SBC Executive Committee proposes ouster of church over homosexuality

Then that creates a problem in condemning anyone for personal perceived inaction.

By status I mean his recovery from his past sin.

Then how can anyone intelligently speak to whether or not the "SBC" has not acted on it?

You do not need to be a member of the SBT. And you can ask to be one of the messengers if this is so important to you. Do not sit back and condemn the convention for inaction when you your self can initiate action but do not.

I am concerned that a church may be acting wrecklessly.

Your suspicion is most likely founded in your bias.

There is no need to set precedent. It is part of every association and state convention. It happens more than people generally know throughout the country,

 

If he is repentant, of being gay or sexual predator, then what is past is irrelevant and he would qualify. But I have no way of knowing where he is at.

This is nothing but an assumption based on personal perception rather than grounded in fact.

This is the false accusation I am concerned with. It is unfounded and with out any basis. But you make an attempt to defend this church who brings in gay members and condemn the other church. Even if your suspicion is correct about the other you are doing exactly what you condemn the SBC for.

Not at all, the motion to disfellowship with Broadway came form someone from NC.

The SBC is not a denomination. It has linked to sexual predator lists on its sites and made itself available to assist in researching who these guys are. But individual churches need to do their own work. If a church brings on someone who is a sexual predator no on can be blamed but themselves. The church are not vicitims of the convention where that is concerned. And it is liberals who raise try to make an issue out of it and present the convention as being responsible when such ideology is preposterous. Usually they do it in defense of homosexuals being in the church much like you are doing.

I did not say the church is acting wrecklessly. I said i was concerned they may be. I, nor do you as it appears, have enough info to make that determination.

 

It seems to me that many on this forum are quick to accept (if not approve) the deviant behavior of homosexuals while attacking those who insist on following the plain teachings of the Bible. Those engaged in the homosexual (or any other deviant practice) should NOT be allowed to become members of a Baptist church, nor should they be allowed to serve in any position in the church. And yes, the SBC has every right to disassociate themselves from any church for any reason. It is a voluntary organization.

 

Not necessarily. The requirement is "blameless," not "forgiven." So he can be forgiven, but that doesn't mean he is blameless, and therefore doesn't mean he is qualified.

 

agree with seekingtruth and pastor larry.

 

You define blameless incorrectly. It refers to current sin not past and repented sin. No one would qualify by your standard. We never hold someone's past and repented sin against them. Never

 

No it doesn't. It refers to testimony of a man's life. A man who has sinned in the past or present can still be blameless.

Let's use some examples:

A man commits adultery, repents that night. The sin is past and repented of (your two ideas). Is he blameless? No.

A pastor molests a young man. He repents and is forgiven. The sin is past and repented of. Is he blameless? No.

A pastor goes out gets drunk, makes a scene in a local restaurant, repents and is forgiven. The sin is past and repented of. Is he blameless? No.

Blameless deals with testimony, not perfection. No one is perfect. Many people are blameless ... that is they have controlled their lives and their testimony so that there is no major blot.

Standards for a pastor are higher than for a church member. God set it up that way.

 

I do not see a change. But I would never say never.

 

Scripture does not bear out your personal definition of blameless. The greek language does not bear this out. And no one not even PL can live up to it. Because now you have to qualify sin. In other words is PL's sin bad enough or good enough for him to be Pastor. An impossible standard and unscriptural.

 

The above statement is in direct conflict with the statement below.

 

I would agree. Again i would neither defend nor condemn the individual you speak of as I know nothing of the situation.

 

No it wasn't intended to so much criticize as make an observation. You addition is impossible to line up. It is in direct conflict with what PL said.