Featured Unmarried "Couples"

Just tell us all what it is about the following you do not understand?

 

I never said step one was a delegation. The behavior of the man was common knowledge. I don't know whether an individual church member talked to the man or not. The point is that his behavior was a sin against God and brought shame to the Church.

If you will read the initial post you will see that I made no reference at all to the passage from Matthew 18. {Post #10, Unmarried Couples}

*******************************************************************

*******************************************************************

I mentioned that passage later on. Who was the "one alone" that Paul sent to the fornicator in Corinth? He did not even suggest a delegation. Paul said put the man out.

You are simply being contrary and that is the surprising truth. You do not normally behave in that manner. Is it possibly that you people have a guilty conscience because you have tolerated sin in your midst.

I ignored nothing and the Church is not my Church. I simply told about the exclusion of a member of a Church. I told what I knew to be true.

I see no evidence that you are using the WHOLE of Scripture. I see that you in your self righteous attitude are simply unwilling to accept the simple recitation of an event I experienced. I said that since the guilty party refused the request to appear before the Church they had no choice but to exclude him. I call your attention to a post and your response from a related thread:

And your response:

Now perhaps you and PJ feel the above two quotes define the Church for which Jesus Christ died, a congregation of fornicators, but I believe Scripture disagrees with you both.

It is Jesus Christ who changes people!

 

I'm having trouble following all the "back & forth" re: this process.
Seems pretty clear to me how it should be scripturally handled.
1) Vs 15 -- go to the sinner ( yes that is all of us, so don't get nitpicking on semantics) and confront him. If he repents, all well & good. If not--
2) Vs 16 -- go again with a couple of witnesses. Repents? Fine. If not--
3) Vs 17 -- bring him before the body, and should he again refuse to get back on the straight & narrow, then he is toast as far as the church body is concerned. Repents? All well & good & life's good once more.
Am I missing something???

 

That is a deliberate lie. I have not ignored Verse 15. I was visiting the Church. I have told you what I know of the incident. There may have been some individual who went to the man. I do not know. It really doesn't make any difference. Verse 15 is not applicable!

Read Matthew 18:15:

Verse 15 is applicable only when one member trespasses against another. In this case the man trespassed against the entire congregation. Was the entire congregation supposed to go to the man? Failing they are then to send a delegation of 2 or 3. Do you see how asinine and contentious you are being? It is pathetic. The Church really had to do nothing other than exclude the man. They could have simply followed Paul's advice in 1 Corinthians 5: "Put the man out!" But they chose a different path, sending a delegation first in an attempt to resolve the problem, and you lambaste the Church. Disgusting!

 

Oh we exercise church discipline I guess, but in a dumb direction in my opinion. We had planned a vow renewal for all the married couples in the church on a Sunday around Valentine's day--some have been together over 60 years.

Looks like it is nixed now because it would embarrass the unmarried but living together crowd.:BangHead:

 

Verse 15 is not applicable because the guilty party did not trespass against a single person but the Church as a whole! This case os more like the one that Paul dealt with in 1 Corinthians 5, though perhaps the sin was not as egregious. I don't know because I don't all the nitty gritty details. I just happen to be visiting when the man was excluded. I mentioned it simply because it was a first and only time I have seen this happen. Yet some have attempted to make a federal case out of It. I believe they are simply dumping on the Old Regular Baptist Church.

I sincerely apologize to all members of the Old Regular Baptist Church who are on this forum for giving certain people an opportunity to show their ignorance or bigotry, whichever! I particular apologize to Old Union Brother because, though I don't know him well, I see in him that which should be present in all believers.

 

Yep, dead serious.

 

Why not invite them to make vows to each other also?

 

What is the biblical definition of marriage ?

 

WOW!!! in only four pages Annsni has already been accused of:
1.) Lambasting the Church
2.) being self-reighteous (twice so far by my count)
3.) possessing a "sense of superiority"
4.) being "deliberately obtuse"
5.) arrogance
6.)deliberately lying
7.)bigotry: (I have no idea how one is even capable of "bigotry" in this scenario, but none-the less..)
8.) ignorance

And all by only ONE PERSON! whose awareness of this is a comfort and a warning to us all!!

Frankly, I was un-aware of how horrid a person she is!!...thanks for the warnings!

Honestly...Ann, I commend you on one thing. (Despite your other agregious crimes, which, I don't doubt everyone here knows about)
...Considering the vicious abuse you are taking on this thread, your responses have been remarkably more patient and Christ-like than most would have been. :flower: