Baptists Expel Congregation

Did you read his profile?

Methinks he is simply trying to get his name to the fore-front for obvious reasons!?

 

So, do we also need to decide which other sinners are not worthy of salvation and baptism? What about those that continue to overeat? lie? gossip? cheat on texes? use unethical means to get ahead at work?
I am not worth for any, except by the grace of God.

Who decides?

[ May 12, 2003, 11:35 AM: Message edited by: Charlesga ]

 

God decides Charles.

But while I'm a pastor I'm not going to willingly place a pedophile teacher in the children's department in Sunday School.

Sin is sin in the eyes of God.
But in the human race there are varying degrees of sin.

For example - Murder is worse than lust, stealing is worse than overeating, homosexuality is worse than gossip.

We'd be executing folks for overeating if that were not the case.

 

I agree Hardsheller. I would add that since all sin is sin in the eyes of God, we cannot determine who deserves slavation and baptism because none of us do.

No, I would never endager the lives of children by having a pedophile as a Sunday School teacher...I see your point there and agree with it.

 

As a pastor, I imagine you have seen or know what gossip can do to a church...I'm not sure anything can be worse in the life of a church.

I would say that the earthly consequences of different sins are different...

 

Just a point of clarification.... we are pure not because of what we do, but because of what Christ has done. Church members still sin.

 

Did you read his profile?

Methinks he is simply trying to get his name to the fore-front for obvious reasons!? </font>[/QUOTE]If I wanted to get my name to the forfront, it wouldn't be here. I said what I said because I meant it. It is how Southern Baptists are perceived and to a very large degree they deserve it. Your insult is proof enough.

 

Just a point of clarification.... we are pure not because of what we do, but because of what Christ has done. Church members still sin. </font>[/QUOTE]Yes they do but we don't have to encourage it by lowering the membership standards of the church.

 

Yes they do but we don't have to encourage it by lowering the membership standards of the church. </font>[/QUOTE]Hmmm... But aren't the confession of those who want to join a church that they are fallen and corrupted people who, by God's mercy and love, have received grace and are beginning a journey of transformation into the people they were intended to be?

If you're not letting sinners be baptized into your church, you're not growing or doing the Lord's will. If the people who are joining your church through baptism do not affirm that they are sinners, they are not likely to be true converts.

 

The original post that started this thread was about accepting, affirming and baptizing a gay couple that was not repentant.

In other words they were being baptized with the full understanding that they would continue their unnatural and sinful lifestyle.

Your Post, Baptist Believer, denies the supernatural essence of the New Birth. The sin the lost person used to cling to now becomes repugnant to the new saint.

 

I’ll be the first to admit that I know little about this specific situation except what I have read here on the thread and the link to the Charlotte Observer given in this thread.

I did not see any mention that these two gay men were a couple. You may have more information, but I do not. Furthermore, I do not have any information regarding whether or not the church affirms homosexual sexuality or that the two men are repentant or not about their sexuality.

If the church is not affirming of homosexual sexuality and the two men seem to be serious about following in discipleship to Jesus Christ – whatever the consequences to their sexual expression – I do not personally have any qualms trusting that decision to the local church. The discipleship of the church and the gentle working of the Spirit will make those changes.

Would the church be disfellowshipped by the association if it were discovered that the church allowed some heterosexual people to be baptized who had not immediately given up their lustful ways?

I have seen no evidence or statement that backs up this assertion. Would you please provide it? (This is not rhetorical bluster, I’m seriously asking for the information!)

Not at all.

But some sins are harder to reject than others… How many of you have completely conquered your sins of lust? What about covetousness? By having you as a member, is your church “affirming” your sins?

Furthermore, I am reminded of a teenager I ministered to many years ago when I was in college. The boy was in his senior year of high school and had already developed a terrible drinking problem. One evening he gave his life to the Lord (as far as anyone could tell, he was completely sincere) and asked God to forgive his sins and committed himself to following Christ.

Things went well for him for a while but he had a terrible time struggling against his addiction to alcohol. Other teens and some well-mentioning adults told him that he merely lacked faith and “didn’t love Jesus enough” because he still experienced the profound spiritual and physical temptation to become drunk. Finally some of us were able to get him into a program that provided some support for his addiction and he was able to free eventually. His addictions didn’t end when he converted, but he found freedom through faith and discipleship.

In the same way, people who are involved in sexual sin do not always get relief from it immediately – especially when they have habitually and compulsively given themselves to the sin and have surrounded themselves with peers who support their lifestyle. But Christ has come for these people as well and receives them into His fellowship so that they can be transformed by the renewing of the mind and spirit. But if the church rejects those whom Christ has accepted, shouldn’t we say that that the church is not fulfilling her mission?

Yes, we become new creatures in Christ, but the old does not usually pass away as quickly as we would like.

 

In the pastor's words from the kicked out church.

"(The association) wanted us to go and determine ... these gentlemen's sexual orientation ... to make sure they had repented and changed their lifestyle. ...

We did not feel that was the right thing to do. ... That opens the door to an inquisition of all church members and leaves no room for God's grace. ..."

"Jesus never mentions homosexuals. In his three years of ministry, in all of his preaching, all of his teaching, in everything he does, he never mentions it. ... What Paul mentions is ... pederasty. He's talking about this horrible thing, men taking advantage of young boys.

Paul would have no concept of the idea that a person may be genetically made this way. ..."

I think it's pretty clear that this pastor and this church are affirming Homosexuality as a viable and permissable lifestyle for Christians.

 

Please supply the source of these comments.

 

Do a search for Cabarrus Baptist Association on Google and you'll get this plus a lot more.

Charlotte Observer May 4, 2003 is where these quotes came from.

 

Here's more.

So. Baptist Church Expelled from Local Association; Unrepentant Homosexuals Baptized as Members


By Jim Brown
April 30, 2003

(AgapePress) - A Southern Baptist association in North Carolina has severed ties with a local church that baptized two practicing homosexuals who are unwilling to repent of their lifestyle. The Cabarrus Baptist Association has withdrawn fellowship and membership from McGill Baptist Church in Concord over its decision to allow the two homosexual men to continue in their sinful relationship.

 

In note above that the Pastor in question mentioned that Jesus never mentioned Homosexuality in the Bible.

Can any of our theologians here confirm or deny this one?

 

He did not need to say any more about
homosexuality; it, like Sabbath, had already been
clearly stated, defined, and judged in the
Scriptures. 8o)

 

Did Jesus ever address the sin of sexual immorality? The sin of sexual immorality includes the sin of homosexuality. Besides, the question that has been thrown out about whether or not Jesus mentioned homosexuality is a strawman arguement. The attempt is to turn the focus of the debate to an irrelavent topic so that the central issue may be avoided. The point is that homosexuality is condemned as a sinful behavior by the Word of God (both in the OT and the NT).

 

Legitimate points. I am dynamically opposed to KJVO but that does not diminish my love and use for the KJV(1769 revision). Don't confuse the two.

And yes, I believe the stigma of the word "sodomite" is much more harsh and degrading AND descriptive term than the euphemistic "gay" or "homo". Hence my use.

And "drunkard" instead of "alcoholic"
And "adulterer" instead of "affair"

Just my sweet subtle way with words . . </font>[/QUOTE]Just as KJV "God forbid" is a dynamic, not a literal translation of Hebrew and Greek expressions that do NOT invoke the Deity (e.g. in Gen. 44:17, Heb. ĤaLiyLaH, or in Rom. 3:6, Gk. μη), incidentally making KJV run afoul of a literalist application of Rev. 22:18 (though I suppose it could be argued that bringing God in where He had been absent was a mitzvah, analogous to supporting prayers in public schools , so KJV introduces "Sodom" into each context where it uses "sodomite"; the Hebrew ( QaDeŠ ) will not support this reading without some medieval eisegesis. Since you apparently wish to be "harsh and degrading" in your choice of words, it is appropriate; however, it is unbiblical, and when applied to fellow believers (as the excluded church apparently holds these baptized men to be), it is unchristian. QaDeŠ, far from referring even obliquely to Sodom, is a term for a male ritual-sex minister in non-Yahwistic Israelite or Canaanite religion, and is derived from QaDaŠ, meaning "hallowed, consecrated, holy". To replace that term with "sodomite" is a mind-boggling bit of translatorial sl[e]ight-of-hand. The legerdemain predated the KJV translators, though; the usage "sodomite" here is of medieval Catholic origin, one of many papist terms in the KJV.

So your use of "dynamically" here, Dr. Bob, is perhaps more appropriate than you were thinking.

Haruo