Re: Heard this discussion about a shacked together couple
Posted: Mon May 16, 2016 6:26 am
Not sure I'd agree.
"The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands." (Psalm 19:1)
https://discussions.godandscience.org/
You have the right to be wrong.RickD wrote:Not sure I'd agree.
I've seen some worship teams where only the leader is leading, and the rest of the team is just following along like the congregation. Don't want too many chiefs and not enough Indians.Jac3510 wrote:You have the right to be wrong.RickD wrote:Not sure I'd agree.
But seriously, I don't see what there is to disagree. The job of the praise team or choir or whatever is to lead the congregation in worship.
Now, I could actually push it a whole lot further and say that people living in open sin ought not be permitted to fellowship with the congregation. Plenty of Scriptural support for that, but who would want to be unpopular . . .
Unrepentant? How are you defining repent?Jac3510 wrote:And this is where people get too spiritual for their own good in my view. The Bible is very explicit about people in sin being handled privately, then with a witness, then before the church. The Bible is explicit that we ought not fellowship with believers living in unrepentant sin. "With such a one, do not even eat." We don't have the right to ignore church discipline out of some false sense of humility . . . "oh well everybody sins so I'm just going to ask you nicely to stop and let everything continue as before." That's garbage, and it's dangerous to the body of Christ.
As changing your mind, of course. An unrepentant sin is sin you haven't changed your mind about -- sin you are still living openly in.RickD wrote:Unrepentant? How are you defining repent?
You tell me. What do you make of 1 Cor 5:11?Again, what is "open sin"? And how is it different than sin that's not "open"?
And how, pray tell are we supposed to know who is or isn't on that naughty list, if they don't share it with us? That list could be any of us, or any among us.Jac3510 wrote:As changing your mind, of course. An unrepentant sin is sin you haven't changed your mind about -- sin you are still living openly in.RickD wrote:Unrepentant? How are you defining repent?
You tell me. What do you make of 1 Cor 5:11?Again, what is "open sin"? And how is it different than sin that's not "open"?
"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."
Again,Jac3510 wrote:Good point!
*gets eraser out and removes 1 Cor 5:11*
I read that verse just as it says. That the Corinthian Christians were to exclude those believers. Now, you may be able to make the argument that WE should exclude believers today, who openly admit they commit those sins. But you'd need to make that argument from another verse. That one is talking about Corinthians.Jac3510 wrote:You're asking an epistemological question rather than dealing with the actual substance of the text. Whether you intend it or not, you are suggesting that because the verse is unenforceable that we should ignore it. Now, I've been very clear. This couple is obviously living in sexual immorality. It's by admission. This is very easy for me.
You're the one telling me this doesn't apply, that we're all sinners, that we can't judge. So I'm asking YOU how YOU apply that verse.
You need to take the verse for what it actually says.Jac3510 wrote:Aha. So that verse only applied to the Corinthians.
Wow. Well, I suppose we've gotten to the root of our hermeneutical differences.