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!
Now hold on right there Brother!saturneptune said:It sounds like it was handled in a Christ like manner to me. The issue I have with the self righteous crowd is not the way the church in the article handled the situation, as they have made as a strawman, but the mean spirit in many of the posts, in the mindset of discipline being punitive and not corrective. Also missing is a spirit of forgiveness. The evidence is overwhelming that sins are put on a pedestal of seriousness according to their opinion.
You're responding to everyone the way you have and now you ask something like this???I do have one question though. If he admitted in the first two steps to the charge, did he ask forgiveness and repent? If he did, why is it necessary to carry out the third step?
OK, "chee..ta".Jim1999 said:Gentlepeople, you are beginning to demonstrate why biblical discipline isn't working in the modern church. Too many brilliant monkies in the zoo.
Cheers,
Jim
You have lost it. The post you quoted was not even addressed to you. Either you are trolling or playing a game. Done with this thread.Salamander said:Now hold on right there Brother!
I should have reported your insidious remarks!
I made no "strawman neither am I "self-righteous". I am neither mean spirited, well, except when my childen make me be mean. but then being their daddy only makes me out to be mean, it's rather tough-love.
I had not EVER come across as if the situation demands punitve action, but merely disciplinary corrective intentions.
What I have read is this woman threw off on the church and decided to remain in the sin of which they adressed, biblically addressed.
As far as I have seen no one has "put sins on a pedastal", yet I have seen where the humility and brokeness on the behalf of the elders of the church is very present. Have you even read their letter to her? You're responding to everyone the way you have and now you ask something like this???
Gee, Brother, you sounded so well informed before this. And YOU accuse others of being "mean-spirited"?:tongue3:
You just lied, again. Good you're "done", but what a joke!saturneptune said:You have lost it. The post you quoted was not even addressed to you. Either you are trolling or playing a game. Done with this thread.
Really, I did not know that. Of course, it also includes the ability to give an intelligent response.donnA said:In a public forum you can respond to any post on any thread, whether it is addressed to you or not.
Jon-Marc said:Since she is no longer a part of that church, they have no business saying anything about what she's doing. Had she stayed in the church, they would be within their rights to take it before the church--as long as they went through the Bible's commands in Matthew 18:15,16 first. First the rebuke should be one on one, then with two or three witnesses if the offender won't listen to that one. Then if the person won't listen, it is to be taken before the church body. However, she has left that church and is no longer subject to their discipline. Why embarrass the children needlessly and drive them away?
Thank you both. I was worried about this thread for a while.Amy.G said:... That means that every church I have ever been a member of (3), still has authority over me even though I have had my membership moved to my present church? The rules of discipline only apply to members of a local church. Once they're not members of that church anymore, they have no authority over members who have left.
Yes, at this point they should have been loving her as they would an unbeliever, not having a public crucifixion of a former member.Amy.G said:I never said they should wash their hands of her! I'm saying that once she left the church, they have no authority to discipline her. But they should keep in contact with her and as the Bible says, treat her as an unbeliever, which means they should witness to her in hopes of her being saved or being restored to the Lord.
That is a judgment call, IMHO, as to what, if anything, is said before the congregation. But this case is an easy call. It should be made clear, just as you said.Revmitchell said:She may have left but the church still needs to make it clear she is disfellowshipped and the church needs to know that unrepentant sin will not be accepted and that the church is not to fellowship with her anywhere as we are commanded by scripture.
When did she resign? By her leaving? If her leaving causes her resignation this places things on a world's level in the area of authority placing the individual over the local assembly.IveyLeaguer said:Yes, at this point they should have been loving her as they would an unbeliever, not having a public crucifixion of a former member.
That is a judgment call, IMHO, as to what, if anything, is said before the congregation. But this case is an easy call. It should be made clear, just as you said.
That is in agreement with the spirit of the discipline, which is in the past since it ended with the member's resignation. But that is far different thing than carrying out a public discipline of a former member, which the local church has no Biblical authority to do.
:jesus:
Sorry, but I have very little clue as to what you just said.Salamander said:When did she resign? By her leaving? If her leaving causes her resignation this places things on a world's level in the area of authority placing the individual over the local assembly.
Sure, she can leave, but for her to remain submissive to the Spirit's leading she must join another church of likeminded believers, else she is in rebellion.
Rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft/ sin has never had any authority over God's Institution/ The Church.
I have no idea what that means. Please explain. It doesn't sound like anything I addressed.Salamander said:If her leaving causes her resignation this places things on a world's level in the area of authority placing the individual over the local assembly.
I don't understand what you're driving at here, either. Please explain.Salamander said:Rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft/ sin has never had any authority over God's Institution/ The Church.
Aaron said:Her conduct in going to the press, justifying her immorality and lying about only being concerned for her children earns her the esteemed title of floozy. [It's an euphemism for the wh-word.]
Florida Times-UniondonnA said:She wasn't seeking help from anyone
Uh, OK, but I simply addressed her resigning.IveyLeaguer said:Sorry, but I have very little clue as to what you just said.
She resigned by sending in a letter. If she resigned verbally, maybe that was enough, but it's not the point.
I have no idea what that means. Please explain. It doesn't sound like anything I addressed.
I don't understand what you're driving at here, either. Please explain.
raying:
You are placing yourself in a judgement role which I don't think you are qualified to do this. This example is obviously one-sided.Jerome said:Florida Times-Union
"Just before the divorce was finalized a few months ago, she began dating a man and confided to a woman at church who she went to for "guidance, assistance and counsel." But that woman told church officials, Hancock said.
One Sunday in October, her confidant hugged her and led her to a meeting with some of the church's female members.
"They all went after me," Hancock said. "One of the ladies said, 'I know you haven't come home at night because I was at your house and I saw you not come home.'
"It was so devastating. ... I thought the people who cared for me were in this room.""
Salamander said:You are placing yourself in a judgement role which I don't think you are qualified to do this. This example is obviously one-sided.
She should have considerd what her revealing her sin might subject her to. God is not mocked, so why should this woman be allowed to mock the church?
I said this before, her actions are demonic. I cannot speak on behalf of members actions but only on the behalf of the church's responsibility to cleanse itsself.
If she really wanted help, she should have accepted what they said, but it seems more like she wanted them to agree with her actions. this would indicate her demanding the church bow to her wishes and her not being accountable.
Now, if I were the pastor? I would take action by simply addressing the congregation that she was in sin, she has left of her own accord, we had removed her from the role and any fellwoship would be frowned upon except as to restore her.
Case closed and no further mention will be tolerated unless she came to a place of repentence.
I would be open at any time to counsel with her and NOT without my wife being present. She could no longer enjoy any of member's privileges although she is welcomed to attend and get the devil preached out of her!
But do let me be pefectly clear, I, in NO WAY would go "after" her as these "axe-grinding" preachers are so guilty of today! I would follow the Spirit's leading and not my flesh!