Safe for the seeker yet not tolerant of the sin is a hard line to hold. Most move too far one way or the other. Unfortunately, safe usually comes to mean tolerant.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Agree or disagree with this statement?
- Thread starter Reynolds
- Start date
I see absolutely no reason to single out "the gender confused and the sexually broken" as the "tell all, end all" barometer of the health of a church. This seems more like an agenda of indoctrination of acceptance and is the exact opposite of drawing a line of a pet-peeve sin in which must not cross, this argument is drawing a line based on for acceptance of a particular sin which not must be crossed being used as a measure for the church's health.
With this I agree, but it fails to take into account WHY the sin of "the gender confused and the sexually broken" should be the measure of conformity by the church. Therefore, my question would be to the author, WHY does this particular sin set the standard as per the premise of the opening argument?
The curriculum is on sexuality.
Manhood
Womanhood
Marriage
Singleness
Sexual sins
Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Regardless the premise is singling out a particular sin which is followed by their conclusion.
Why not say, "If the church must be anything, she must be a safe place for the sinful and broken, and of course this includes the gender confused and the sexually broken."
To put an emphasis on the importance in acceptance of a particular sin as a measurement seems as hypocritical as drawing a line of a particular sin which one must not cross. The opening argument "If the church must be anything..." seems to directly attempt to elevate the value of acceptance of a particular sin ("she must be a safe place for the gender confused and the sexually broken." , when there is no such elevated value to be considered in the conclusion.
Dave G
Well-Known Member
Jumping in late...
The church is for the saved.
They are saved from all sorts of things...sexual sins being some of them.
" Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
11 And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God." ( 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 )
Now that they are aware of so great a salvation, they are to walk worthy of their calling and election ( 2 Peter 1:2-11 ).
If the church must be anything, it must be for correction, for reproof, and for doctrine and for the building up ( edification ) in the faith of the members who have escaped these things by the Spirit of God.
The church is not a safe house for those who refuse to abandon sin.
To me, "gender confusion" is for people who refuse to admit which gender God made them.
If they refuse to agree with God on their gender, I'd have to ask, "What more are they refusing to agree with God on?".
True believers are sinners who have had their sins forgiven by the blood of Christ and have turned their back on them, as God has turned His back on those same sins.
They are also people who agree with God about their sins, each and every one.
They understand what it is that has offended Him, and what it is they are saved from...His eternal wrath for their sins.
I find the first quoted statement very strange, coming from someone who apparently professes Christ as Saviour.
Yikes...
Extremely problematic.
The church is for the saved.
They are saved from all sorts of things...sexual sins being some of them.
" Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
11 And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God." ( 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 )
Now that they are aware of so great a salvation, they are to walk worthy of their calling and election ( 2 Peter 1:2-11 ).
If the church must be anything, it must be for correction, for reproof, and for doctrine and for the building up ( edification ) in the faith of the members who have escaped these things by the Spirit of God.
The church is not a safe house for those who refuse to abandon sin.
To me, "gender confusion" is for people who refuse to admit which gender God made them.
If they refuse to agree with God on their gender, I'd have to ask, "What more are they refusing to agree with God on?".
True believers are sinners who have had their sins forgiven by the blood of Christ and have turned their back on them, as God has turned His back on those same sins.
They are also people who agree with God about their sins, each and every one.
They understand what it is that has offended Him, and what it is they are saved from...His eternal wrath for their sins.
I find the first quoted statement very strange, coming from someone who apparently professes Christ as Saviour.
Last edited:
True believers are sinners who have had their sins forgiven by the blood of Christ and have turned their back on them, as God has turned His back on them.
Me thinks Dave must believe he is no longer a sinner, or has drawn a line in the sand.
Dave G
Well-Known Member
I don't see anything to laugh about, Benjamin.
It only takes one sin to go to Hell...what is it about sin that you think is funny?
That God treats it so seriously?
Last edited:
Dave G
Well-Known Member
I'm a sinner saved by God's amazing grace.
I am no longer a sinner in God's eyes, because His Son's sacrifice on the cross has saved me from those sins.
Even though I still sin ( 1 John 1:8, 1 John 1:10, 1 John 2:1-2 ), I don't wish to sin any longer ( Romans 7:14-25 ).
The only reason I still sin, is because I am not yet with the Lord.
"...in my flesh dwells no good thing."
God treats sin seriously, even in His children though He is gracious and patient with us...but there is a point that He will begin to chastise us for it, sometimes harshly.
Why should believers not treat it seriously?
We should fight it, since He gave His Son to "propitiate" ( appease ) God for it.
As for "drawing a line in the sand", would you be more specific?
I don't think I've stated anything un-Christian or unbiblical in my opinions.
I think that the church is for sinners who are saved by grace, not for people to treat Christ's sacrifice for those sins lightly.
It is for people who are saved from their sins, and to an eternal relationship with the best Friend that they could ever have.
They will struggle with besetting sins ( Hebrews 12:1-2 )...that is a given.
But that is what edification, encouragement and reminding each other that those sins are forgiven, is for...if one is saved.
What I am not advocating, is allowing unrepentant sin to flourish... and definitely not to create a setting whereby saved people who are practicing them unrepentantly, can go on and on in them.
Last edited:
Dave, if want to believe that you stepped over that line in the sand successfully and are set apart from the rest of those sinners
Dave G
Well-Known Member
Every believer is to be set apart from the unsaved, Benjamin.Dave, if want to believe that you stepped over that line in the sand successfully and are set apart from the rest of those sinners, power to ya brotha!
Have you ever read this?
" Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?
15 and what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?
16 and what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in [them]; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean [thing]; and I will receive you,
18 and will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty." ( 2 Corinthians 6:14-18 ).
I didn't set me apart, Benjamin...He did.
I'm a miserable failure that couldn't even stay out of bars until I was over 20 years old in the Lord.
That's how badly I mistreated my Saviour for His bothering with my worthless hide.
It's His grace and mercy that made me aware of how much He loved me, and how much He hates sin.
My sin.
So...what is it exactly that you find hard to believe?
That I treat Him seriously ( after years of treating Him like a joke? ), or that you think I'm some sort of "super Christian"?
Don't look at me, I'm a mess.
Look at Him.
Last edited:
Well, I'm so glad for you that you have the measuring tools all figured out about which lines others can not cross that puts them in that class regarding who should not be welcome in "your" church according to their sins. Oh, that's right, you don't belong to a church, do you Dave? Nevermind...
Dave G
Well-Known Member
No, I don't "go to church".
I assemble with ( Hebrews 10:25 ) and fellowship with those who genuinely love the Lord with all their heart.
Now...what's a "church", Benjamin?
Is it that thing on the corner with a steeple and a billboard that says, "all welcome", or is it a gathering of God's people under one roof that celebrates His grace in saving them?
Is the "church" a group of people who are grateful for God not sending them to Hell, or are they "seeker sensitive" and "church growth" oriented people who welcome all, and patiently "love them into the kingdom"...no matter how long it takes?
At what point is a church supposed to buckle down, obey the Lord and discipline their own...and ask the rest, who may not really care about Him and obeying Him, to leave?
I guess, perhaps, that it would depend on one's definition of "church", wouldn't it?
As for the first part of your quote:
Anyone who is truly saved would be welcome in my "church", regardless of past sins or present struggles with sin.
Those that aren't saved can hear the word of God in the Gospel through the many available outlets that are present in the world today, believe it, and be welcomed into the membership... just as soon as they show evidence ( Galatians 2:9 ) that they have believed on Christ for the forgiveness of their sins.
Anyone who comes in will be expected to at least try to obey the Lord's commandments when it comes to personal conduct...and that means with respect to sins of the flesh and other matters ( Romans 12:1-21, 1 Corinthians 5:9-13, Galatians 5:19-26, Colossians 3:1-25 ).
With that stated,
From what I'm seeing in your posts, you and I have a very different idea of what "church" is.
I find my idea of it in God's word.
Where do you find yours?
Last edited:
First, welcome to the BB.
Very insightful! Not everyone will have that level of discernment
There is little small to medium size churches have in resources to acquire and developed anything much in handling any addictive behavior problem. Larger assemblies may, but more often these are shunted to the place of little recognition.
It actually must be that way. Who wants their addiction named in front of the whole assembly? Can you just imagine the reaction if one stands on the platform and says, “I am a convicted child predator who has been “cured?”
It is not the same as that of gluttony, alcohol, drugs, or some other taken in from outside the body.
Scripture states sensual sinfulness first is generated from within the person, not from without. This is why it is the most covered up, dangerous, and there is no cure.
There is never any “deliverance” because unless one has a lobotomy, the sensual part is innate in all humankind. As a result, the believer must set high security over the “triggers.”
Unlike other addictions in which most are chemically based, the perversion of the sensual nature that God implants is not ever separable. That is, the very engagement in the healthy sensual Godly practices does not separate from that which was practiced which was ungodly.
Those who have been redeemed from (as you testify) from a certain sinful sensual life style, must always have in place such awareness to “triggers” and be far more zealous of defending their hearts and minds.
The teaching on sensuality in the Scriptures was hard for even the Apostles to grasp.
This was acknowledged by Christ and he said,
This is why so very many failures occur in the assemblies. Men “called to preach” have lived ungodly and expect not to fail in the ministry. Yet, they do.
Btw, I am not calling for people to be eunuchs, but to show that level of devotion God expects of one who finds ruin the the sensual matters.
I would agree, with the warning that Paul gives. Be very careful the one teaching and leading doesn’t fall back into the same snare.
That is a serious problem, and I am thankful that you discerned and are aware to be wary of such teaching. Often what is not clear is more dangerous than not.
Now this is partly true. One cannot expect unbelievers to live righteously.
However, Paul is concerned that believers are living unrighteously.
When a believer is immature, stunted, and undiscerning of the wisdom of God, there is no strength. Shamefully they mar the testimony of Christ. There is not “Godly sorrow.”
From your post, I can see your are not of that shallow pond.
Again, welcome to the board.
Very insightful! Not everyone will have that level of discernment
There is little small to medium size churches have in resources to acquire and developed anything much in handling any addictive behavior problem. Larger assemblies may, but more often these are shunted to the place of little recognition.
It actually must be that way. Who wants their addiction named in front of the whole assembly? Can you just imagine the reaction if one stands on the platform and says, “I am a convicted child predator who has been “cured?”
It is not the same as that of gluttony, alcohol, drugs, or some other taken in from outside the body.
Scripture states sensual sinfulness first is generated from within the person, not from without. This is why it is the most covered up, dangerous, and there is no cure.
There is never any “deliverance” because unless one has a lobotomy, the sensual part is innate in all humankind. As a result, the believer must set high security over the “triggers.”
Unlike other addictions in which most are chemically based, the perversion of the sensual nature that God implants is not ever separable. That is, the very engagement in the healthy sensual Godly practices does not separate from that which was practiced which was ungodly.
Those who have been redeemed from (as you testify) from a certain sinful sensual life style, must always have in place such awareness to “triggers” and be far more zealous of defending their hearts and minds.
The teaching on sensuality in the Scriptures was hard for even the Apostles to grasp.
This was acknowledged by Christ and he said,
“For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let the one who is able to receive this receive it.”
This is why so very many failures occur in the assemblies. Men “called to preach” have lived ungodly and expect not to fail in the ministry. Yet, they do.
Btw, I am not calling for people to be eunuchs, but to show that level of devotion God expects of one who finds ruin the the sensual matters.
I would agree, with the warning that Paul gives. Be very careful the one teaching and leading doesn’t fall back into the same snare.
That is a serious problem, and I am thankful that you discerned and are aware to be wary of such teaching. Often what is not clear is more dangerous than not.
Now this is partly true. One cannot expect unbelievers to live righteously.
However, Paul is concerned that believers are living unrighteously.
When a believer is immature, stunted, and undiscerning of the wisdom of God, there is no strength. Shamefully they mar the testimony of Christ. There is not “Godly sorrow.”
From your post, I can see your are not of that shallow pond.
Again, welcome to the board.
HatedByAll
Active Member
The immature in faith are immature in part because of their partial unbelief. As we learn more about our Lord, we learn we can trust him more and more as our faith increases. To me, a person falling for sexual sin does so largely because they are tempted to believe that they will have a better quality of life if they give in to the sin. On the other hand, a mature Christian has a strengthened faith because they have experienced a better life through the power of the Holy Spirit and putting the principles of the Bible to the test.
I agree with your assessment. Just pointing out that to me, when I fail as a Christian and live unrighteously, it has been because my Faith has been weak at the times of failure.
When I clearly see the Light of the Truth of the Word, sin loses most of its power over me.
This is good.
To bring a Scripture principle, one may look at 1 Corinthians 6:
18Flee immorality. Every other sin that a man commits is outside the body, but the immoral man sins against his own body.19Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and that you are not your own? 20For you have been bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body.
RighteousnessTemperance&
Well-Known Member
Truly sorry to hear it went that way.
ChasingChrist
New Member
How long should the sins of an alcoholic be tolerated without enacting church discipline? Or of somebody who is covetous? Or deceitful? This is no worse a sin than any other, and it should not be treated as such.