# Should churches exclude certain professions from membership?



## LittleDrummerBoy (Oct 10, 2019)

I'm not talking about professions that are inherently illegal or sinful like prostitutes and drug dealers. 

I mean professions that are often associated with sin (alcohol, cigarettes, gluttony, gambling, politics) but not inherently sinful or illegal.


----------



## BeerThirty (Oct 10, 2019)

One should not live a life that contradicts what they believe in, period. Doesn't even have to be in a religious context. 

This is like asking if hunters or fisherman should work in professions that are inherently harmful to the outdoors or wildlife.

But I will say this, the professions you've listed are not necessarily all viewed as sinful and may be extreme comparisons. For example, alcohol and prostitution. Guess it depends on the religion.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Oct 10, 2019)

LittleDrummerBoy said:


> I'm not talking about professions that are inherently illegal or sinful like prostitutes and drug dealers.
> 
> I mean professions that are often associated with sin (alcohol, cigarettes, gluttony, gambling, politics) but not inherently sinful or illegal.



And again, the fact that you ask such a question PROVES you have no love of God and your concept of him is warped and twisted.  Tell me, just when did God empower you opine on who
he will and won’t call and what is the purpose of such a question if not to sow doubt, confusion and strife.

Every.  Single.  Post.  you have started has either served to:

a) call into question clear biblical teachings. Or

b) shine a light on yourself and your brand of worship.

I’m telling you this as a sinner created in the image of The Living God, loved by him and saved by him through his son.  You best quit beating your own drum, examine your soul and your motives, re-examine your understanding of who God is and who you are.  God plays The Long Game, not patty cake.


----------



## glynr329 (Oct 10, 2019)

A church that doesn't allow diners is not a church of god. Period


----------



## pjciii (Oct 10, 2019)

You never know who will be called to service. I dont think Christ would have had any followers if it weren't for sinners, thieves, murderers and prostitutes. Man made religion. Christ welcomed all.
I dont think drinkers, smokers, overeaters and gamblers were intended to be excluded. All of our names were nailed to the cross and cleansed with the blood. Some sinners like myself just didnt realize it till much later in life after i was forced to retire from running the universe.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Oct 10, 2019)

After seeking all the legalistic aspects of Christianity over the years, I'm now looking into the spiritual aspects of Christianity.

I would say the answer to the op's question is no. If that individual later became aware that he needed to change professions, he would.


----------



## Madman (Oct 10, 2019)

LittleDrummerBoy said:


> I'm not talking about professions that are inherently illegal or sinful like prostitutes and drug dealers.
> 
> I mean professions that are often associated with sin (alcohol, cigarettes, gluttony, gambling, politics) but not inherently sinful or illegal.


Who says, alcohol, smoking, and gambling is sinful?


----------



## welderguy (Oct 10, 2019)

SemperFiDawg said:


> And again, the fact that you ask such a question PROVES you have no love of God and your concept of him is warped and twisted.  Tell me, just when did God empower you opine on who
> he will and won’t call and what is the purpose of such a question if not to sow doubt, confusion and strife.
> 
> Every.  Single.  Post.  you have started has either served to:
> ...



Lol. Wow!
The man only asked a question, he did not even answer the question. I can't figure out how you think that he "PROVES"  to "have no love of God".

What if his opinion actually agrees with your opinion on it?


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Oct 10, 2019)

The “Church” is the Elect, The Saved, The Redeemed, The Body of Christ.  Who are any of us to take  it upon ourselves to even consider exclude anyone.  How hubristic do you have to be to anoint yourself high enough to even raise the question? It smacks of self-righteousness.  There’s not a soul that was ever saved that did one thing to warrant it yet a “saved” raises the question of exclusion of another.....and you don’t see an issue with that?  

As to the opinion point, it doesn’t.  My opinion of myself would never allow  me to raise such a question.  I know I came from the trash heap, of no merit, deserving the hottest part of hades for eternity.  Why God chose to save me from that deserved fate I’ll never know, but WHOEVER ELSE he saves is certainly more deserving than me, regardless of their “occupation.”


----------



## LittleDrummerBoy (Oct 11, 2019)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Every.  Single.  Post.  you have started has either served to:
> 
> a) call into question clear biblical teachings. Or
> 
> b) shine a light on yourself and your brand of worship.



How did the original post in this thread "call into question clear Biblical teachings?"  Can you provide some citations from Scripture to support the notion that no one should be excluded from church membership?


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Oct 11, 2019)

LittleDrummerBoy said:


> How did the original post in this thread "call into question clear Biblical teachings?"  Can you provide some citations from Scripture to support the notion that no one should be excluded from church membership?



Given that there’s only ONE role where the Church’s membership is kept, probably be easier for you to find me a verse to support your notion of exclusion.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Oct 11, 2019)

Could membership be different from salvation?


----------



## NCHillbilly (Oct 11, 2019)

LittleDrummerBoy said:


> How did the original post in this thread "call into question clear Biblical teachings?"  Can you provide some citations from Scripture to support the notion that no one should be excluded from church membership?


Can you provide the same to prove that smoking, alcohol, and gambling are inherently sinful? And brother, you haven't seen gluttony until you see a big ol' southern preacher man belly up to a table full of fried chicken, mashed taters, fried okra, and hot cathead biscuits.


----------



## Madman (Oct 11, 2019)

Everybody drank Alcohol, including Jesus, and the Apostles gambled. 

I say, better not leave any of them out of the Church.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Oct 11, 2019)

Madman said:


> Everybody drank Alcohol, including Jesus, and the Apostles gambled.
> 
> I say, better not leave any of them out of the Church.



I used to think Jesus drank alcohol, but I’m not at all convinced of that now.  As far as gambling apostles, you got me there.  Not sure where that came from.


----------



## kmckinnie (Oct 11, 2019)

I guess snake handlers are OK in some churches. Not sure ? if you can bring them to any Ol church!


----------



## Madman (Oct 11, 2019)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I used to think Jesus drank alcohol, but I’m not at all convinced of that now.  As far as gambling apostles, you got me there.  Not sure where that came from.


What would make you think that Jesus did not drink alcohol? At the last supper we have documentation of his drinking wine.  The apostles cast lots to choose the one to replace Judas.

Maybe we should set Paul and Timothy out of the church.
_"Stop drinking only water, and use a little wine because of your stomach and your frequent illnesses. "  1 Tim. 5:23_


----------



## welderguy (Oct 11, 2019)

NCHillbilly said:


> Can you provide the same to prove that smoking, alcohol, and gambling are inherently sinful? And brother, you haven't seen gluttony until you see a big ol' southern preacher man belly up to a table full of fried chicken, mashed taters, fried okra, and hot cathead biscuits.



SSSuuuuuuuuuueeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!!


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Oct 11, 2019)

Madman said:


> What would make you think that Jesus did not drink alcohol? At the last supper we have documentation of his drinking wine.  The apostles cast lots to choose the one to replace Judas.
> 
> Maybe we should set Paul and Timothy out of the church.
> _"Stop drinking only water, and use a little wine because of your stomach and your frequent illnesses. "  1 Tim. 5:23_



Please don't take this as being sassy, but the last example above doesn't include Jesus.

As to the last supper this pretty much sums up my stance on it.  I reserve the right to be wrong, but I find it very hard to believe Jesus would have partaken of (and thus condoned) something that has the ability to be so destructive.  I can think of nothing else that he condoned which has the power to destroy, and I can think of no reason he would have made an exception with fermented wine. 



> The Last Supper
> Jesus, on the night of His betrayal, took the unleavened bread, _motzah, _and blessed it and brake it, saying, _“This is my body which is broken for you; eat this in remembrance of me.” _If you have ever looked at a whole piece of motzah, you saw that it has stripes and small holes throughout. Messianic Jews see these as the 39 stripes on Jesus’ back that He bore for our physical healing, and the piercings He suffered when nailed to the cross as prophesied by Isaiah: _“He was wounded for our transgressions; he was bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement of our peace was upon him, and by his stripes we are healed” _(Isa.53:5). Peter looking back at Pilate’s whipping post: _“And by his stripes you were healed.”_ (1Pet.2:24).
> Then Jesus took the cup and blessed it, saying, _“This is my blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this *fruit of the vine,* until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom” _ (Matt.26:26-29, 1Cor.11:23-25).
> The Fruit of the Vine
> ...



As to the gambling, there was no money or anything of worth involved.  Gambling per se regarding sin, involves money otherwise any game of chance from bingo to flipping a coin could be considered gambling.  We start a lot of games with a coin flip but no one considers it gambling and rightfully so.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Oct 11, 2019)

NCHillbilly said:


> Can you provide the same to prove that smoking, alcohol, and gambling are inherently sinful? And brother, you haven't seen gluttony until you see a big ol' southern preacher man belly up to a table full of fried chicken, mashed taters, fried okra, and hot cathead biscuits.



Whereas if the preacher is skinny and eats a lot, he's just hungry?  Asking for a friend?


----------



## Madman (Oct 11, 2019)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Please don't take this as being sassy, but the above example doesn't include Jesus.
> 
> As to the last supper this pretty much sums up my stance on it.  I reserve the right to be wrong.
> 
> ...


Not sassy at all, I simply stated Biblical references to Paul and Timothy drinking wine. We do know that Jesus drank wine at the Passover meal because that was the what was drank. We also know that the idea that Jesus drank grape juice rather than wine is nonsense because grape juice pasteurization had not been developed and the grape juice would spoil rather quickly.

Why must gambling involve money, gambling is simply a game of chance.  And even if it involves money, is it anything more than entertainment?  Excess my friend, excess in anything is what causes the problem.

Don't drink, don't smoke, don't dance, it's all just cheap grace.  Let's keep our eye on the ball.

BTW you still didn't answer why you think Jesus didn't drink wine.


----------



## NE GA Pappy (Oct 11, 2019)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I reserve the right to be wrong, but I find it very hard to believe Jesus would have partaken of (and thus condoned) something that has the ability to be so destructive.



do you think that Jesus ate on a regular basis, since gluttony is sin, and it has the ability to be so destructive?


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Oct 11, 2019)

Madman said:


> Not sassy at all, I simply stated Biblical references to Paul and Timothy drinking wine. We do know that Jesus drank wine at the Passover meal because that was the what was drank. We also know that the idea that Jesus drank grape juice rather than wine is nonsense because grape juice pasteurization had not been developed and the grape juice would spoil rather quickly.
> 
> Why must gambling involve money, gambling is simply a game of chance.  And even if it involves money, is it anything more than entertainment?  Excess my friend, excess in anything is what causes the problem.
> 
> ...




Sorry.  Was editing my post to include the last supper when you posted this, so please review it.  

Gambling in it's base sense DOESN'T have to involve money.  You are correct.  BUT in the context that you used it "and the apostles gambled", I think most including myself envision a context with money or something of worth being involved which is patently incorrect.

As to the rest of your post, I could not agree more.  IMHO IF, IF one is living a Christian (Christ-Like) life, the legalities are not even an afterthought as they will never be an issue.   Example:  I don't have to worry about my drinking alcohol, gambling, etc. being a sin, because I see the damage it can cause to my Brother/Sister and I love him/her to much to expose them to it.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Oct 11, 2019)

NE GA Pappy said:


> do you think that Jesus ate on a regular basis, since gluttony is sin, and it has the ability to be so destructive?



Great Point and one I had not considered.   I have a shoot from the hip answer to that, but let me give it more thought before I make a fool of myself.


----------



## Madman (Oct 11, 2019)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I reserve the right to be wrong, but I find it very hard to believe Jesus would have partaken of (and thus condoned) something that has the ability to be so destructive.



What we believe is really irrelevant, the truth is all that matters.




SemperFiDawg said:


> I can think of nothing else that he condoned which has the power to destroy, and I can think of no reason he would have made an exception with fermented wine.


Couple of fallacies here.
1) Fallacy of personal incredulity....  Just because we don't understand why someone one do something does not make it false.

2) Perhaps a straw man fallacy.... No real refuting of my argument just something that appears easier to shoot down.

If people choose not to drink, smoke, gamble, or dance, I am fine with that, but they need to leave Jesus out of it. We know historically and Biblicaliy that the people in Jesus' day drank wine.

I have known more than one relationship destroyed because a man thought more of his job than being home with his family.  I know of at least two relationships where a husbands fishing and hunting "hobby" destroyed a marriage and therefore a family.

Stop by one day, I'll have a beer and you some sweet tea, we can discuss it.

God's peace my friend.

edit; I will add this.  If I am in a social situation where drinking bothers someone, I don't drink and when I do NEVER to excess.


----------



## Madman (Oct 11, 2019)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Sorry.  Was editing my post to include the last supper when you posted this, so please review it.
> 
> Gambling in it's base sense DOESN'T have to involve money.  You are correct.  BUT in the context that you used it "and the apostles gambled", I think most including myself envision a context with money or something of worth being involved which is patently incorrect.
> 
> As to the rest of your post, I could not agree more.  IMHO IF, IF one is living a Christian (Christ-Like) life, the legalities are not even an afterthought as they will never be an issue.   Example:  I don't have to worry about my drinking alcohol, gambling, etc. being a sin, because I see the damage it can cause to my Brother/Sister and I love him/her to much to expose them to it.



Semper,  I have no problem with much of what you are saying, there is much wisdom and truth in it.  As a mature Christian I believe we are called to do as Paul; "No, I strike a blow to my body and make it my slave so that after I have preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified for the prize. "  1 Cor. 9:27


----------



## NCHillbilly (Oct 11, 2019)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Whereas if the preacher is skinny and eats a lot, he's just hungry?  Asking for a friend?


I ain't never seen no skinny preacher. 



SemperFiDawg said:


> As to the last supper this pretty much sums up my stance on it.  I reserve the right to be wrong, but I find it very hard to believe Jesus would have partaken of (and thus condoned) something that has the ability to be so destructive.  I can think of nothing else that he condoned which has the power to destroy, and I can think of no reason he would have made an exception with fermented wine.


In other words, you're putting your personal opinion and sense of morals above that of Jesus, which is plainly stated in the Bible. Of course Jesus drunk wine regularly, unless you think you know more than Jesus and think the Bible is lying. I've heard Baptists try to explain this away all my life, but they are just simply wrong. Wine was commonly drunk then, just as it still is in that part of the world. It is your personal opinion that it is destructive and/or sinful, not fact or the word of Jesus. In fact, regular wine consumption is believed to be one reason for the good health and longevity of people in the Mediterranean area compared to the rest of the world.

The only people on earth I know of who consider drinking alcohol to be sinful are Baptists, Muslims, and Mormons.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Oct 11, 2019)

NCHillbilly said:


> I ain't never seen no skinny preacher.





I have........but I don't trust them. 





NCHillbilly said:


> In other words, you're putting your personal opinion and sense of morals above that of Jesus,....



Gosh I hope not.

No, did you see the article I pasted.  I think it makes a good case along with some other info I didn't paste that I am comfortable with stating he didn't.  Now, again, I will say this, again,  If I'm living like I should be, it shouldn't matter as it should never be an issue.


----------



## NCHillbilly (Oct 11, 2019)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I have........but I don't trust them.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yes, I saw the article. It's just the same wishful thinking drivel I've heard all my life by folks who think drinking should be a sin, regardless of what it says in the Bible. Just unsound logic trying to justify their opinion and override the Bible to suit their own beliefs. There is no such thing as unfermented wine. There is grape juice, and there is wine. Nobody calls grape juice wine. Because it's not. The wine in the Bible had alcohol in it, and people got drunk off of it.

I can write an article and publish it online that makes a good case for Jesus being gay, or Jesus being a vegan, or whatever. That doesn't make it true, though. But, someone who badly wants it to be true will believe it and use it for "evidence" to back up their opinion.


----------



## Israel (Oct 11, 2019)

The lot is cast into the lap; but the whole disposing thereof _is_ of the LORD. 

and 

Casting the lot ends quarrels and separates strong opponents.

I am not at all convinced the brothers were gambling as much as seeking to replace Judas in what they were convinced was the necessity of filling that position apart from their own prejudices.

See the Urim and Thummim with which the brothers may well have been familiar.


----------



## Mexican Squealer (Oct 11, 2019)

What would Jesus do?


----------



## NCHillbilly (Oct 11, 2019)

Mexican Squealer said:


> What would Jesus do?


Turn some water into wine, light a Marlboro, and forgive the gamblers.


----------



## Mexican Squealer (Oct 11, 2019)

NCHillbilly said:


> Turn some water into wine, light a Marlboro, and forgive the gamblers.



Just spit beer all over my keyboard....?


----------



## NCHillbilly (Oct 11, 2019)

Mexican Squealer said:


> Just spit beer all over my keyboard....?


Sinner.


----------



## gemcgrew (Oct 12, 2019)

Mexican Squealer said:


> What would Jesus do?


He rescued His members from the churches.


----------



## LittleDrummerBoy (Oct 12, 2019)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Given that there’s only ONE role where the Church’s membership is kept, probably be easier for you to find me a verse to support your notion of exclusion.



The notion of excluding professing believers from church for certain sins is well supported in 1 Corinthians 5:

9 I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— 10 not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. 11 But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such people.

12 What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? 13 God will judge those outside. “Expel the wicked person from among you.”


----------



## Artfuldodger (Oct 12, 2019)

Well you can't argue against Paul. My concern is with how we see the drunkard as a disease now compared to maybe back then. Alcoholism and drug addiction even affects Christians. Then we have adulterers and fornicators in the Church as well. Is Paul telling us to judge them as far as not being able to hear God's Word? 
Sometimes Paul says one thing in one letter and something else in another. Sometimes in the same letter even.


----------



## pjciii (Oct 12, 2019)

Man Made religion has always cherry picked certain excerpts from the Bible to form their foundation upon sand. In the Bible did bad things happen to bad people, yes. Did bad things happen to good people, yes. 
God accepts you where you were when you had that mustard seed of faith. He moved mountains for you.

Christ said who among you is able to cast the first stone. No one.

Christ welcomed the jew and the gentiles. Each one has been given a gift and has something to offer.


----------



## NE GA Pappy (Oct 12, 2019)

pjciii said:


> Man Made religion has always cherry picked certain excerpts from the Bible to form their foundation upon sand. In the Bible did bad things happen to bad people, yes. Did bad things happen to good people, yes.
> God accepts you where you were when you had that mustard seed of faith. He moved mountains for you.
> 
> Christ said who among you is able to cast the first stone. No one.
> ...



Christ also said go and sin no more.

1 Cor 6:3
Do you not know that we shall judge angels? How much more, things that pertain to this life? 

God didn't appoint us to condemn people, but He did give us guidelines so that we can look at their actions and decide if they are bearing good fruit or bad fruit


----------



## pjciii (Oct 12, 2019)

I agree Pappy. 
Go and sin no more. But if it were that easy God would not have needed to send a saviour.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Oct 12, 2019)

pjciii said:


> I agree Pappy.
> Go and sin no more. But if it were that easy God would not have needed to send a saviour.


We could have just saved ourselves by works!


----------



## Artfuldodger (Oct 12, 2019)

Maybe acquiring the ability to not sin is the proof one has received the fruit of the Holy Spirit! I've heard it said something like that.


----------



## Big7 (Oct 12, 2019)

SemperFiDawg said:


> The “Church” is the Elect, The Saved, The Redeemed, The Body of Christ.  Who are any of us to take  it upon ourselves to even consider exclude anyone.  How hubristic do you have to be to anoint yourself high enough to even raise the question? It smacks of self-righteousness.  There’s not a soul that was ever saved that did one thing to warrant it yet a “saved” raises the question of exclusion of another.....and you don’t see an issue with that?
> 
> As to the opinion point, it doesn’t.  My opinion of myself would never allow  me to raise such a question.  I know I came from the trash heap, of no merit, deserving the hottest part of hades for eternity.  Why God chose to save me from that deserved fate I’ll never know, but WHOEVER ELSE he saves is certainly more deserving than me, regardless of their “occupation.”



What, exactly is "the Elect"? Not Webster's or internet definition. I'd like to hear how regular folks, like you and I would define "elect".

Don't have to be just you. Whoever reads this thread are welcome to post. Thanks.


----------



## Ruger#3 (Oct 12, 2019)

NCHillbilly said:


> Can you provide the same to prove that smoking, alcohol, and gambling are inherently sinful? And brother, you haven't seen gluttony until you see a big ol' southern preacher man belly up to a table full of fried chicken, mashed taters, fried okra, and hot cathead biscuits.



I hope not, that would knock out wine at them Weds night church socials.


----------



## gemcgrew (Oct 12, 2019)

It is soothing to be enraged at the sins of others, but if we are ever given a "Thou art the man" realization, things change.


----------



## gemcgrew (Oct 12, 2019)

Big7 said:


> What, exactly is "the Elect"?


The chosen of God.


----------



## Big7 (Oct 12, 2019)

gemcgrew said:


> The chosen of God.



That's not really an explanation. Are you telling me that there is no way if you are not "elect"? Had a guy on here a while back that a person that was not "elect" couldn't convert or nothing else. You are "elect" or you're not.

Don't sound like God would go with that to me.

Just Saying'.


----------



## gemcgrew (Oct 12, 2019)

Big7 said:


> That's not really an explanation.


It really is, but comprehension may be an issue.


Big7 said:


> Are you telling me that there is no way if you are not "elect"? Had a guy on here a while back that a person that was not "elect" couldn't convert or nothing else. You are "elect" or you're not.


I will tell you that there is no way to be the chosen of God if you are not the chosen of God.
Now you have had at least two people tell you that.


Big7 said:


> Don't sound like God would go with that to me.
> 
> Just Saying'.


I take comfort in knowing that God is not subject to you.


----------



## Madman (Oct 12, 2019)

If I am saved: it is all God
If I am not : it is all me


----------



## Artfuldodger (Oct 13, 2019)

Big7 said:


> That's not really an explanation. Are you telling me that there is no way if you are not "elect"? Had a guy on here a while back that a person that was not "elect" couldn't convert or nothing else. You are "elect" or you're not.
> 
> Don't sound like God would go with that to me.
> 
> Just Saying'.


How powerful is an all knowing, and all seeing God? I really can't fathom it any other way. Romans 11, a remnant was chosen by grace. If for any other reason, it would not be grace!


----------



## Big7 (Oct 13, 2019)

Artfuldodger said:


> How powerful is an all knowing, and all seeing God? I really can't fathom it any other way. Romans 11, a remnant was chosen by grace. If for any other reason, it would not be grace!



OK then. So, I'll put you down as not believing in the so- called "Elect". Right?

I never heard such nonsense until I joined GON..

I sometimes worry about folks. Just can't help worrying. Don't really know what I can d to help?


----------



## Israel (Oct 13, 2019)

LittleDrummerBoy said:


> The notion of excluding professing believers from church for certain sins is well supported in 1 Corinthians 5:
> 
> 9 I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— 10 not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. 11 But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such people.
> 
> 12 What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? 13 God will judge those outside. “Expel the wicked person from among you.”



Surely written.



> But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such people.



Very specific. In some sense so cut and dried as to appear almost harsh. And a list of things to be discerned that, if found, are to be understood as having no place in the Church. Not tolerated, not made excuse for, and to the express forbidding of any fellowship with when discerned to be in one claiming to be sister or brother.

No doubt it's a _good_ list of _bad_ things. It just may not be healthy to read except through tears.


----------



## LittleDrummerBoy (Oct 13, 2019)

Artfuldodger said:


> Maybe acquiring the ability to not sin is the proof one has received the fruit of the Holy Spirit! I've heard it said something like that.



I wouldn't understand it as the ability to never sin, but freedom from slavery to sin.



Israel said:


> Surely written.
> 
> Very specific. In some sense so cut and dried as to appear almost harsh. And a list of things to be discerned that, if found, are to be understood as having no place in the Church. Not tolerated, not made excuse for, and to the express forbidding of any fellowship with when discerned to be in one claiming to be sister or brother.
> 
> No doubt it's a _good_ list of _bad_ things. It just may not be healthy to read except through tears.



Right.  And now that we've established that there is a place for Christians to exclude purported Christians for fellowship, at least in these specific cases, the question in the OP can be addressed with this understanding.  

The question arises in my mind from two specific experiences which are fairly common:

1.  I was recently invited to a church.  When I asked for more information about it before visiting (like a statement of faith), I was forwarded a church covenant required of members.  Among other things, members were required to abstain from the sale of alcohol.  I'm still surprised and somewhat mortified at such dead legalism.  Surely, a local wine provider supplied the wine for the wedding at Cana that ran out.  Jesus provided more wine.  It is fairly common in the south for churches to have long lists of legalistic stuff that excludes from membership.  These hypocritical, legalistic churches need to repent.  And their members need to call them to repentance - or leave and find churches which do not lay a heavy yoke on young believers.

2.  My wife and I served for over a year on the worship team and in various teaching roles at an Independent Fundamental Baptist Church.  They knew we were charismatics from the beginning.  When we were about to become members, we discovered in the fine print that this church signed an agreement every year not to associate with charismatics.  We left, disappointed and somewhat broken hearted - we loved those folks.

As I aspire to be a "fisher of men" I reach out to lots of professions including a liquor store owner, a man in sales and distribution of adult beverages, and some close family members who work in table games of casinos.  It shocks my conscience that, even though one cannot make a solid case that alcohol or gambling is sinful (in moderation), one would design to exclude these professions from church membership.


----------



## welderguy (Oct 13, 2019)

Matthew11:19
19 The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold a man gluttonous, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners. But wisdom is justified of her children.

..."But wisdom is justified of her children"

But consider this:

Rom.14:21
21 It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak.


----------



## Israel (Oct 13, 2019)

The Church _is_. As surely as the Lord Jesus is resurrected from the dead, the Church_ is._
She is found in every locale occupied by two or more who believe Jesus Christ is Lord resurrected from the dead.  She is there.

But, she does not bear witness of herself. The only thing to which she bears witness is the only thing that testifies of her being of the Lord's body, and is that very testimony; Jesus Christ is risen from the dead as Lord. 

She does not declare herself to be anything at all, she has no interest in identifying herself as anything, as her only identity comes from One. As she knows it is only the work of God that she recognizes the Lord, it is only the work of God that will reveal her, and that only as need be. Men will not find her except by revelation. And that is not her determination, she knows that has been determined for her. 

She knows mere men cannot know her as anything but fool and widow, and any trying to prove she is not, is a shame to her Husband. The leaving of_ that knowing _for the mere challenge of men becomes first an embarrassment to her to help her grasp there is only one place where she may be found unashamed.

Her "statement of faith" she is loathe to add to. She does not consider herself "charismatic" anymore than she would say "I believe in that part of Jesus Christ". She may suffer in part for whatever time under certain illusions as to her own identity being under her own assigning or preference, but her faithful Husband will relentlessly remind her she has taken a name the world cannot receive. Or know. This is both her gift and glory. And even if, or where, she has not been convinced of this, her Husband _remains relentless._

She can recognize herself, but not in the declaration of whom she is, but only in whom the Lord is to her, Lord and Master. Her light is no more under her own directing, restriction, nor attempts at publicizing than her Head is subject to herself. She can no more limit nor inhibit His (her Head's) appearing as_ that light,_ nor make it more "obvious" by ascribing some name to herself. He, alone, is her confidence...and not anything she might say "of herself".

She knows she is not alone, but this is not in her taking her eyes of her Lord to survey her how large may be in her company of companions...she is all of what is holding firmly to the Head knowing only His sufficiency. She is no longer either encouraged by numbers, nor discouraged by what may be their apparent paucity. She is being made one, even as beholding her beholding of her Lord...who is One.


----------



## NCHillbilly (Oct 13, 2019)

Bottom line: If as a Christian, you are supposed hold Jesus as an example of how to behave, act, and treat people; how in the world can you practice exclusion in your church? From what the Bible says, Jesus caught a lot of flak in his day for hanging out with and showing compassion for folks who were religious and/or social outcasts. Love your neighbor, but "church" him if he doesn't fit your model of moral perfection didn't seem to be Christ's attitude.


----------



## PopPop (Oct 13, 2019)

My Soul keeps me busy enough.


----------



## pjciii (Oct 13, 2019)

Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners—of whom I am the worst. 
1 Timothy 1:15


----------



## pjciii (Oct 13, 2019)

I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.” 
Luke 5:32


----------



## pjciii (Oct 13, 2019)

“Come, all you who are thirsty, come to the waters; and you who have no money, come, buy and eat! Come, buy wine and milk without money and without cost. 
Isaiah 55:1


----------



## pjciii (Oct 13, 2019)

“Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. 
Matthew 11:28 

All, not exclusion


----------



## pjciii (Oct 13, 2019)

Besides, they get into the habit of being idle and going about from house to house. And not only do they become idlers, but also busybodies who talk nonsense, saying things they ought not to. 
1 Timothy 5:13


----------



## gemcgrew (Oct 13, 2019)

pjciii said:


> “Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest.
> Matthew 11:28
> 
> All, not exclusion


All weary and burdened. The not weary and not burdened are excluded.


----------



## pjciii (Oct 13, 2019)

If you are worried about being exclude then you are burdened. Your included.


----------



## BeerThirty (Oct 13, 2019)




----------



## gemcgrew (Oct 13, 2019)

pjciii said:


> If you are worried about being exclude then you are burdened. Your included.


Now the not worried are excluded. Just because you don't agree with it, doesn't make it not so.


----------



## ryanh487 (Oct 13, 2019)

Madman said:


> Not sassy at all, I simply stated Biblical references to Paul and Timothy drinking wine. We do know that Jesus drank wine at the Passover meal because that was the what was drank. We also know that the idea that Jesus drank grape juice rather than wine is nonsense because grape juice pasteurization had not been developed and the grape juice would spoil rather quickly.
> 
> Why must gambling involve money, gambling is simply a game of chance.  And even if it involves money, is it anything more than entertainment?  Excess my friend, excess in anything is what causes the problem.
> 
> ...



Not to say that there is a problem with drinking, but they DID have other means of storing grape juice without fermentation, especially for poor people.  It was common practice to filter out the grape skins and remove proteins and yeast to prevent fermentation, and then boil down the juice into a syrup.  The sugar content would prevent bacterial and fungal growth and it could be stored in pitch-sealed earthen jars in underground cellars or even in pools of cold water for months at a time,  and then mixed with water for consumption. Fermentation required perfect temperature conditions and lots of time, and the average person did not have the means to prepare and store fermented wine.


----------



## Madman (Oct 13, 2019)

ryanh487 said:


> Not to say that there is a problem with drinking, but they DID have other means of storing grape juice without fermentation, especially for poor people.  It was common practice to filter out the grape skins and remove proteins and yeast to prevent fermentation, and then boil down the juice into a syrup.  The sugar content would prevent bacterial and fungal growth and it could be stored in pitch-sealed earthen jars in underground cellars or even in pools of cold water for months at a time,  and then mixed with water for consumption. Fermentation required perfect temperature conditions and lots of time, and the average person did not have the means to prepare and store fermented wine.


Whatever helps you sleep at night. 
"Do not put new wine in old wine skins."


----------



## ryanh487 (Oct 13, 2019)

Madman said:


> Whatever helps you sleep at night.
> "Do not put new wine in old wine skins."


I drink.  In fact I'm going out for pizza and beer tonight like I do every Sunday.  My point was just that the logic of "had to be fermented because there was no other way" is flawed, and historically inaccurate.


----------



## Madman (Oct 13, 2019)

ryanh487 said:


> I drink.  In fact I'm going out for pizza and beer tonight like I do every Sunday.  My point was just that the logic of "had to be fermented because there was no other way" is flawed, and historically inaccurate.


My point is that the vast majority of evidence speaks to wine not grape juice.


----------



## Madman (Oct 13, 2019)

ryanh487 said:


> I drink.  In fact I'm going out for pizza and beer tonight like I do every Sunday.  My point was just that the logic of "had to be fermented because there was no other way" is flawed, and historically inaccurate.


I would be interested in the historical evidence of grape juice production in ancient Israel.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Oct 13, 2019)

Without refrigeration, most any kind of everything would ferment. Milk to fermented things, cabbage to sauerkraut, juices to wine or vinegar. Even meat would ferment.


----------



## NCHillbilly (Oct 13, 2019)

ryanh487 said:


> Not to say that there is a problem with drinking, but they DID have other means of storing grape juice without fermentation, especially for poor people.  It was common practice to filter out the grape skins and remove proteins and yeast to prevent fermentation, and then boil down the juice into a syrup.  The sugar content would prevent bacterial and fungal growth and it could be stored in pitch-sealed earthen jars in underground cellars or even in pools of cold water for months at a time,  and then mixed with water for consumption. Fermentation required perfect temperature conditions and lots of time, and the average person did not have the means to prepare and store fermented wine.


Yes, and they called that grape juice if it existed. Wine is fermented by definition.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Oct 13, 2019)

NE GA Pappy said:


> do you think that Jesus ate on a regular basis, since gluttony is sin, and it has the ability to be so destructive?



After taking some time on this over the weekend to reflect on your question in light of my past sins and what I have learned from them, I will settle it here with a severely disturbed conscious.

Any act of selfishness, from the Original Sin on down is a sin.  Every deliberate action we engage in either serves one of two purposes; to serve/glorify ourself or to serve/glorify God.  I don't think any of that is new or debatable; His will or our will be done.  Pretty simple concept. 

With that in mind and in regards to gluttony specifically, it occurred to me that most envision "a big ole fat man/woman pigging out at a dinner table", but let's put it in the appropriate spiritual context since we are discussing God's will and not ours.    Let's give it that 'Sermon on the Mount" magnification. 

It's not a pleasant picture, at least not to me.  My family spends a minimum of $40 every time we eat out.  Forty dollars will feed 2 families in Malawi, who are currently experiencing a famine, for a month.  How is it NOT gluttony for me and my family to eat at McDonalds with my brothers and sisters along with their children and parents. starving, literally, to death.  If I spend $100 on a bait caster that's choosing my needs over feeding 5 starving families for an entire month: Gluttony.  See what I mean?  $5 bucks on a 6 pack or pack of cigarettes; that's one person for a month.  Just how committed am I to DOING God's Will?   How committed are you?   It's tough ain't it. 

It's tough because we have 'stuff'.  If we had literally nothing but the shirt on our backs like those brothers and sisters it would be easier, but we here in America are rich beyond their comprehension and OUR appreciation.  I don't think there's a one of us that can accuse another of gluttony without accusing ourselves.  So here I stand accused: I accuse myself.  The question is what am I prepared to do about it......His will or my will?  

I hope this answered your question, albeit in a larger context.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Oct 13, 2019)

NE GA Pappy said:


> Christ also said go and sin no more.
> 
> 1 Cor 6:3
> Do you not know that we shall judge angels? How much more, things that pertain to this life?
> ...



True.  Very true.  However regarding excluding people, it's not our place.  We didn't "include" them, God did, and we certainly have no say in any of it.  To imagine we do is to exhibit a very dangerous hubris.

  My experience has taught me that God's word will either wash people or wash them away.  All we have to do is all we can do, just espouse it truthfully, reliably and unashamedly.  God has washed me and washed me and washed me to the point I have thought I was washed away completely; abandoned by God.  I was hard headed, proud and very sinful.  It took a lot of water, a lot of time(decades), a lot of scrubbing and thus a lot of pain for me to finally come to KNOW God.  It wasn't an instant process, and I'm still in the process of developing that relationship from my end. I'm still my own worst enemy.   I'm just grateful no church or church members decided I wasn't to be included.  That would have just served to negatively reinforce my insanity that the Church as I saw it then, was an accurate reflection of God.

The Church is ONLY an accurate reflection of God WHEN AND ONLY WHEN, it is actually actively, demonstrably, showing God's love to the needy and lost.  That applies to ME too, not just the Church or a church.  If i'm not loving through working to serve God by serving others, i'm dead too, spiritually and soon to be physically.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Oct 13, 2019)

LittleDrummerBoy said:


> “Expel the wicked person from among you.”



Makes no mention of profession, and speaks of MEMBERS who are openly, actively, engaged in sin be it the pastor, deacon or established member.  But, BUT, this should only, I repeat only, should be done after



> 15 “If your brother sins against you, go and rebuke him in private.If he listens to you, you have won your brother. 16 But if he won’t listen, take one or two more with you, so that by the testimonyof two or three witnesses every fact may be established.17 If he pays no attention to them, tell the church.But if he doesn’t pay attention even to the church, let him be like an unbeliever and a tax collector to you.



with this spirit in mind



> Brothers,if anyone is caught in any transgression, you who are spiritual should restore him in a spirit of gentleness. Keep watch on yourself, lest you too be tempted.



A very sinful man can be saved and attend church and it may take year's for him to mature.  If you boot him from church you are hindering his maturation.  It's akin to kicking someone out of a shower before he's clean.  You haven't did him any favors and are working against the cleansing process.  The key indicator is spiritual growth, not spiritual perfection.    Now if he's importing pigs and mud into the shower, that's another matter entirely.  That's very, very, rare but was what Paul was apparently dealing with in Corinth.

Also mind you, the church may do that, but he may still be a member or future member of The Church.  Our weak and bumbling interpretation of doctrine doesn't dictate God's will.  You would be wise to stay humble enough to remember that.


----------



## LittleDrummerBoy (Oct 14, 2019)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Makes no mention of profession, and speaks of MEMBERS who are openly, actively, engaged in sin be it the pastor, deacon or established member.




The verses in 1 Corinthians 5 are explicitly stated to apply to ANYONE who fulfills the stated criteria - professing believer and active in one of the ongoing sins listed.  There is no stated requirement that they be a member or that if one of the sins is secret or part of a profession the person may remain in fellowship.  Should an unrepentant drunkard be allowed to remain in church simply because they endeavor to keep the sin a secret?

Or would you really say that if one's idolatry or sexual immorality were in a professional capacity, they could remain in church indefinitely?  A church should exclude an unrepentant amateur swindler (and professing Christian), but they should not exclude an unrepentant professional swindler?

Since those notions are so foolish, it is clear that churches can and should exclude some professions from membership.  The remaining question is which professions should and should not be excluded, which is the subject of the original post.


----------



## pjciii (Oct 14, 2019)

“ ‘Do not go about spreading slander among your people. “ ‘Do not do anything that endangers your neighbor’s life. I am the Lord . 
Leviticus 19:16


----------



## pjciii (Oct 14, 2019)

Brothers and sisters, do not slander one another. Anyone who speaks against a brother or sister or judges them speaks against the law and judges it. When you judge the law, you are not keeping it, but sitting in judgment on it. 
James 4:11


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Oct 14, 2019)

LittleDrummerBoy said:


> The remaining question is which professions should and should not be excluded, which is the subject of the original post.



Again, you simply don’t get it.  It’s not about the profession, but the HEART of the professor.  Legalism,in all cases, is an apostate system of interpreting scripture.  Scripture is spiritual, of the true heart and soul of a persons nature.  Legalism is, by its very definition, non-spiritual.  It’s doesnt seek to either understand or acknowledge the individuals heart, something Christ so passionately demonstrated daily.  Legalism says your profession is “x” , you are excluded from OUR kingdom. Christ says “Come”.


----------



## pjciii (Oct 14, 2019)

If Christ said "come" which side do you want to be on?


----------



## gemcgrew (Oct 14, 2019)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Again, you simply don’t get it.  It’s not about the profession, but the HEART of the professor.  Legalism,in all cases, is an apostate system of interpreting scripture.  Scripture is spiritual, of the true heart and soul of a persons nature.  Legalism is, by its very definition, non-spiritual.  It’s doesnt seek to either understand or acknowledge the individuals heart, something Christ so passionately demonstrated daily.  Legalism says your profession is “x” , you are excluded from OUR kingdom. Christ says “Come”.


The Legalist is focused on the sinner's sin. The Legalist can not see the sinner's Representative.


----------



## GeorgiaBob (Oct 14, 2019)

But, as a friend of mine was fond of repeating, they won't be needing any Preachers in Heaven! 

SO, is clergy a dead end job?


----------



## pjciii (Oct 14, 2019)

Your Elders could say to a gun shop owner that you are excluded because you sell things that are used to kill innocent people,  you are an unrepentant sinner and many other scenarios. The Phelps family made it their mission to try and get their message out to those that would listen. They also think they are interpreting scripture correctly. It is the difference between judgement and discernment. I can love alot of people, some from the other side of the room.


----------



## kmh1031 (Oct 14, 2019)

Banning? Making laws or rules is much like the Scribes and Pharisees of Jesus Day. 
Kinda like the washing of hands... they took it further to wash up to the elbows Which was way more than the law intended.

They took the Mosiac law to extremes so much so that it brought hardship on the people.

Jesus and his disciples focused on Teaching the people bible principles That allow them to make their own choice On key decision.

These over time were based on accurate knowledge of these biblical principals as it comes to jobs, actions, activities, and so much more will help them make the right scriptural choice more than rules or banning.
For example I once knew a store owner after studying and learning accurate knowledge from the Bible on defiling trhe body, and more decided that he could not in good conscience sell cigarettes or tobacco products.
That was his choice as he was the owner.
Another’s who works in a store yet does not own it his conscience allows him to sell them since he is not the one actually buying and selling them.

Still another was In VA was working for a firm that made weapons of war.
After learning gods view on war and more he quit his job of 25 years and started over. Principals are better than laws or rules as they are a guide to life. Hey


----------



## LittleDrummerBoy (Oct 15, 2019)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Every.  Single.  Post.  you have started has either served to:
> 
> a) call into question clear biblical teachings. Or
> 
> b) shine a light on yourself and your brand of worship.



So, in summary, your case that the original post in this thread effectively "calls into question clear Biblical teachings" seems to amount to an assertion that following the instructions of Scripture in 1 Corinthians 5 is legalism.  Is simply obeying any New Testament directive legalistic?  Would excluding an unrepentant abortion doctor from church membership be legalistic and "call into question clear biblical teachings"?

Since you claimed "Every. Single. Post."  I've started fulfills one of two problems you articulate above, please explain how this post is problematic:

Christian Ministry Offers Free Fishing Trips on Lanier


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Oct 15, 2019)

gemcgrew said:


> The Legalist is focused on the sinner's sin. The Legalist can not see the sinner's Representative.



Well said and a lot simpler than my attempt.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Oct 15, 2019)

LittleDrummerBoy said:


> So, in summary, your case that the original post in this thread effectively "calls into question clear Biblical teachings"



My "case" is that Scripture is clear, it's the student that is lacking both the compassion and humility to understand it.


----------



## Israel (Oct 16, 2019)

The instruction falls under Paul's authority to minister it. Those who would exercise it, as those to whom it was written, had already entered into relationship with Paul as that authority given to them for their benefit and growth. To ignore or refuse to hear it would be a statement of their regard of that relationship. (And as with any instruction from Paul...he was their "back stop" in this)

A few things Paul wrote also come to mind.

"For though I should boast somewhat more of our authority, which the Lord hath given us for edification, and not for your destruction, I should not be ashamed:"

"For many walk, of whom I have told you often, and now tell you even weeping, _that they are_ the enemies of the cross of Christ:"

"For I am jealous for you with godly jealousy. For I have betrothed you to one husband, that I may present _you_ _as_ a chaste virgin to Christ."

"We, however, will not boast beyond measure, but within the limits of the sphere which God appointed us—a sphere which especially includes you. For we are not overextending ourselves (as though _our authority_ did not extend to you), for it was to you that we came with the gospel of Christ;"

This last matter is far more significant in both its rare mention and consideration as it has all to do with the authority God assigns as He chooses (and not as man promotes or invokes) it will require a hearing ear and open eyes unless one is prepared to disregard that apostle's words and understanding...either believing they have exceeded it, or can rightly represent it to _despite what is written, _as though Paul may have somehow come behind in his understanding of his calling and authority:

If I be not an apostle unto others, yet doubtless I am to you: for the seal of mine apostleship are ye in the Lord.

If Paul, as an apostle, never claimed apostleship_ to all_, and not only so, was sober enough to both understand and state that there may be those to whom he did not represent that authority (leaving his brothers of such calling to labor in their fields as assigned, and _not seeking_ a usurping) then who can go beyond this and state to another, or for another "Paul's instructions are to and for everyone at all times in every situation"?

The blind will think "is someone trying to tear Paul down?" God forbid, he did that himself!

I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase. So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase.

Any man, and indeed every man is free to confess who and what has authority over him. And when push comes to shove, and the rubber meets the road this will be squeezed out of every man. For the world is very keen in both its discovery of what does not acknowledge and submit to its authority as supreme, and very well schooled in bringing to bear the pressures it has at hand against what would appear resistant in such acknowledgement of its supremacy. These matters are in all spiritual and inescapable.

The foolish and/or immature might think the world is simply content to have its tribute paid in whatever fashion and by whatever means. Two men may obey the law, two men may pay their taxes, but the one who does it not in fear of the world, but in obedience to Christ with joy ("of whom do the Kings of this world demand tribute...") _will be_ found. The world cannot suffer being told "you have no authority over me except as such has been given you by my Father"...it cannot suffer that placement...even if one is found in full accord to its demands. It _will seek to kill you._


Yes, it will manufacture whatever lie is necessary to appear just in doing so, but make no mistake, at root will be this one thing; there is no tolerance for what does not submit to its authority out of fear of it. It knows very well how _to smell no fear of it. _Do not be naive enough to think there is not a "religious world".

Authority, its recognition and submission is all in this matter of confession Jesus is Lord. The universality of the gospel is not considered apart from its perfect fit into _the most personal part of a man. _Our coming to grips with what is both the _all of everything_ in such a _perfectly personal place _is what is given us in Christ. This is how we know the universality of the truth of God found in Christ and His good news...because_ nothing is ever more personal. _Even if none receive us or our profession, it matters not.

Some have had this word made true in themselves. Some yet will.

Hear the word of the LORD, ye that tremble at his word; Your brethren that hated you, that cast you out for my name's sake, said, Let the LORD be glorified: but he shall appear to your joy, and they shall be ashamed.

The OP touches the matter of "putting out". Some may not care to acknowledge Paul's instruction in it. But then, such a one should be all the more careful of claiming Paul's authority in the church, or to himself in particular, and what benefit he may imagine he has gleaned in Paul's revelation.

One is not free to decide for themselves baby and bathwater. It may well be that if any claim of Paul's authority be made the man be consistent then, and at least enter into an investigation. Is it just so Paul might glory in having his exercise of authority over others? As in "I can make them do what I want?" Or, "I can tell them how to gather...and no less...how to divide?" No doubt some, caring only for the "mechanics" of tradition, do so.

But, this is not so. No, it is not. It has all the more to do with those tears of which Paul speaks, and his ministry in weakness toward those who would even come to deride him (as well he knew) for such demonstration of weakness among them. Often preferring the eloquent, the gifted orator or the inclination to accept the more "official". ("Do we begin again to commend ourselves? or need we, as some _others_, epistles of commendation to you, or _letters_ of commendation from you?)

Nursing babes, jealous over them for their health in growth, and knowing all too well those things which, if not addressed (not to the vaunting of his authority) might either impede or cause a sorrow in matters over which_ he had already shed tears. _

It's almost too funny of what has been made of such a simple man. The man who eschewed "letters of authority" for his endorsement in a love that by any and all measures he entered into the Lord's death to make plain...is now found having his words and epistles "his letters" put to such oft use for the bopping of the heads of disciples. You can't get any more "official" in some circles...than being in the Bible.

Obviously this cannot but be an offense to any or whatever may claim "the Bible is _my final authority_".

OK.

This remains true:

All scripture _is_ given by inspiration of God, and _is_ profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.


The un-reconcilable...is reconciled, with loud cries and tears accompanying.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Oct 16, 2019)

Israel said:


> The instruction falls under Paul's authority to minister it. Those who would exercise it, as those to whom it was written, had already entered into relationship with Paul as that authority given to them for their benefit and growth. To ignore or refuse to hear it would be a statement of their regard of that relationship. (And as with any instruction from Paul...he was their "back stop" in this)
> 
> A few things Paul wrote also come to mind.
> 
> ...



yep


----------



## Core Lokt (Oct 16, 2019)

Mexican Squealer said:


> What would Jesus do?



He'd invite any sinner to his table. That's what we should do and share the gospel. Just look at some of the people He associated with.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Oct 16, 2019)

Core Lokt said:


> He'd invite any sinner to his table. That's what we should do and share the gospel. Just look at some of the people He associated with.


 
yep


----------



## Israel (Oct 17, 2019)

Core Lokt said:


> He'd invite any sinner to his table. That's what we should do and share the gospel. Just look at some of the people He associated with.



Yet we need to not mishandle Paul's instructions, for he is careful to say he is not speaking of worldlings (otherwise one would have to leave the world) but of those who claim to be cleansed by Jesus Christ. (Whether one receives their authority or not it would be more unwise to misrepresent what he has said)

Yes, we can all be ignorant of being an offense...and even ignorant in larger matters of sin. But if (and God knows how much of all hinges on that "if") all our relating is toward wholesome communion in the Lord, then eye, heart, and words will always be (if confronting what we may believe "amiss") toward restoration.
So that what Semper has carefully included is followed without hypocrisy. Go privately (after all, the one seeing something _amiss_, might find it is his own sight that is so!) But it is plain the attempt is to reconcile and not shame another.

Yes, it takes grace to go privately and not "grandstand" another if one imagines something is out of place, how much easier it is to already lay an accusation before a group. (Where there's smoke..._is there_ fire?)

Failing this, take another (still not resorting to the "group shaming") is also grace...not simply for the purpose of "now I've can get another witness to this disobedience"...but knowing that in any conflict/disagreement...the heat generated can blind both sets of eyes. It is better to go with another...prepared to be told "no, it's not a fault in that brother...it's a fault in you!".  None of us is unfamiliar with the clever con of "stacking the deck".

These instructions...born of all that_ is not of malice...will have a terrible effect if sought to be practiced so._ If one is seeking to only "hang another out to dry" there's a particularly painful means of instruction the Lord is not ashamed to administer to what would use Him to the sole purpose of excluding based upon any personal preference.

And if we have not met ourselves as sometimes subject to "personality clash" and seek to gain some unfair advantage to its resolution, especially to the extreme of exclusion of the party to which we take offense...keep all limbs inside the vehicle cause there's a precipice ahead. That cr@p gets answered. As in marriage,_ if there's going to be a fight _it will always be the one who resorts to not _fighting fair _that will suffer the greater of loss. Quarreling is never recommended but we find out this thing called "passive aggression" is far more grievous to the Spirit. Better is open rebuke and its fallout.

How many divisions have sought a justification in theology...when they are no more than personality clashes and jealousies masked and guised to appear under the banner of contending for the faith.

Here the wisdom of Christ shines, for the offended party, if caught in the throes of jealousy and pettiness, is going to find it all but impossible to face privately that object of his provocation. And grandstanding instead of seeking reconciliation privately is a most sure sign of that weakness. The hidden intent of the heart to expose, rather than be willing to bear in private the possibility of having misread, or misunderstood a brother's heart becomes manifest. Such also is the nature of sniping and gossip.

I suppose the whole of it, if, or when, reduced, is to the end of restoration and an eye and heart won to grace. And my "suppose" is insignificant in the Lord's plan of His instructions (and those of His apostles) to that end. How to take a mind so disposed toward its own preservation and reveal the glories of Jesus Christ.

I cannot but say that any consideration of either hypocrisy or "bad acting" that I may be inclined to see as "out there" needing resolution inevitably leads to an examination of myself in what I trust is the Lord's light. Who of us prays as fervently for "our enemies" (or what we may perceive _conveniently_ as enemy of the gospel) as we do for those _friends we find suffering_? Being too often tricked by my own emotions as though they can either add impetus to a prayer or if found flat, can inhibit them, may not be my own sole quandary. It is fitting that eternal love supplies eternal life for its discovery, otherwise I am always inclined to imagine I have seen and known the sum of it.

I do not doubt Paul's love in his instructions. I do not doubt there may be few who have better grasped the Lord's willingness to deliver a company of enemies and sinners from the pernicious grasp of spiritual blindness by refusing to "cut them loose" for His own preservation of self. The how and why of love's magnificent triumph remains astounding...and always to such a degree in resulting compulsion to its examination. And discovery in hope.

How can One so very right be made so willing to suffer and bear (without complaint!) such working of unrighteousness against Himself? The "how little I know of the Lord's love" is not a shame to admit, for it is that very knowing of ignorance with the gift of un-earn-able hope of knowing that has in it its own compelling to know it.

I think that's what Paul was speaking of when he said

For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.

And his testimony, in what I believe is of such sincerity, does its own work in a one who so often finds nothing but the most vain hypocrisy in himself. Leading that one to frankly ask.."Who then can be saved?"


Thanks be to God for the One who submitted to being sent that He might give answer...to such a one.


----------



## Throwback (Oct 23, 2019)

A legalistic mind should be added to the list of those “blocked” from the church.


----------



## LittleDrummerBoy (Oct 23, 2019)

Throwback said:


> A legalistic mind should be added to the list of those “blocked” from the church.



So the only legalism that is allowed is "no legalisms"?


----------



## Throwback (Oct 23, 2019)

LittleDrummerBoy said:


> So the only legalism that is allowed is "no legalisms"?


That’s right!


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Oct 23, 2019)

LittleDrummerBoy said:


> So the only legalism that is allowed is "no legalisms"?



Smh.


----------

