Prior Book | Prior Chapter | Prior Verse | Next Verse | Next Chapter | Next Book | Viewing NASB and Amplified 2015 | |
NASB | John 8:7 But when they persisted in asking Him, He straightened up, and said to them, "He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." |
AMPLIFIED 2015 | John 8:7 However, when they persisted in questioning Him, He straightened up and said, "He who is without [any] sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." [Deut 17:7] |
Subject: Is it bibical for a church to require? |
Bible Note: 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 |