Results 1 - 5 of 5
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Is it bibical for a church to require? | John 8:7 | justme | 224300 | ||
Setonahill: I think if you read my answer to dka you might want to reconsider your position. I believe it is because of inadiquate knowledge that people misconstrued what Church discipline is all about, and how it is to take place. Blessings. justme |
||||||
2 | Is it bibical for a church to require? | John 8:7 | Setonahill | 224321 | ||
Justme This church having a ruling that the sinner must come before the church to ask forgiveness otherwise suffer the consequence of being excommunicated seems to be discriminatory in their practicing of it. It appears as though this church requires this to be done only for young girls who get pregnant but not for everyone else with all types of sin. My contention is that the church having such a requirement must apply it evenly. If it cannot or is not applied in such a manner then it should not be applied at all. My question to dka was to ascertain who the requirement was affecting. "Has this taken place before only with other girls in the same position or is this a common practice where anyone in the congregation having committed any kind of sin had to do the same?" Answer from dka "This has taken place in this church with other girls in the same situation." Therefore it appears this is only a requirement for young girls that sin. The following should suffice as a mere sampling of the things God looks at as abomination Pro. 6:16-19 but in this church the same standard of adherence for sins committed does not seem to apply. I do not believe this is an age issue as much as it is a sin issue and the accountability of those to the church that commit sin but if the standard for this accountability is not the same for everyone then the standard is wrong. Rom 3:23 God looks at sin as sin regardless of the development of the brain. In closing if this is being applied as a deterrent to sin then we should look again at the death penalty. How is a girl to repent of a pregnancy? Setonahill |
||||||
3 | Is it bibical for a church to require? | John 8:7 | Beja | 224324 | ||
Setonahill, I don't mean for this to be a post for or against what you are discussing but a post to help see what may be the reasoning behind it. When a person sins and they are called to account what is needed is repentence. Some things are very simple, if a person is doing drugs they can cease doing drugs. If a person is cheating on their wife they can cease cheating on their wife. The list could go on and on. However, for some sins repentence is more difficult to spot. Allow me to give an admitedly extreme example. If a person in a fit of rage committed a murder, how would we see repentence? Its not really repentence to say they won't commit murder again is it? They never had a desire to become a habitual murderer. They can easily "quit" the sin with no real repentence at all. How do we ask for a show of repentence in such instances? So the question doesn't revolve around certain biblical mandated penalties for certain sins, but rather it is a matter of a church trying to perceive repentence. Other times it is the church who feels they were sinned against. I recall when David sinned with Bathseba the prophet pronounced his punishment because he had given the the enemeies of the LORD a chance to blaspheme. Now unbelievers could point and say, "Look, christians really are no different." In this way the church might feel they were wronged when a member commits a particularly notorious sin. By forcing them to apologize to the church it is a way of publicly stating for all to know that the church declares this is not how a christian is to act. The motives for what is happening could be many or varied, or it could have began as such things and now simply become the adopted tradition of the church to expect such things for that particular sin. My point being, try to understand the motives behind it first. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
4 | Is it bibical for a church to require? | John 8:7 | Setonahill | 224330 | ||
Beja Any possible motive for this church to have instituted such a requirement at this point is irrelevant. Let me explain. If as you say "The motives for what is happening could be many or varied, or it could have began as such things and now simply become the adopted tradition of the church to expect such things for that particular sin." Does this mean because they might have had a motive in the past which caused them to create such a regulation that it should continue if it is now the wrong action to be taken or are we to follow tradition for tradition sake? My whole argument has been on the grounds that the church has the right to institute any laws it pleases upon it's parishioners. It then falls upon the parishioners to either accept or reject those laws. It comes down to the practical application of this law that should determine whether or not it is a just law. A just law as all of Gods' laws are would be applied to everyone within the congregation and not just on a very small minority of that congregation. If the law says that the sinner has to repent and receive forgiveness from the entire congregation that is fine. But if it is only being applied to those girls that get pregnant then the law has been instituted to stigmatize only one part of the congregation and not stop sin of all kinds within the congregation. My point being there are people in every congregation that would not like everyone in their congregation knowing the things they do in private on a regular basis. There are people that cheat on their taxes every year other people that have businesses that rob their customers others that lie about everything others that gossip some men lust after women with their eyes and others break all kinds of traffic laws. But as you have said it is hard to see or know about these sins which are committed or their repentance from them. That my brother is what makes this an unjust law it is being applied unjustly to only one segment of the congregation only on the grounds it is or will be in the future not be able to be hid any longer and everyone will know what has happened "SIN". But all of the other sinners in the congregation will continue on in their secret sins they then will sit in judgement of a girl that made a mistake and will pay for that mistake for the rest of her life even if she does get forgiveness from them. Matt.7:1-6 On these grounds I make my case against this churches regulation. If the regulation cannot be applied fairly against all sin then it should not single out one sin and condemn the guilty party. In your saying "Now unbelievers could point and say, "Look, christians really are no different." "By forcing them to apologize to the church it is a way of publicly stating for all to know that the church declares this is not how a christian is to act." While it is true that unbelievers could say those things the forcing of the offender to apologize to the church is by no means a public notification and the unbelieving public will never be informed that the apology has taken place. They will then continue to say what they say. I seem to not have been able to clearly state my position I hope this helps clear things up. Setonahill |
||||||
5 | Is it bibical for a church to require? | John 8:7 | Beja | 224331 | ||
Setonahill, I think you might have missed the main idea of my post, and that very well may be due to a lack of clarity on my part. But essentially it boils down to this. Different types of sin can require different signs of repentance. That was pretty much the sum of my post. Also, trying to suggest that because the church is unable to effectively root out hidden sins that therefore they can not deal with exposed sins is a weak arguement which, should we take it to its logical conclusion, leads only to us failing to obey scripture which tells us to practice church discipline and expect repentence. Now, that being said, in this particular church they could be handling it wrongly, or unfairly, or partially. All of this would be wrong of them. Furthermore, for them to look down their noses at such a woman after she has expressed and shown sincere repentence would be wrong of them. So I'm not defending any of these things. But going the route of saying that since we can not root out every tax cheat in the church and demand such a thing of them, therefore we must tolerate exposed unrepentant sin in the church is not only flawed, it is extremely unbiblical. In Christ, Beja |
||||||