go again with Church members and tell them to 'skiddattle' or as the Brit's might say 'Bug Off Buddie' you ain't gotta clue!

[claude]

Perhaps I'm wrong, but I was taught this parable is the answer to most church problems.

Yes, you are wrong, yes, you were taught wrong, but you can correct that. The biggest issue with the churches of today is ignorance parading as knowledge and being spoon fed to the pew potatoes because, you know, the real deal is a little to controversial and we certainly can't have any controversy.

2 Timothy 3:5-7

The second, is the need for people to "be somebody" and the holier than thou horse manure encountered in almost all churches, each one a little step closer to God because, we're so pious and special......

I'm not going to take two or three hours to try to educate you or the people here who Cain's father truly is, or who the tares are the seed of, or ask why is it taught Adam and Eve were driven from the garden for eating an apple. (a clean fruit)

Isn't it ironic that Jesus would offer this,

Joh 8:31-32 KJV Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; (32) And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.

And just a few verses farther along offer this.

Joh 8:42-45 KJV Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me. (43) Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word. (44) Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. (45) And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not.

The tares, the sons of Cain, the son of Satan.

That will be my final post in this particular thread, the pearls of wisdom offered have been trodden in the filth of ignorance and I'll not offer anymore.

That will no doubt fill some with joy because it appears to be basic human nature to accept the reassuring lie rather than the inconvenient truth.

The old wine skins get hard and brittle and the truth bounces off them like golf balls off a cement floor, doesn't even leave a dimple.

Well, I guess that's enough, I truly wish all of you well, and pray The Father will unstop ears and remove the scales from your eyes so that you can see The Mystery of Iniquity that is already well under way. In Jesus name, so be it!

[Thundarstick]

Claude

You may not post here again, but know I do stand corrected on this parable as it clearly is the weeds of the world, not the church. No ones words have fallen on deaf ears, even if most of us don't see eye to eye.

Thank you again

[DCP]

Claude

You may not post here again, but know I do stand corrected on this parable as it clearly is the weeds of the world, not the church. No ones words have fallen on deaf ears, even if most of us don't see eye to eye.

Thank you again

Here here! Now this is what it is about!

Thank you Thundarstick

and

Amen

[Shiloh]

There was a youth pastor here who was skirting trouble. He was warned and continued compromising ways. He got one of his flock pregnant and was finally dismissed. ow many times do you warn??

If they had let him go earlier, he would have done the deed in a different church.

SHiloh

[Blackwater]

Wow! Stuff like that does indeed happen, Shiloh. And it's always SO sad and egregious! But that's not the kind of thing I thought was being considered here. My take was that it was a member of the congregation that was exhibiting un-acceptable behavior, like maybe drunkeness, drugs, running around on his wife, and things of that nature. Certainly, if there's a suspicion of something like you outline, it needs to DEFINITELY be looked into, and if any confirmation can be had, they need to be immediately and unceremoniously dismissed, and the locks to the doors of the church changed immediately! To do otherwise is to be complicit with what inevitably usually occurs! But the average errant church member? That's quite another matter, IMHO.

Churches often attract some VERY improper peope - wolves in sheep's clothing. Examples might be Jim Baker and the other guy who was caught in some VERY unChristian activities, including stealing from his own church! The pillars of the church HAVE to deal with people like that, and do it speedily and with finality upon getting evidence of misbehavior in the leadership of the church. And God bless them for handling situations like this! Most really, really hate being a part of things like this, but they do valuable and indispensable work for their churches, when they do so.

[Ickisrulz]

Wow! Stuff like that does indeed happen, Shiloh. And it's always SO sad and egregious! But that's not the kind of thing I thought was being considered here. My take was that it was a member of the congregation that was exhibiting un-acceptable behavior, like maybe drunkeness, drugs, running around on his wife, and things of that nature. Certainly, if there's a suspicion of something like you outline, it needs to DEFINITELY be looked into, and if any confirmation can be had, they need to be immediately and unceremoniously dismissed, and the locks to the doors of the church changed immediately! To do otherwise is to be complicit with what inevitably usually occurs! But the average errant church member? That's quite another matter, IMHO.

OK...now I am confused about your position. In your post #23 you had a drunken deacon who beat his wife. You thought keeping him around was a good idea. Why get rid of a youth pastor who got his girlfriend pregnant? What is the difference between the two situations?

[Shiloh]

Drunkeness and violence toward spouse and family got a man in a rehab program at no cost to him.
He continued and was asked to to attend church until he stopped. After stalking his wife and family, the law to involved.
He eventually lost his wife and family. Haven't heard about him in years.

Another was a doper who could stay off of illegal narcotics. He was good for a while and would relapse. He quit coming to church after a while.
Our pastor saw him several months later and could tell he was back on drugs. Shortly after that, it was announced he died of an overdose.

The doper guy was always welcome. The violent drunk wore out his.

Shiloh

[Blackwater]

OK...now I am confused about your position. In your post #23 you had a drunken deacon who beat his wife. You thought keeping him around was a good idea. Why get rid of a youth pastor who got his girlfriend pregnant? What is the difference between the two situations?

No need for confusion. The wife was content to stick with her husband, as I think she had a right to do, even if it's easy to question her judgment in it. A preacher who gets a parishoner pregnant, has brought a new life into the world without any intent to really care for it as it should be taken care of, and this decision has tenacles that can reach out into many areas of life. Young women often get so caught up in their emotions that they don't think about pregnancy, but a man surely can't these days, not to mention STD's, etc. A man in the midst of an addiction is quite another quantity from a man who chooses sin for its emotional value, and quite naturally, need to be dealt with differently. You don't treat non-addicts with addiction treatments, and visa versa. Is it clearer now?

[Ickisrulz]

No need for confusion. The wife was content to stick with her husband, as I think she had a right to do, even if it's easy to question her judgment in it. A preacher who gets a parishoner pregnant, has brought a new life into the world without any intent to really care for it as it should be taken care of, and this decision has tenacles that can reach out into many areas of life. Young women often get so caught up in their emotions that they don't think about pregnancy, but a man surely can't these days, not to mention STD's, etc. A man in the midst of an addiction is quite another quantity from a man who chooses sin for its emotional value, and quite naturally, need to be dealt with differently. You don't treat non-addicts with addiction treatments, and visa versa. Is it clearer now?

The other way to look at this is that the church should have protected the wife from her abusive husband despite what she wanted. It is a well known fact that emotions cloud battered women's judgement. Not to mention the idea that this man held a position of honor and respect in the church as a deacon that he was allowed to keep. This church failed miserably in this situation.

Once a man realizes he's an addict, it is on him to change his ways. The world may call an addiction a disease, but the Bible says we are all accountable for our actions. If this fellow couldn't control himself when he drank...he should have moved away from his poor wife until he got his act together.

Which is worse? Beating your wife or giving into natural desires and engaging in sex with a girlfriend? Or another way to ask the question, which would bring you greater shame if done by your own son?

In order to be biblical, the youth pastor should have been encouraged to get married and then have all the sex he wanted. The drunken, abusive deacon should have been removed from office and then arrested.

"Deacons likewise must be dignified, not double-tongued, not addicted to much wine, not greedy for dishonest gain." 1 Tim 3:8

"But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion." 1 Cor 7:9

[Thundarstick]

It's hard to show Christ love towards an addict when you despise them for their own weakness. At one time in my life I didn't believe addiction was a disease until I was faced with it in my own family. One kind of diabetes is caused by a persons life style, sedentary, what they eat, how much, and over weight. You ask any of these diabetics if they intended to become a diabetic and they will certainly answer no, but they are! Now that they are, they have a choice to treat the disease, or not! Just like food addicts, substance abusers make choices every day that impact their lives and others who love them! Now I ask you, do you advise a wife to leave her husband if he contracts some other disease that's left untreated? The diabetic who looses his legs or eye sight and becomes abusive towards his wife? You bet it happens just the same way, I've seen it! It never ceases to amaze me how the "church" will rally around one disease and drum another straight to hell, because it's just the sinners weakness! God bless all who have never delt with addiction in a loved one, but God bless even more the ones who have and have seen them through it!

I've said everyone's got an ax to grind, so here's mine. By and large I have found clergymen to be some of the least educated and least helpful for an addicted person to reach out to for help!

We're all weak! It just depends on what your weakness is amen?

[Ickisrulz]

It's hard to show Christ love towards an addict when you despise them for their own weakness. At one time in my life I didn't believe addiction was a disease until I was faced with it in my own family. One kind of diabetes is caused by a persons life style, sedentary, what they eat, how much, and over weight. You ask any of these diabetics if they intended to become a diabetic and they will certainly answer no, but they are! Now that they are, they have a choice to treat the disease, or not! Just like food addicts, substance abusers make choices every day that impact their lives and others who love them! Now I ask you, do you advise a wife to leave her husband if he contracts some other disease that's left untreated? The diabetic who looses his legs or eye sight and becomes abusive towards his wife? You bet it happens just the same way, I've seen it! It never ceases to amaze me how the "church" will rally around one disease and drum another straight to hell, because it's just the sinners weakness! God bless all who have never delt with addiction in a loved one, but God bless even more the ones who have and have seen them through it!

I've said everyone's got an ax to grind, so here's mine. By and large I have found clergymen to be some of the least educated and least helpful for an addicted person to reach out to for help!

We're all weak! It just depends on what your weakness is amen?

I don't despise addicts. This is a connection you are making that just isn't in my post.

My points are: 1. When a person is dangerous to be around vulnerable family members should not be around them. 2. An abusive alcoholic should not be a deacon. 3. Everyone is accountable for their actions and decisions.

[jmort]

I don't despise addicts. This is a connection you are making that just isn't in my post.

My points are: 1. When a person is dangerous to be around vulnerable family members should not be around them. 2. An abusive alcoholic should not be a deacon. 3. Everyone is accountable for their actions and decisions.

Yes!!!

[jmort]

"We're all weak! It just depends on what your weakness is amen?"

Paul believed there were and and are suitable candidates. Perfect, no, but qualified to serve yes. Get someone through the door. Give them a fair chace to "grow." If there is no inclination to improve, then there is a exit as well.

[Shiloh]

Used to smoke, drink, use recreational drugs. and hung out with people who did.

Clean, sober, no tobacco, and stay home and mind my own business. I have sympathy for dopers and drunks. I used to be one many years ago.

Shiloh

[Thundarstick]

I don't despise addicts.

Your words and phrases betray your feelings towards addiction.

[Ickisrulz]

I don't despise addicts.

Your words and phrases betray your feelings towards addiction.

I sure hope so because I have been very straightforward.

Just because a person "really, really" wants to do something doesn't excuse the sinfulness of the action. For example:

1. A man might really, really want to have an affair with his next door neighbor's wife. His sex drive is going crazy. In other words, his biology is compelling him.
2. A man is honestly attracted to another man. He wants to begin a homosexual relationship. He is being compelled by his biology, his psychology (due to past experiences) and the outside influence of society telling him it is OK.

In both cases the Bible says acting on these desires is sin. We cannot help our biology and how we were raised. But we can determine how we will act. Ultimately we can say, "No." The Bible requires us to control our actions, not our urges.

Even if a person is beyond the point of being able to control his willpower, conscience decisions and actions got him to that place. The situation did not happen overnight or against his will.

I have a certain amount of sympathy for young heterosexuals with raging hormones, alcoholics, drug addicts, homosexuals, pedophiles, and any other person whose biology seems to be working against them when it comes to doing the right thing. It is a very hard path. But when it comes to behavior, we are all accountable to God and our fellow man.

You seem to have a high view of Scripture. Can you give me any examples of sins in the Bible that were excused because someone was overcome by their biology? I cannot think of any.

[jmort]

I sure hope so because I have been very straightforward.

Just because a person "really, really" wants to do something doesn't excuse the sinfulness of the action. For example:

1. A man might really, really want to have an affair with his next door neighbor's wife. His sex drive is going crazy. In other words, his biology is compelling him.
2. A man is honestly attracted to another man. He wants to begin a homosexual relationship. He is being compelled by his biology, his psychology (due to past experiences) and the outside influence of society telling him it is OK.

In both cases the Bible says acting on these desires is sin. We cannot help our biology and how we were raised. But we can determine how we will act. Ultimately we can say, "No." The Bible requires us to control our actions, not our urges.

Even if a person is beyond the point of being able to control his willpower, conscience decisions and actions got him to that place. The situation did not happen overnight or against his will.

I have a certain amount of sympathy for young heterosexuals with raging hormones, alcoholics, drug addicts, homosexuals, pedophiles, and any other person whose biology seems to be working against them when it comes to doing the right thing. It is a very hard path. But when it comes to behavior, we are all accountable to God and our fellow man.

You seem to have a high view of Scripture. Can you give me any examples of sins in the Bible that were excused because someone was overcome by their biology? I cannot think of any.

Exactly right

[Thundarstick]

The other way to look at this is that the church should have protected the wife from her abusive husband despite what she wanted. It is a well known fact that emotions cloud battered women's judgement.
You show ME where there is any authority in the scriptures to remove anyone from their marriage against their will!

. The world may call an addiction a disease, but the Bible says we are all accountable for our actions.
Addiction IS a disease! Yes we are to be accountable for our actions, but addiction is a disease of the mind, body, and soul that reaches all family members and friends of the afflicted! I hope the way you have chosen to deal with the addicts by washing your hands of them works for you, but it did NOT work for me! It certainly is easier to walk away from them, let the disease run its course and destroy both body and soul, than to engage and invest in an addict and possibly save a body, soul, and family!

If find it bizarre how we "the Christian community" categorize sin. How that alcoholic is shunned as having no self control, but that 500lb diabetic needs prayers and treatment and love when their disease is just plain old gluttony!

I think Romans 7 has a lot to say about the fight between sin (our fleshly body) and our spirit!

Now you can lay out sin into any category you like, and you can figure out how to purge it from your assembly, but one is the same as the other, but some do have greeter consequences here on earth.

[Ickisrulz]

"You show ME where there is any authority in the scriptures to remove anyone from their marriage against their will!"

I never said remove her. Action to help her is necessary and has been God's way since Genesis. I would have reported the guy to the police, family services and asked him to leave the home. I would have encourage the wife to press charges and find a support system.

"I hope the way you have chosen to deal with the addicts by washing your hands of them works for you, but it did NOT work for me! "

I don't know where you got your information about me. It is incorrect in any event. How we deal with individual family members is different than placing an abusive addict in the position of deacon. Christians shouldn't give up on people who have failed (just like God). But sometimes (just like God) we have to allow for the adverse consequences to do their work ("rock bottom" and all).

"If find it bizarre how we "the Christian community" categorize sin. How that alcoholic is shunned as having no self control, but that 500lb diabetic needs prayers and treatment and love when their disease is just plain old gluttony!"

Gluttony is a serious problem. I have never excused it. This is another area of controlling actions resulting from really, really wanting to do something. I also understand that not every overweight person is a glutton.

"Now you can lay out sin into any category you like, and you can figure out how to purge it from your assembly, but one is the same as the other, but some do have greeter consequences here on earth."

In my posts in this thread I have said some sin has to be dealt with in the local church due to its damaging effects on the assembly. Other sins should remain between the Christian and God. The church does not exist to point out every persons' short comings.

[jmort]

Common sense
Sorely lacking here
I should just adopt what Ickisrulz posts as it seems entirely consistent with common sense
Where in the Bible does it say
"Please check your brain at the church door?

[Blackwater]

The other way to look at this is that the church should have protected the wife from her abusive husband despite what she wanted. It is a well known fact that emotions cloud battered women's judgement. Not to mention the idea that this man held a position of honor and respect in the church as a deacon that he was allowed to keep. This church failed miserably in this situation.

Once a man realizes he's an addict, it is on him to change his ways. The world may call an addiction a disease, but the Bible says we are all accountable for our actions. If this fellow couldn't control himself when he drank...he should have moved away from his poor wife until he got his act together.

Which is worse? Beating your wife or giving into natural desires and engaging in sex with a girlfriend? Or another way to ask the question, which would bring you greater shame if done by your own son?

In order to be biblical, the youth pastor should have been encouraged to get married and then have all the sex he wanted. The drunken, abusive deacon should have been removed from office and then arrested.

"Deacons likewise must be dignified, not double-tongued, not addicted to much wine, not greedy for dishonest gain." 1 Tim 3:8

"But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion." 1 Cor 7:9

That's an interventionist view, and it is indeed a valid point of view. However, we're all familiar with that old adage, "The road to hell's paved with good intentions." Much liberal philosophy and action (and laws passed on its basis) ALL claims to be "concerned for others." However, having seen some of that first hand, I've come to regard it as often dysfunctional, rather than helpful. Granted, it can go either way, and that's what makes it a thorny "theological" issue. But WANTING to help, and actually ACHIEVING it, are not always the same thing. And the example I cited of a man who used to occasionally (but not very often at all) beat his wife, occurred long ago now, when there WAS no real "treatment" for it. And all that would have happened is SHE would have been EXTREMELY angry with whoever was trying to "help" her, and HE would probably have gotten much worse, much faster. That's how things worked back then. I saw too much of it to not notice these things.

Today? Nobody cares much about what happens. Only that "the law" be fulfilled. We've come to a point where we'll follow most any sort of law and/or regulation blindly, and nobody seems to really decipher what the actual effects will actually be. I could go on, but maybe you get what I'm talking about?

[Blackwater]

Anyone who's ever worn a badge and tried to "help" a battered woman" knows that the next day, they'll deny anything and everything they said the night before when they were scared. It's a puzzling, frustrating and absotively maddening situation, and unless you've been through it, you can't understand the processes involved. Even then, it's awfully hard to understand it.

And as to alcoholics, one of the ways AA helps so many find and keep their sobriety is by LOVING them enough to HELP them find their OWN reasons to quit, and to CONTROL themselves as they progress through the 12 steps. And wonder of wonders, it works! Yet one more example of how what Christ tried so hard to teach us, works when nothing else seems to! Would that we might all learn this lesson!

[Thundarstick]

Amen Blackwater!

Thank God almighty our elected judge in this county is a Christian elder that also understands what it takes for people to be helped, and it isn't breaking up families, kicking them out of church, or locking them up and throwing away the key!

[Ickisrulz]

That's an interventionist view, and it is indeed a valid point of view. However, we're all familiar with that old adage, "The road to hell's paved with good intentions." Much liberal philosophy and action (and laws passed on its basis) ALL claims to be "concerned for others." However, having seen some of that first hand, I've come to regard it as often dysfunctional, rather than helpful. Granted, it can go either way, and that's what makes it a thorny "theological" issue. But WANTING to help, and actually ACHIEVING it, are not always the same thing. And the example I cited of a man who used to occasionally (but not very often at all) beat his wife, occurred long ago now, when there WAS no real "treatment" for it. And all that would have happened is SHE would have been EXTREMELY angry with whoever was trying to "help" her, and HE would probably have gotten much worse, much faster. That's how things worked back then. I saw too much of it to not notice these things.

Today? Nobody cares much about what happens. Only that "the law" be fulfilled. We've come to a point where we'll follow most any sort of law and/or regulation blindly, and nobody seems to really decipher what the actual effects will actually be. I could go on, but maybe you get what I'm talking about?

Are you actually suggesting no one stopped getting drunk and beating their wives in the United States before formalized treatment programs were available? The writers of the Bible seemed to think a man could refrain from drunkenness and this was before many of the mental health programs we have now.

The Bible's guidance was valid back when it was written and at all times between then and now. It is the Church's authority for faith and conduct.

[Blackwater]

Ick, you know well I didn't intend any such thing! You're just nitpicking me now - looking for something to disparage. There are Christians who LIKE being critical of others, and there are those who prefer to work on their own selves. I've intervened in situations that could have been dangerous to my own life and limbs. So I have NO problem intervening when it's called for. But I also learned a hard lesson in dealing with battered women. They'll embarass you, or worse, and not infrequently, will beat the daylights out of you for your efforts to "help." And they'll also HATE those who try to help as well. So where in that does the interventionist view make out? It takes more than good intentions to help these women. I'll leave the subject there.