how one non Baptist church handle the shower issue

I will answer your red herring questions, quite Apples and oranges

Nope, it is an abomination to God. Having a baby is not

If they know, nope. Adultery is an abomination to God, having a baby is not.

Only if it's a liberal church, Homosexuality is an abomination to God. Having a baby is not

Up to the Church, what does Scripture say

 

What is apples and oranges? What is all this talk about a baby? The part of the discussion I am replying to is the scenerio about a couple living together and whether the church should marry them. Your response to someone saying they should be married outside the church was:

and

So, it would seem you think that a church should marry an unrepentant couple that are living together.

I agree with you that homosexual couples should not be married in a church (or outside for that matter) and the same about "swinging" couples. But, their sin is the same as the sin of the couple that are living together. Don't you understand that?

 

Your questions as relates to the OP

The couple are rectifying the situation and yes the Church should marry them

No it's not. Nor is this about that, your throwing up a red herring to try and divert attention from where it needs to be. This is not about couples, this is about a girl who made a mistake and the church treating her like scum.

If the girl is a member of the Church than they should let her know of the sin involved, but don't punish the baby. The church will have much to answer for with it's part that made that girl turn away and seek an abortion because they were so stuck up on what they thought was right.

This is no were near your questions and your assuming a lot.

 

You are all about sticking to the OP now. Why didn't you stick to the OP when you made a statement like, "I am glad I don't go to a church like yours where they hate even their own"?


If a couple is living together in sin and becomes repentant of that sin, they will move out to remove themselves from the sin. Repent means to turn away from. If you are living together and not married and become repentant, the only way to "rectify" that is to move out and then then plan a marriage. To say that they are rectifying the situation by continuing to live together is absurd.

How is it punishing the baby to not have a shower? Will the baby remember the shower? All the baby needs is the junk that comes from the shower. As long as the church still helps in that regard, what's the problem from the baby's standpoint? The shower is a celebration for the woman. A woman that has a baby out of wedlock, does not deserve a celebration. I know it may be hard for you to understand that sin should not be celebrated, but that's just the way it is.

For you to make the statement that a woman will have an abortion because she doesn't get a shower at her church is just plain stupid. Any woman who would do that is mentally uncapable of caring for a child and should give the child up for adoption.


As for

 

we will never agree

 

Since the Bible does not address baby showers (or indeed many specific situations) directly, we can infer the proper behavior in all situations by following similar examples of situations that are in the Bible. Really, what you are talking about here is cutting ties of fellowship with an individual. I think the Bible does setup very clear guidelines for how we are to treat one another:

1. Love others as you love yourself.

The Bible also talks in depth about the procedure for cutting someone off from fellowship. First go to them, if they won't listen bring a witness, if they won't listen bring the elders, if they won't listen cut off fellowship.

Apart from this proceedure, there is no precedence for "limited fellowship" ie - you fellowship with them, but don't throw a baby shower for them.

Telling someone they are sinning, and establishing a punishment for that sin are quite different. If you throw baby showers for everyone except for the persons you deem "not moral enough", then you are judge, jurry, and executioner... as it were... in punishing that person for their sin.

There are other ways... and you should be doing those ALSO. But taking away a loving act to punish for sin is not Agape love - unconditional love. If we follow God's model, we extend love while people are yet in sin.

Rom 5:8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

If they throw parties for everyone else, and have not formally cut off fellowship with her, then they should throw her a party also.

Oh that's right... I forgot.... we're only supposed to love others once they have agreed to our statement of faith and signed off on their submission to the church's by-laws.

 

"Your" church? I thought it was God's house? If they want to honor God by acknowledging his role in marriage, and get married in one of God's houses, why do you want to stop them?

 

Why? Who made the church the 'morality police'?

Act 15:20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and [from] fornication, and [from] things strangled, and [from] blood.

Above is the Gentile Moral Standard for the Church.

No.

Since the Bible defines marriage as between a man and a woman, I would say no.

Are they swinging with anyone else in the church? Should the church marry a man who uses pornography? Should the church marry anyone who looks at another person with lust? Sexual sin is sexual sin, and there is no "degree" of ok. It isn't for the church to execute punishment on someone for their sin.

They can be a member of God's family, so why not a church member? Again, here, one could argue that they wouldn't have the power to overcome their sin without being part of the Body of Christ.

Better that he spend his time in the pew than the bar, don't you think?

 

Why do you hate unwed mothers so much?

 

NT teaches that sexual intercourse effects the marriage, not words from a 3rd party.

In the OT, Isaac took Rebecca into a tent and "married" her.

 

So do you also advocate polygamy, since there are OT examples of it?

Not trying to derail, but show we must take care in what examples we use...