>>You are an omnipotent superbeing. There is a group of people who
>>have somehow acquired genes that make them inevitably very evil.
>>Do you (a) order some other people to massacre them, or (b) use
>>your superpowers to fix their genes?
> Or alternatively make them impotent so the gene dies out. Better than
> getting humans to do the dirty work! (1)
> One thing that perplexes me but when God first created humans there
> was a tendency, starting with Cain, to do evil. This got so bad that
> God ended up destroying civilisation, apart from a handful of "good"
> people, to wipe the slate clean. What went wrong the second time?
> Oh, and if I am allowed to answer the question I would eradicate evil,
> simple as. Apparently it's going to happen one day when satan is
> chained in the abbyss, so why not bring it forward?
It is a mistake to see the degeneration of civilisations as a genetic
problem. If one assumes this to be the case, then the 'solution' is going
to be horrific, however one approaches it.
Nations and civilisations degenerate, because they are made up of people,
who have a natural bias towards evil. This bias is often kept in check by
harsh living conditions (which keep people in contact with reality, and
thereby in line with the laws of nature), or by some ideology which is
commonly held, which serves as a bulwark against this tendency to
degenerate.
If a nation or civilisation gets out of line, it eventually crumbles. And
it is right that it should do so, and safer for mankind as a whole, and one
of the reasons why this world should be a patchwork of independent nation
states, and not a united human race.
Evil will not be eradicated when Satan is imprisoned for one thousand years.
His temporary removal from the scene is to cut the ground from underneath
the argument that evil in the world is all the fault of Satan. In fact, the
problem is deeply rooted in fallen human nature, which obvious fact foolish
men refuse to this day to acknowledge, but will eventually be forced to.
God is not only just, but he will be seen to be just as well.
<focus594-remo...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>Oh, I don't dispute that for a minute. So serious that I don't claim
>to be a Christian, because my life is far from pure. I have a feeling
>I abandoned ship too easily, but I treat sin seriously too, and I knew
>my life was slowly sliding that way. You see, I lost sight of God
>(long story) and because of that, I had no strength within myself to
>stop myself from sinning. (we're talking "mortal" here) Rather than
>do that whilst still claiming to be a Christian, I quit. Believe me,
>I didn't want to let go, but when I shocked my business partner (and
>friend) by swearing at him, I knew I had overtipped the balance. Other
>"little" sins had already starting creeping in, and I knew it wouldn't
>be long before the "big" ones took a hold, having already stuggled for
>several months.
This is a very interesting dicussion.
It seems to me that God is quite comfortable with us being sinners;
it's us who have the problem.
Genesis depicts God as walking in the garden of Eden AFTER Adam and
Eve had sinned (I read that as metaphorical, not literal truth). It
was Adam and Eve who were hiding and felt the need to cover
themselves.
Then in Isaiah 6, when Isaiah has a vision of God, it's Isaiah who has
a problem with the fact he is a sinner; God has a solution ready
prepared.
Your guilt is your problem, not God's - it can have a good purpose
because it can prompt positive change. It can also bring unnecessary
condemnation. Either way, the good news is that it's not too much of
a problem for God.
>>Oh, I don't dispute that for a minute. So serious that I don't claim
>>to be a Christian, because my life is far from pure. I have a feeling
>>I abandoned ship too easily, but I treat sin seriously too, and I knew
>>my life was slowly sliding that way. You see, I lost sight of God
>>(long story) and because of that, I had no strength within myself to
>>stop myself from sinning. (we're talking "mortal" here) Rather than
>>do that whilst still claiming to be a Christian, I quit. Believe me,
>>I didn't want to let go, but when I shocked my business partner (and
>>friend) by swearing at him, I knew I had overtipped the balance. Other
>>"little" sins had already starting creeping in, and I knew it wouldn't
>>be long before the "big" ones took a hold, having already stuggled for
>>several months.
> Your guilt is your problem, not God's - it can have a good purpose
> because it can prompt positive change. It can also bring unnecessary
> condemnation. Either way, the good news is that it's not too much of
> a problem for God.
Of course not, it is John who has the problem and he makes it even worse by
characterizing the 'DA" so often when posting!
>On Sun, 28 Oct 2012 12:50:33 +0000, John
>>>Oh, I don't dispute that for a minute. So serious that I don't claim
>>>to be a Christian, because my life is far from pure. I have a feeling
>>>I abandoned ship too easily, but I treat sin seriously too, and I knew
>>>my life was slowly sliding that way. You see, I lost sight of God
>>>(long story) and because of that, I had no strength within myself to
>>>stop myself from sinning. (we're talking "mortal" here) Rather than
>>>do that whilst still claiming to be a Christian, I quit. Believe me,
>>>I didn't want to let go, but when I shocked my business partner (and
>>>friend) by swearing at him, I knew I had overtipped the balance. Other
>>>"little" sins had already starting creeping in, and I knew it wouldn't
>>>be long before the "big" ones took a hold, having already stuggled for
>>>several months.
>> Your guilt is your problem, not God's - it can have a good purpose
>> because it can prompt positive change. It can also bring unnecessary
>> condemnation. Either way, the good news is that it's not too much of
>> a problem for God.
>Of course not, it is John who has the problem and he makes it even worse by
>characterizing the 'DA" so often when posting!
>On Sun, 28 Oct 2012 12:50:33 +0000, John
>>>Oh, I don't dispute that for a minute. So serious that I don't claim
>>>to be a Christian, because my life is far from pure. I have a feeling
>>>I abandoned ship too easily, but I treat sin seriously too, and I knew
>>>my life was slowly sliding that way. You see, I lost sight of God
>>>(long story) and because of that, I had no strength within myself to
>>>stop myself from sinning. (we're talking "mortal" here) Rather than
>>>do that whilst still claiming to be a Christian, I quit. Believe me,
>>>I didn't want to let go, but when I shocked my business partner (and
>>>friend) by swearing at him, I knew I had overtipped the balance. Other
>>>"little" sins had already starting creeping in, and I knew it wouldn't
>>>be long before the "big" ones took a hold, having already stuggled for
>>>several months.
>> Your guilt is your problem, not God's - it can have a good purpose
>> because it can prompt positive change. It can also bring unnecessary
>> condemnation. Either way, the good news is that it's not too much of
>> a problem for God.
>Of course not, it is John who has the problem and he makes it even worse by
>characterizing the 'DA" so often when posting!
Are you suggesting I am of the devil? If not, please explain your
meaning.
>>>You don't need to disown God to lose your soul. There will be plenty of
>>> people who will confess Christ as Lord, who will not get into his
>>> kingdom, because they worked iniquity, and did not do the will of his
>>> father in heaven. It is possible to deny God through our actions.
>> Jesus also says he *never* knew them. Do you not believe he will not
>> go looking for the lost sheep?
>Has it not occurred to you, that those people who will confess Jesus as
>Lord, and then hear his words 'I never knew you' will be mightily surprised?
Most certainly so.
>Many people think that because they have a 'personal relationship' with
>Jesus Christ, that therefore they could never be the recipient of those
>words. Even people who pray to Jesus will hear those words 'I never knew
>you'. ?
Indeed. They did the works but their heart wasn't right. The central
theme of Christianity as far as I can see is compassion and
forgiveness. Crossing the I's and dotting the T's isn't going to help
if they shun their neighbour and berate others who don't conform to
the standards *they* expect God expects.
>This phrase is a mark of election. We don't want to go into that
>now, because it is difficult to understand, and is best left to God. 'I
>never knew you' does not mean that the Saviour was never aware of the
>individual he subsequently rejects, as he is clearly aware of their works.
Yes of course, they may believe they love God, but do they love their
neighbour? This is the key issue here, and I've said this before but
i believe the sheep and the goats is going to be the defining point of
who makes it into the Kingdom and who doesn't. Those who have
legalisticaly followed God or have overemphasised the Gifts but have
been unforgiving or uncompassionate may well be in trouble.
>> Regarding the verses Jeff posts. I am assuming you mean 1 Corinthians
>> 6. Verse 11 says the Christian has been washed and sanctified. If
>> they continued to do these things without remorse then of course they
>> shall not inherit the Kingdom, I don't dispute that at all. By using
>> these verses you are suggesting that anyone who commits one of these
>> sins ca't be restored.
>When did I suggest any such thing?
You didn't, I am saying that using these verses indicates someone
can't be restored, see below.
> The scripture is clear (certainly in Jeff's eyes) only that it isn't.
>> Paul says here that anyone who commits fornication etc wont inherit
>> the Kingdom. We know that isn't true for the Christian, because in
>> the same letter Paul speaks of a man who sleeps with his father's
>> wife. He is slung out of the church but we learn later he is accepted
>> back in. having been restored. See what I mean about God not letting
>> go?
>That man was delivered to Satan by the church, on Paul's command. When Paul
>sends them his second epistle, he mentions that man's grief, and advises the
>church to re-admit him. And thus he came to be restored.
I'm glad we agree, that's why it's wrong to quote 1 Corinthians 6
because the Christian can be restored.
>But think of all those individuals who were never disciplined by the church,
>who never suffered any grief or loss, and who consequently were never
>brought to true repentance. They may still move in Christian circles as
>before, but they will not be recognised by Christ as his. So it is a mercy
>when the church acts in discipline on such individuals, even though it hurts
>at the time. Discipline now, and save the brother, or spare the rod, and he
>will lose his soul.
We don't know what Paul had in mind in doing so but I would like to
think it was because he knew/or hoped that it would bring the man to
repentance, rather than having second thoughts afterwards (speculation
of course)
IMO, expelling from the church should only be done in the last
instance, when all else has failed. If the elders are aware of the
sin, then they should counsel first
Obviously with our man involved in pornography it is unlikely the
church will know, unless the man confesses. Of course God knows, and
I believe he will do his utmost to assist that person to overcome that
sin. I think we both agree on that but disagree on the timescale.
>>> Do you really honestly actually believe that these sins are all equal?
>>> The result of this kind of thinking, is not that we take less serious
>>> sins more seriously, but that we take more serious sins less seriously.
>>> For unbelievers understand that murdering is more serious than gossiping
>>> or making nasty comments.
>> To us, of course there are different degrees. My point is that all sin
>> is serious, not just the ones you consider mortal A drop of red paint
>> in a litre of white and that paint is no longer pure white. So it is
>> with sin. Jesus is the one who purifies, whether that paint is spoilt
>> just a touch, or crimson red.
>Yes, but he also empowers. You can't expect to be justified by faith in
>Christ if you are not also prepared to die on the cross - Romans chapter 6.
>It is the same cross-work, the same work of salvation, and you cannot have
>the one without the other. It is only when we believe in Jesus (properly)
>that we are justified by faith.
I would agree with that, dying to self is important. Do you not
believe that if you do fall over, God is there to pick you up, with
whatever patience is needed or do you believe He (metaphorically)
shouts down from Heaven, <insert name> stop sinning immediately, you
filthy child
>>>> "For we do not have a high priest.........
>>> The context of that verse is help to overcome temptation, before the sin
>>> has been committed.
>> Ok, you may well be right on that. So does Jesus purify from all sin
>> or not? 1 John 1 seems very pertinent here. Sin is sin, period. Thank
>> God for Jesus.
>All sins (bar the unforgivable) can be forgiven because of Christ's shed
>blood, if we repent of them, and believe in him (properly).
That may well be a subject in itself, so I'll deal with it seperately
>>> What do you mean by 'trusting in the Saviour' and 'put his trust in
>>> Jesus'? Because whatever you mean, it appears to imply that he need not
>>> take quitting pornography too seriously, because Jesus will gently guide
>>> and lead him through his grace and restore him, although it probably
>>> won't happen overnight.
>> You are missing my point. I never said it isn't a serious issue, I
>> said the man is struggling with his sin. Of course the man is feeling
>> guilty. Do you deny God's Grace in lovingly leading him away from that
>> sin?
>Maybe the guilt is the Holy Spirit leading him to repentance. Once done, he
>will be forgiven. Problem solved.
Having, AFAIAA, only committed a mortal sin once as a Christian, when
I imploded because of an (unfair) comment made and I lost it for a
couple of hours spiritually. I really did think after that i had
blown it as a Christian, but something deep within told me as a
Christian I was forgiven.
Sometime later I lost all connection with God and it was like He was a
million miles away. I still functioned as a Christian but it was my
power rather than God's power
This is the key point imo, I don't believe you can be a Christian in
your own strength. When I first became a Christian I found it quite
easy not to sin in general. When God wasn't there I found it
incredibly difficult not to sin. And although I managed it for a few
months apart from small things, it was in my own strength, and I knew
that the bubble would burst.
I did attempt a return in 2009, in my own strength, and it fell apart
within 6 months.
>There was once a farmer who had a pig. It loved to roll in the muck. The
>farmer cleaned it up, but it rolled in the muck again. So he cleaned it up,
>and tied it to a post, where it couldn't get to the muck. But the pit
>gnawed at the rope, because it wanted to get in the muck. Eventually the
>rope snapped and the pig rolled in the muck. This kept on happening.
>Eventually the farmer shot it dead. Now it couldn't roll in the muck.
>The pig is man. The farmer is God. The muck is sin. The rope is the Law.
>When the pig was dead, it was free from its yearnings.
A bad analogy, we are not talking about those who want to sin, but
about those who struggle with sin
Apologies for the late reply.
On Sun, 28 Oct 2012 21:46:40 -0000, "John Cooper"
<bl...@bishop1960.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>"John" <focus594-remo...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>>> I did attempt a return in 2009, in my own strength, and it fell apart
>>> within 6 months.
Ah! but where you wise enough to be doing the Daily Bible Readings during that time, John?
>>There was once a farmer who had a pig. It loved to roll in the muck. The
>>farmer cleaned it up, but it rolled in the muck again. So he cleaned it >>up,
>>and tied it to a post, where it couldn't get to the muck. But the pit
>>gnawed at the rope, because it wanted to get in the muck. Eventually the
>>rope snapped and the pig rolled in the muck. This kept on happening.
>>Eventually the farmer shot it dead. Now it couldn't roll in the muck.
>>The pig is man. The farmer is God. The muck is sin. The rope is the >>Law.
>>When the pig was dead, it was free from its yearnings.
> A bad analogy, we are not talking about those who want to sin,
Yet some *do want* to sin by doing the very things either Christ or St. Paul has forbidden.
> but about those who struggle with sin
We all do that as did St. Paul.
" I've discovered this truth: Evil is present with me even when I want to do what God's standards say is good. 22 I take pleasure in God's standards in my inner being. 23 However, I see a different standard {at work} throughout my body. It is at war with the standards my mind sets and tries to take me captive to sin's standards which still exist throughout my body.
24 What a miserable person I am! Who will rescue me from my dying body? 25 I thank God that our Lord Jesus Christ rescues me! So I am obedient to God's standards with my mind, but I am obedient to sin's standards with my corrupt nature."
Romans 7:21-25 (GW)
And the answer is...
"8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. 9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness."
1 John 1:8-9 (ASV)
On Sun, 4 Nov 2012 20:25:35 -0000, "1st Century Apostolic rote:
>"Kate P Hunter" wrote in message
>>> Your guilt is your problem, not God's - it can have a good purpose
>>> because it can prompt positive change. It can also bring unnecessary
>>> condemnation. Either way, the good news is that it's not too much of
>>> a problem for God.
>>Of course not, it is John who has the problem and he makes it even worse >>by
>>characterizing the 'DA" so often when posting!
> Are you suggesting I am of the devil? If not, please explain your
> meaning.
Over in ERC, [england.religion.christian] just in case I overstep the charter, though I shouldn't do, but just to be on the safe side....{;o;}
Jeff...
Off down the gym now.
And I thought I was getting rather old to be going down the gym....{;o;}
"Bodybuilder, 93, with winning muscles"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-20048675
On Tue, 6 Nov 2012 20:05:45 -0000, "1st Century Apostolic
Traditionalist" <jnhickling[remove]@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>"John" wrote in message
>Apologies for the late reply.
>On Sun, 28 Oct 2012 21:46:40 -0000, "John Cooper"
><bl...@bishop1960.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>>"John" <focus594-remo...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>>>> I did attempt a return in 2009, in my own strength, and it fell apart
>>>> within 6 months.
>Ah! but where you wise enough to be doing the Daily Bible Readings during >that time, John?
I was reading the bible every day, yes. although It is possible I
missed the odd day.
Sorry for mine. A bit occupied, as you've probably noticed, on a related
matter elsewhere.
___________________________________________________________
>> That man was delivered to Satan by the church, on Paul's command. When
>> Paul sends them his second epistle, he mentions that man's grief, and
>> advises the church to re-admit him. And thus he came to be restored.
> I'm glad we agree, that's why it's wrong to quote 1 Corinthians 6
> because the Christian can be restored.
It isn't wrong. It's absolutely true. Like 'God is love' is true. But it
isn't the whole truth.
_______________________________________________________
> We don't know what Paul had in mind in doing so but I would like to
> think it was because he knew/or hoped that it would bring the man to
> repentance, rather than having second thoughts afterwards (speculation
> of course)
There is a saying that excommunication should always be done with a view to
restoration. It is meant to be remedial.
______________________________________________________
> IMO, expelling from the church should only be done in the last
> instance, when all else has failed. If the elders are aware of the
> sin, then they should counsel first.
In many cases, yes, depending on the severity of the case. But if it is of
the level of the sin of the Corinthian man, then a brisker approach is
vital, for 3 reasons.
1. The man needs a sharp shock to the system to bring him to his senses.
2. An example needs to be made of the man, for the good of other members of
the church. This is how seriously the church regards this offence, and this
is what happens.
3. The church is quarantined, and the virus ceases to spread. For inaction
will lead to further degeneration. A little leaven leavens the whole lump.
___________________________________________________
> Obviously with our man involved in pornography it is unlikely the
> church will know, unless the man confesses. Of course God knows, and
> I believe he will do his utmost to assist that person to overcome that
> sin. I think we both agree on that but disagree on the timescale.
>> Yes, but he also empowers. You can't expect to be justified by faith in
>> Christ if you are not also prepared to die on the cross - Romans chapter
>> 6. It is the same cross-work, the same work of salvation, and you cannot
>> have the one without the other. It is only when we believe in Jesus
>> (properly) that we are justified by faith.
> I would agree with that, dying to self is important. Do you not
> believe that if you do fall over, God is there to pick you up, with
> whatever patience is needed or do you believe He (metaphorically)
> shouts down from Heaven, <insert name> stop sinning immediately, you
> filthy child
God deals with every case as he deems necessary, and so should we - Jude
1:22,23
_______________________________________________________
>>> You are missing my point. I never said it isn't a serious issue, I said
>>> the man is struggling with his sin. Of course the man is feeling
>>> guilty. Do you deny God's Grace in lovingly leading him away from that
>>> sin?
>> Maybe the guilt is the Holy Spirit leading him to repentance. Once done,
>> he will be forgiven. Problem solved.
> Having, AFAIAA, only committed a mortal sin once as a Christian, when
> I imploded because of an (unfair) comment made and I lost it for a
> couple of hours spiritually. I really did think after that i had
> blown it as a Christian, but something deep within told me as a
> Christian I was forgiven.
> Sometime later I lost all connection with God and it was like He was a
> million miles away. I still functioned as a Christian but it was my
> power rather than God's power
> This is the key point imo, I don't believe you can be a Christian in
> your own strength. When I first became a Christian I found it quite
> easy not to sin in general. When God wasn't there I found it
> incredibly difficult not to sin. And although I managed it for a few
> months apart from small things, it was in my own strength, and I knew
> that the bubble would burst.
> I did attempt a return in 2009, in my own strength, and it fell apart
> within 6 months.
I've had long periods when God seemed inert, and yet there was still
something there. No-one knew what I was going through. I knew they
wouldn't understand. I carried on 'as normal', not because I am a
hypocrite, but because I believed that I would eventually come out of the
tunnel, on the tracks. And so it proved to be.
Once, whilst abroad, I ignored a sign saying the road was closed. I had
been down it before, I thought it was overhyped. I soon realised that it
wasn't. The only way I managed not to get stuck, was to continue at 'normal
speed', until I eventually came out onto terra firma.
I was brought up in circles where they didn't like to do stuff 'in their own
strength', but they still managed to be at the morning service on time. I'm
sure God didn't haul them out of bed. They still got up 'in their own
strength'. I'm sure God energises us to do the things that he has told us
in his word to do, like a battery, but our movements and choices are our
own. Expecting God to hack our body, and make us do stuff, is a bit of a
cop out, if you ask me.
____________________________________________________________
>> There was once a farmer who had a pig. It loved to roll in the muck.
>> The farmer cleaned it up, but it rolled in the muck again. So he cleaned
>> it up, and tied it to a post, where it couldn't get to the muck. But the
>> pit gnawed at the rope, because it wanted to get in the muck. Eventually
>> the rope snapped and the pig rolled in the muck. This kept on happening.
>> Eventually the farmer shot it dead. Now it couldn't roll in the muck.
>> The pig is man. The farmer is God. The muck is sin. The rope is the
>> Law. When the pig was dead, it was free from its yearnings.
> A bad analogy, we are not talking about those who want to sin, but
> about those who struggle with sin.
Discussing the fornicator chucked out of the Christian church.
>> I'm glad we agree, that's why it's wrong to quote 1 Corinthians 6
>> because the Christian can be restored.
>It isn't wrong. It's absolutely true. Like 'God is love' is true. But it
>isn't the whole truth.
"Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God?
Do not be deceived: Neither the fornicator will inherit the kingdom of
God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were
sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ
and by the Spirit of our God."
Well we know the fornicator was allowed back into the Corinthian
Church so using 1 Corinthians 6 to say that Christians who commit
mortal sins are shut out from heaven is wrong.
>> We don't know what Paul had in mind in doing so but I would like to
>> think it was because he knew/or hoped that it would bring the man to
>> repentance, rather than having second thoughts afterwards (speculation
>> of course)
>There is a saying that excommunication should always be done with a view to
>restoration. It is meant to be remedial.
I am reminded of some friends of ours who were chucked out of church
after she became pregnant. It's a bit difficult to restore that!
>I was brought up in circles where they didn't like to do stuff 'in their own
>strength', but they still managed to be at the morning service on time. I'm
>sure God didn't haul them out of bed. They still got up 'in their own
>strength'. I'm sure God energises us to do the things that he has told us
>in his word to do, like a battery, but our movements and choices are our
>own. Expecting God to hack our body, and make us do stuff, is a bit of a
>cop out, if you ask me.
I think again you misunderstand me. When I say doing it in my own
strength it means that I was doing everything with no real sense of
God being there. I was praying that God would help me and be with me
but to no avail. My prayer life and my Bible reading were dry, but I
persevered, until inevitably a crisis of faith came and I had nothing
to cling onto.
>>Discussing the fornicator chucked out of the Christian church.
>> I'm glad we agree, that's why it's wrong to quote 1 Corinthians 6
>> because the Christian can be restored.
>> It isn't wrong. It's absolutely true. Like 'God is love' is true. But >> it
>> isn't the whole truth.
>"Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God?
>Do not be deceived: Neither the fornicator will inherit the kingdom of
>God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were
>sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ
>and by the Spirit of our God."
> Well we know the fornicator was allowed back into the Corinthian
> Church
Not if he had still been fornicating with his father's wife.....there would have been no point of allowing him back, as St. Paul's instructions for his removal would still have been operational.
"I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat. 12 For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within? 13 But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person."
1 Cor 5:11-13 (KJV)
Traditionalist" <jnhickling[remove]@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>"John" wrote in message news:uvm5a89ht86c03lemq4mjmlglttpl8eei4@4ax.com...
>On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 19:39:20 -0000, "John Cooper"
>>>Discussing the fornicator chucked out of the Christian church.
>>> I'm glad we agree, that's why it's wrong to quote 1 Corinthians 6
>>> because the Christian can be restored.
>>> It isn't wrong. It's absolutely true. Like 'God is love' is true. But >>> it
>>> isn't the whole truth.
>>"Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God?
>>Do not be deceived: Neither the fornicator will inherit the kingdom of
>>God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were
>>sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ
>>and by the Spirit of our God."
>> Well we know the fornicator was allowed back into the Corinthian
>> Church
>Not if he had still been fornicating with his father's wife.....there would >have been no point of allowing him back, as St. Paul's instructions for his >removal would still have been operational.
>"I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a >brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a >drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat. 12 For what >have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that >are within? 13 But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away >from among yourselves that wicked person."
>1 Cor 5:11-13 (KJV)
So it's ok to be allowed back in once they have repented, which has
been my point all along. Your passage above makes no allowance for
that, which is why I believe it is wrong to quote it to someone
genuinely struggling with sin.
Obviously, for the unrepentant sinner the above applies, I have never
said differently.
Traditionalist" <jnhickling[remove]@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>"John" wrote in message news:uvm5a89ht86c03lemq4mjmlglttpl8eei4@4ax.com...
>>> Well we know the fornicator was allowed back into the Corinthian
>>> Church
>>Not if he had still been fornicating with his father's wife.....there >>would
>>have been no point of allowing him back, as St. Paul's instructions for >>his
>>removal would still have been operational.
>>"I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a
>>brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a
>>drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat. 12 For what
>>have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them >>that
>>are within? 13 But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away
>>from among yourselves that wicked person."
>>1 Cor 5:11-13 (KJV)
> So it's ok to be allowed back in once they have repented,
Once the sinful alliance has ceased and the person admits their sin and has repented.
> which has
> been my point all along. Your passage above makes no allowance for
> that, which is why I believe it is wrong to quote it to someone
> genuinely struggling with sin.
St. Paul wanted it quoted, which is why it has been "Written for our learning".
It's a dire warning of what will happen if the sinful alliance continues, just as in adultery or hetro or homo fornication.
> Obviously, for the unrepentant sinner the above applies,
Obviously!
> I have never said differently.
Sadly many do, and so refuse to implement the commanded punishment [saying if they excommunicated them they would just go and search out a more liberal 'loving' church down the road] and so the leaven spreads and soon the "WHOLE lump" becomes leavened with sinful iniquities.
Jeff...
[1] Such unspiritual logic beggars belief.
> Discussing the fornicator chucked out of the Christian church.
> "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God?
> Do not be deceived: Neither the fornicator will inherit the kingdom of
> God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were
> sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ
> and by the Spirit of our God."
> Well we know the fornicator was allowed back into the Corinthian
> Church so using 1 Corinthians 6 to say that Christians who commit
> mortal sins are shut out from heaven is wrong.
Of course it isn't.. And the fornicator was not allowed back in at all. An
ex-fornicator was allowed back in.
_______________________________________________________
>> There is a saying that excommunication should always be done with a view
>> to restoration. It is meant to be remedial.
> I am reminded of some friends of ours who were chucked out of church
> after she became pregnant. It's a bit difficult to restore that!
Presumably there was good reason to do so. Hopefully, the disciplined will
come to their senses, and those exercising the discipline recognise its
intended purpose - restoration.
________________________________________________________
>> I was brought up in circles where they didn't like to do stuff 'in their
>> own strength', but they still managed to be at the morning service on
>> time. I'm sure God didn't haul them out of bed. They still got up 'in
>> their own strength'. I'm sure God energises us to do the things that he
>> has told us in his word to do, like a battery, but our movements and
>> choices are our own. Expecting God to hack our body, and make us do
>> stuff, is a bit of a cop out, if you ask me.
> I think again you misunderstand me. When I say doing it in my own
> strength it means that I was doing everything with no real sense of
> God being there. I was praying that God would help me and be with me
> but to no avail. My prayer life and my Bible reading were dry, but I
> persevered, until inevitably a crisis of faith came and I had nothing
> to cling onto.
"John Cooper" wrote in message news:agkv66Fff29U1@mid.individual.net...
"John" <focus594-remo...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> Discussing the fornicator chucked out of the Christian church.
>> I am reminded of some friends of ours who were chucked out of church
>> after she became pregnant. It's a bit difficult to restore that!
>Presumably there was good reason to do so.
Especially if she had become pregnant by an illicit union of fornication.
> Hopefully, the disciplined will
>come to their senses,
Indeed, repent and get married and she can get pregnant all she wants.
> and those exercising the discipline recognise its
> intended purpose - restoration.
But few today lack the spiritual knowledge [being ruled by their own loony liberal humanism] let alone the courage to impart the wise instructions of the great Apostles of Christ.
Jeff...
"Paul, Paul, why are you persecuting me? You are only hurting yourself.’
15 " ’Who are you, sir?’ I asked.
"And the Lord replied, ’I am Jesus, the one you are persecuting. 16 Now stand up! For I have appeared to you to appoint you as my servant and my witness. You are to tell the world about this experience and about the many other occasions when I shall appear to you."
Acts 26:14-16 (TLB)
Amen!
