Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
This is the half of the story we hear from liberal Christians.You do recall that Jesus spent His time with the unwashed societal rejects (i.e. sinners, tax-collectors, and publicans) ... and that He pardoned a thief ?
All was handled in pastoral care. Meaning there was no walk of shame and no flogging.What entity was the object of their repentance? Ecclesia? What were the pastor's and elders' "requests?" (All rhetorical, thought questions, actually) Requests are granted, not satisfied.
Another option for them would have been to go to another church which also did not forbear fornication nor co-habitation, but neither required the jumping-thru of penance-like hoops to have their union renewed and sanctified by the blessing of God.
Was Jesus recorded denying Himself to anyone ?This is the half of the story we hear from liberal Christians.
This is where the communication with liberal Christians breaks down. They think Biblically based churches refuse gays and won't let them in the doors. That is not how it is. We preach the Gospel to all who enter and in our communities in public places. It is the Gospel that has the Power to save. Church membership, baptism and Communion are a different matter.
Well, I cannot deny that what you've said here is true. So, there's a benefit when people name their respective denominations, but there is also a downside, that's right.I chose "Christian" because in the past when I have identified myself with my denomination (which is included on nearly every list of accepted orthodox, Nicene, blah, blah "Faith Groups List"--including CF's) on other forum websites, etc., I come under scrutiny, to put it mildly, very quickly. And not by what I say, but assumptions are always made about my motives because of a label. I have already noticed the same thing happen here on CF to my denominational brethren to an alarming degree.
And in the next book he recommends forgiving him.Was Jesus recorded denying Himself to anyone ?
I recognize that Paul encouraged the expulsion of a sinning member from the Corinthian congregation, but there is little else which corroborates with this in the New Testament ...
The unrestored churches in China are growing rapidly and the first century church grow rapidly under a harsh government.
I know zero pastors where this is true, and I know a lot of them.
Not our place to judge people's hearts and salvation. We are to look at their fruit.
I disagree with some of the content of these two statements (as is probably clear from my other CF posts), but I find them to be clear statements of the point of view that the OP wants to see in the churches. If a church wanted to make clear that it is opposed to LGBT-inclusiveness, to feminism, and to social justice as a church priority, then I think adopting one or both of these statements would make church's position very clear to newcomers. If the church felt very strongly, they could require affirming one or both of these statements as a condition of membership.
Well let's talk about fornication in general which is not against the site rules. My pastor was approached by a young couple (man and woman) who wanted to get married. When they applied for the pre-marriage counseling he noticed they had the same address. He confronted them, they admitted they lived together and were sexually active. My pastor said he would not marry them until (1) they lived at separate abodes, (2) repented for their fornication and co-habitation, (3) went through the marriage counseling and (4) demonstrated they were not 'going through the numbers' to get married in the church and (5) brought the matter to the sitting elders.
Do you think the pastor overstepped his position as shepherd of the flock?
Oh and the couple did repent, moved to separate abodes and satisfied the sitting elders and pastor's requests. Which I applauded as many young couples would have just gone to another church which allowed co-habitation, fornication etc.
You do recall that Jesus spent His time with the unwashed societal rejects (i.e. sinners, tax-collectors, and publicans) ... and that He pardoned a thief ?
If you think that such a position as the one you state above will keep evil out of your church, ... you should consider that "Satan, himself, is transformed into an angel of light" ...
"Won't let them in the doors" is not my impression of conservative churches. My impression, rather, is that conservative churches place other restrictions on partnered gay people: conservative churches often will not admit them to church leadership, usually will not marry them to their partners, and sometimes will not baptize their children. I welcome correction if I've misunderstood conservatives, but I think this genuinely is the position of many conservative churches.
I actually think it's good and important for conservative churches to make their views known to visitors from the beginning. If your church agrees with something like the Nashville Statement, then be public and explicit about it, just as you'd be explicit about your beliefs in believer's baptism or tithing or some other membership requirement.
It "works" to do what ???In all fairness, I don’t think you are getting what @98cwitr is proposing. What he is talking about is a church environment that discourages obvious forms of sin, while still welcoming people who wish to repent of it. And this model does work. It worked very well in the Great Revivals in the US, and in Russia at the famous church of John of Kronstadt around 1900.
Or does less mean more in the long run?What does seem to be the case is that fundamentalism, even in basic forms such as biblical inerrancy, have been cast aside to ensure that churches are accepted by the world, bolster their member numbers simply by inviting the world in and telling them exactly what they'd rather hear than what Scripture states.
So, brainstorming on this as of yesterday, I wonder what the community would think or say if a church sprang up with the following mission statement:
Or...are most churches now country clubs and simple self-help groups?
It would seem to me that we are past a certain point of no return regarding church policy and direction. While I could go into the details about how our seminaries are overrun with these ideologies, I think that's a different discussion and objective. What does seem to be the case is that fundamentalism, even in basic forms such as biblical inerrancy, have been cast aside to ensure that churches are accepted by the world, bolster their member numbers simply by inviting the world in and telling them exactly what they'd rather hear than what Scripture states.
So, brainstorming on this as of yesterday, I wonder what the community would think or say if a church sprang up with the following mission statement:
We exist and gather, in the Name of God, to adhere to biblical principles set forth by Jesus Christ and the Apostles. In doing so, we reject all invitation to the world, its evils and those who seek to work it among the People of God (2 Samuel 23:6, 1 Corinthians 5, James 1:26-27). Therefore, we invite only those who consider themselves to be actively Called, possessing of righteous desire the learn and be healed from their sins, who seek repentance and the Face of the Lord, and those reborn of Spirit and in Christ (1 Chronicles 16:11, Psalm 27:8, Hosea 5:15, Luke 5:32, John 3:1-20). Those who have no desire to seek God, who have no intention of repentance, may request prayer for a new heart (Ezekiel 36, Jeremiah 31) from our pastor, but should know that this Place is Holy Ground, and therefore we reject any permit for evil to dwell within the House of the Lord.
While this may sound harsh to many, is this what is really needed to regain holiness within our churches? Should we go back to expulsions as instructed by Paul in 1 Corinthians 5, and only readmit under the evidence of sincere repentance.
It would seem to me that inclusive Christianity is becoming so inclusive they'd openly invite the devil in if he weren't already there.
Or...are most churches now country clubs and simple self-help groups?
It "works" to do what ???
It would seem to me that we are past a certain point of no return regarding church policy and direction. While I could go into the details about how our seminaries are overrun with these ideologies, I think that's a different discussion and objective. What does seem to be the case is that fundamentalism, even in basic forms such as biblical inerrancy, have been cast aside to ensure that churches are accepted by the world, bolster their member numbers simply by inviting the world in and telling them exactly what they'd rather hear than what Scripture states.
So, brainstorming on this as of yesterday, I wonder what the community would think or say if a church sprang up with the following mission statement:
We exist and gather, in the Name of God, to adhere to biblical principles set forth by Jesus Christ and the Apostles. In doing so, we reject all invitation to the world, its evils and those who seek to work it among the People of God (2 Samuel 23:6, 1 Corinthians 5, James 1:26-27). Therefore, we invite only those who consider themselves to be actively Called, possessing of righteous desire the learn and be healed from their sins, who seek repentance and the Face of the Lord, and those reborn of Spirit and in Christ (1 Chronicles 16:11, Psalm 27:8, Hosea 5:15, Luke 5:32, John 3:1-20). Those who have no desire to seek God, who have no intention of repentance, may request prayer for a new heart (Ezekiel 36, Jeremiah 31) from our pastor, but should know that this Place is Holy Ground, and therefore we reject any permit for evil to dwell within the House of the Lord.
While this may sound harsh to many, is this what is really needed to regain holiness within our churches? Should we go back to expulsions as instructed by Paul in 1 Corinthians 5, and only readmit under the evidence of sincere repentance.
It would seem to me that inclusive Christianity is becoming so inclusive they'd openly invite the devil in if he weren't already there.
Or...are most churches now country clubs and simple self-help groups?
I would agree, except I would say that it's nearly the entire problem.Much of the problem arises from the fact that so few church attenders are born again. It is "Christianism". It looks a bit like the real thing but it is dead.
Church discipline is for Christians, and no one else. There is surely a time to call sin by its right name, but the church is the body of Christ. One big difference between Christians and non-Christians is that they know they're sinners. One of Christ's ancestors was Rahab. She almost certainly underwent revival and reformation, but she probably did as much of it as she could surrounded by others who believed.Church is for Christians. No one else.
How long is "too long?" I missed that verse.But they cannot remain non-Christian too long
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?