Unmarried "Couples"

[OldRegular]

As for 1 Corinthians 5? Yes - It must be dealt with absolutely but can you show me where the man was to be brought before the church to make amends?

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

And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.

If the guilty party does not hear the delegation what does Jesus Christ tell them to do?

tell it unto the church.

And if the guilty party refuses to hear the Church:

but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.

Just how is the Church to be told? No email, no Facebook, not even telephone or snail mail in those days. The Church must assemble if they are to hear, the guilty party must be present if he is to hear the Church.

 

[annsni]

It seems to me that you people are being deliberately obtuse. Perhaps it is because you feel a sense of superiority over those called Old Regular Baptists. I don't know. Your discussion of this man's behavior and discipline is certainly different than your discussion of homosexuality with Zaac. If indeed you have a sense of superiority over those Old Regular Baptists you are of all people to be pitied.

I do not see at all anywhere that I have said anything against Old Regular Baptists. If they do things Biblically then bully for them. If they don't, then I don't want anything to do with them.

You ask:

I invite you to read Matthew 18:16:

Just how many does it take to make a delegation?

Can you show me where step 1 is a delegation? I dare you.

Then you say:

I call your attention to Matthew 18:17:

Again, I see you ignore verse 15 and the key word there. Alone.

Now please tell those of us on this thread who are confused by your attitude just how the exclusion of this man deviated from the instructions of Jesus Christ.

You ignore the first step. Maybe that's how your church practices things but mine doesn't. We use the WHOLE of Scripture.

 

[annsni]

....if fornicators want to infiltrate the church [and I'm sure they have, and will continue to do so], then lie, or at least give the impression [to those who fellowship and worship next to them] that they are, in fact, married; I think that their sins against God [and the churches] are mounting with each deceptive/fornicating action they commit.

This is truly disgusting, but most of the time; we will be deceived. In fact, how many churches [actually want to admit that they have been fooled, and badly at times?] have been misled by members who claim to have been born-again, and baptised, while in fact that is not anywhere near the truth?

Is the sin of this thread any worse than those who lie about their salvation and are accepted into membership and fellowship with the church?

Can you say, "Ananias and Sapphira?" think in these cases; God will always be the final judge and jury, and the verdict and punishment will be passed unto those accordingly.

In other words, we do our best to screen those who enter the flock. We do our best to view and taste the fruit of their spirit. However, in the end, any deception will be laid at the deceivers doorstep. All we can do is our best job in discerning spirits and fruit. What happens beyond that is out-of-our-hands.
Many people are being deceived today, and in turn children are molested; people are murdered; and things are stolen. I don't think we have an exact, full proof way to check everyone out, unless we employ a private investigation service and put all our members through the ringer before we accept them into the flock!

In the case of the couple who came to our church unmarried, they did not seek to deceive. They have been living together for 10 years, were unsaved and decided to begin attending the church. They were attending for a short period of time when he went on the men's retreat and was driving with my husband. He just never knew that it was wrong (none of the messages during the time he was there addressed living together unmarried) but when in the car, he realized that there was something wrong. He actually quickly acted when he knew that what he was doing was wrong and moved out of his house and arranged a wedding. It was really quite neat! He also was saved on that retreat and his fiancee was saved the following week.

 

[annsni]

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

And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.

If the guilty party does not hear the delegation what does Jesus Christ tell them to do?

tell it unto the church.

And if the guilty party refuses to hear the Church:

but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.

Just how is the Church to be told? No email, no Facebook, not even telephone or snail mail in those days. The Church must assemble if they are to hear, the guilty party must be present if he is to hear the Church.

I am no longer going to address this because you ignore verse 15. If you pick and choose the Scriptures to follow, that is your problem, not mine.

 

[OldRegular]

I do not see at all anywhere that I have said anything against Old Regular Baptists. If they do things Biblically then bully for them. If they don't, then I don't want anything to do with them.

Can you show me where step 1 is a delegation? I dare you.

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.

Again, I see you ignore verse 15 and the key word there. Alone.

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}

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

You folks are unique in more ways than one, and I for one am thankful to God you are!

Years ago I saw a young man excluded from the Church where my Dad was a member. This young man had gotten drunk, broke some law, put in jail, broke out of jail, and in running from the law fell over a cliff and broke his leg. When he got out of the hospital a delegation was sent to ask him to appear before the Church and make amends. He refused to do so and was excluded. In my opinion he left the Church no choice!

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

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.

You ignore the first step. Maybe that's how your church practices things but mine doesn't. We use the WHOLE of Scripture.

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:

post #13, Unmarried "Couples"

Originally Posted by Salty
Are there unmarried "couples" who are members of your church living together?

Well we always check on marital status and then addresses in the membership process. While we will not disfellowship or refuse ministry to couples cohabitating we will not allow them to finalize the covenant membership process.

Originally Posted by Salty
If so- what action has been taken against them? Have they been removed from membership or at a minimum put on the inactive list? Do we say, "well there are kids so they need both parents". Do we look the other way?.

How seriously do we take Matt 18?

Well, I guess we have to reconcile the two questions: who are our churches for? and what is the place of sinners in the assembly?

We, as a church, have taken the position that couples cohabitating are absolutely welcome to be part of our church. We want them to attend services. We want them to have their lives changed. We want them to live in purity...apart from each other for a season. Here's the thing about people "living in sin" they don't get better if we isolate ourselves from them or them from us and point fingers at them.

Again, we have a pretty thorough covenant membership process where we consider carefully members for our church. When (notice its not an "if") find a couple who is cohabitating we sit down with them and talk about our standards for life, show them where those standards are in the Bible, and ask them to prayerfully consider moving out for a season before they are married. We make tons of options available to them. We've even put up guys in an extended stay hotel for up to three months to help them along.

The facts are simple: if you're between 22 - 35 in the US you're more likely to not be married than married; in that demographic 75% of couples living together before marriage (churched and unchurched); 90% have had or are having a relationship where they are sexually intimate; in this age demographic the number of unmarried new moms is at 55% last year.

The entire culture isn't shifting anymore...it has shifted.

If your church is doing the kind of ministry that attracts people far from Christ who want to be near to Christ we have to realize that cohabitation is an accepted practiced for the vast majority of Americans.

How are you going to change your ministry model to minister to that change?

As we try to minister to these people, we begin in grace and show them love while maintaining the standard of purity set before us. Most people coming into your church who are under the age of 40 have a completely different understanding of sexuality than those over 40.

Our hope is that by being authentic and loving these couples they will, as some have, embrace a better day and a better way. We can't bury our heads in the sand. We lovingly confront those who are sin in private, then with a minister. We gently correct and teach righteousness. And by doing, show the love and grace of Christ.

And your response:

Amen!! It's hard because we can take the complete legalistic route - and most likely not have hearts and lives changed. But we will be standing on the truth, darn it!! Or we can be like Jesus, show grace, speak the truth in love and challenge people to get their lives to change by the power of the Gospel.

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.

2 Corinthians 5:17. pTherefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.

It is Jesus Christ who changes people!

 

[just-want-peace]

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???

 

[OldRegular]

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

And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.

If the guilty party does not hear the delegation what does Jesus Christ tell them to do?

tell it unto the church.

And if the guilty party refuses to hear the Church:

I am no longer going to address this because you ignore verse 15. If you pick and choose the Scriptures to follow, that is your problem, not mine.

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:

Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.

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!

 

[nodak]

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:

 

[annsni]

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's about the sum total of the process! :thumbsup:

 

[OldRegular]

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???

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.

 

[annsni]

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!

Wow - verse 15 is not applicable but verse 17 is? Interesting. I do not see any Scripture that says "Send a delegation to the sinner". Do you happen to have one?

 

[annsni]

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:

Wait - are you serious??? I see why you are banging your head!!!

 

[nodak]

Yep, dead serious.

 

[annsni]

Yep, dead serious.

Good gravy!! Ridiculous!

 

[Crabtownboy]

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:

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

 

[Bro. Curtis]

What is the biblical definition of marriage ?

 

[annsni]

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

That's what I was thinking. It's like my husband saying to the man who was unmarried but living with the mother of his child, "So, when are you going to fix that?"

 

[HeirofSalvation]

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:

 

[annsni]

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:

Awww - Thanks.

What do you mean about my other agregious crimes?? LOL

 

[Salty]

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:

I will reserve any comment until I take Ann out on a motor vehicle driving test
Salty
NY certified driving instructor