swordfish7 wrote:B. W. wrote:
No I am not but there is a context one needs that only the Lord can give. Jesus came to save whom and he sat in the house of whom? From this, I hope you will see the context.
What does the passage say? We are not to shun unbelievers and the passage says we should associate with immoral sinners (of course with spiritual reason). It says we are to shun a person who claims to be a believer (and the implication here he is attending church) yet is living immorally (1 Cor. 5:11). So this does not conflict with Jesus sitting in the house of sinners or saving sinners.
B. W. wrote:
The Native American First Nation couple with the 15 year old son never darkened the door of a church. The man, for years stopped going to church. They came back to a meeting and the Holy Spirit alone saved and convicted them.
I will never post - if you are sinner we must shun you from attending a revival meeting on the door - there is a context.
Again, what does the passage say? We are not to shun unbelievers! So you are attributing to me something I am not saying.
1 Cor. 5:12 wrote:But actually, I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he is an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler—not even to eat with such a one.
B.W. wrote:I have counselled many immoral Christian believers who were wishing and praying to be free from their sexual sins and immoral sins booze, drugs, etc. They cannot share in a church because they would be shunned and never find the freedom Christ brings. So I pray and talk with them. Sooner of later they get it and find Isaiah 61:1-4 true and they repent and build a new way away from what ruined their lives.
You are correct that we need to keep the scripture in context or we can fall into error. The I Cor. 5 passage was addressing a difficult situation in the church where a young man was sleeping and openly living with his father's wife - likely his second wife not his mother. This was openly happening in the church and nobody was addressing it. So we need wisdom in applying this passage, specifically, how we should shun believers who are openly sinning without a heart to change. Certainly there are young men and older men who struggle with sexual immorality, but it does depend how long they have been a Christian and if they are concerned about the sin from the heart. If a guy is attempting to seduce women of the church then the issue should be addressed and the women protected: he should be shunned until there is real sorrow from the heart and a change. If he is sleeping with underage girls, then the police will be required. The goal in all this is restoration, but sometimes this is impossible. If a teenage kid is struggling with masterbation, then I don't think the kid should be shunned. A wife or husband who is hiding their drinking problem, at the same time claiming to be a Christian should possibly be shunned if there is no acknowledgement of the sin. A person who claims to be a homosexual openly living the lifestyle in defiance to the word should be shunned. A young couple who have been married under tribal traditions, who will shortly be married under state law should not be shunned. But I would advise them to get married under the state law first and then by the tribal tradition, though with the Christian context without any idolatry. The principle is that open defiant sin practiced by those claiming to be Christian should be addressed using shunning if they don't respond to the reproof.
B.W. wrote:
I also encounter some who simply love their immoral behavior more than the Lord and reject all prayers and help by either direct rejection or being a spiritual leech so for such persons they should be shunned but if they do come back, repentant, we are required to take them back in. If not, they are toast...
These are the ones we should shun, but not that alcoholic who is waging the war trying to overcome his addiction, where he falls down but again gets up to fight the battle.
B.W. wrote: The original statement on this thread dealt with a couple shacking up together and the gal being on the praise team with the Pastors approval. I cannot speak for the pastor other than he knows something we do not. If I understood the TV show comments rightly, it sounded like they were in process to be married soon. Maybe they split up for a time till they are married but I do not know for certain. They could married by now too. Eccl chapter three speaks of times and seasons to toss stones and not to toss stones...
If they were approached by the elders and they agreed to be married by a certain date, I would not shun them, but I would ensure they were not serving in the church until after some time after they were married.
B.W. wrote:
I actually do not have an issue with the woman being on the praise team due to the Pastor's decision (its on Him).
I don't think it is appropriate for the couple to serve in the church when they are engaging in fornication!
I agree with your Mega Church comments. Most of these churches are harmful to the body of Christ. By the way, I lived on Indian Reservations when I was a kid. My mom even carried me in a papoose board for a short while. Thank you for your heavenly service working with the Native American Indians. It can be challenging work I am sure!
That sounds like me. With us it was kind of fast-tracked though - we got married after more like 8 months than 8 years, and almost didn't sleep together before. He never answered an altar call or anything - it was more a case of my explaining it and giving him a tract. I'm not sure if he's ever felt moved in response to God or not. I've told myself a few times (more often in the early years) that it was pretty stupid of me to think he'd really become a Christian just because I said he'd have to - but things are ok. On the whole.