Yes, there is everything wrong with that. YOU ARE NOT IN CHARGE . That's what's wrong with "that." Grace belongs on the streets and rebuking belongs in the church - your scripture below verifies this conclusion.
Paul is neither on a street corner preaching the words of 5:1-13 nor does he issue time limits for the obedienct response of a disciple of Christ. Nor does he ever sound like a prophet, ala one of most recent posts.
jd
-------------- Original message --------------
From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> JD wrote:
> > When we insist on such an evidence for the Indwelling,
> > artificial time limits are put into effect and we become
> > the administrator of continuing fellowship. .
>
> So, is there something wrong with that? Paul wrote:
>
> 1 Corinthians 5:1-13
> (1) It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such
> fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should
> have his father's wife.
> (2) And ye are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he that hath
> done this deed might be taken away from among you.
> (3) For I verily, as absent in body, but present in spirit, have judged
> already, as though I were present, concerning him that hath so done this
> deed,
> (4) In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and
> my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ,
> (5) To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that
> the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.
> (6) Your glorying is not good. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth
> the whole lump?
> (7) Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are
> unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us:
> (8) Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the
> leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity
> and truth.
> (9) I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:
> (10) Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the
> covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out
> of the world.
> (11) But now I have written u nto you not to keep company, if any man that is
> called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer,
> or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.
> (12) For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye
> judge them that are within?
> (13) But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among
> yourselves that wicked person.
>
> Was Paul wrong to instruct the Corinthian church to become the administrator
> of a loss of fellowship for someone in their midst who continued in
> fornication?
>
> David Miller.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To: [email protected] ; [email protected]
> Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2006 8:35 PM
> Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: OK, done working for now
>
>
> if our lives have not changed and we continue to commit sins DM
>
& gt; I believe that you, David, think the two concepts cannot be separated.....
> that change is witnessed, in part, by the end of personal sin. Where that
> may be true, it conversely may not be true !! When we insist on such an
> evidence for the Indwelling, artificial time limits are put into effect
> and we become the administrator of continuing fellowship. .
>
> jd
>
> -------------- Original message --------------
> From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Lance, it is not helpful for you to post the comments of others in that we
> cannot engage them in dialogue. Unfortunately, Debbie has been misreading
> me on several posts. Because she is not here for me to provide her
> feedback, she unfortunately thinks there is a difference where there is
> none. I applaud the portions of "Victor's" lecture written below. I have
> no problem understanding the difference between Sin and sins, and I think I
> understan d their proper place. As I said before which seems to keep going
> unheard, I agree with Bill's perspective. I just don't agree that someone
> should have a problem with someone who might emphasize in a particular place
> and for a particular time the secondary item.
>
> By the way, I happen to oversee the children's ministry at our church, and I
> am often in the position of instructing children. When we talk about moral
> issues, they relate much better to specific examples of sins than they do to
> talking about Sin. You can be sure that I attempt to talk about Sin, but a
> discussion of sins often leads to a better understanding of Sin. Just as in
> math we start with the adding and subtracting before getting to the more
> useful and more important math, we can do the same thing when discussing
> righteousness and salvation.
>
> One other point. If righteousness is our response to salvation in Jesus
> Christ, then if righteo usness is not coming forth from us, if our lives have
> not changed and we continue to commit sins, is it not true that the symptom
> of sins is a valid observation to help a person realize that they might be
> lukewarm or might not have embraced Christ in faith as they had thought they
> had?
>
> David Miller.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Lance Muir
> To: [email protected]
> Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2006 6:50 AM
> Subject: [TruthTalk] Fw: OK, done working for now
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Debbie Sawczak
> To: 'Lance Muir'
> Sent: January 14, 2006 17:02
> Subject: OK, done working for now
>
>
> paragraph in this lecture of Victor's:
>
> I've often said, too, that the hardest part of any service of worship for
> the minister is the children's story, because nearly all the children's
> stories here are mora listic bromides. It's just moralistic bromide. And the
> Gospel isn't heard because we assume that children can't understand the
> Gospel. They can be taught not to steal, and they can be taught not to
> swear, but they can't understand the Gospel. This is ridiculous, but keep
> your eye on the Christian education wing of your church or denomination,
> because that's where the Gospel goes down.
>
> It strikes me that street preaching and children's sermons go down the same
> wrong path!
>
> Paragraph from next lecture:
>
> The protestant reformers maintain that the root problem is Sin and it gives
> rise to sins. But be sure you know which is which, or you will never come to
> terms with the Gospel. Morality maintains that little "s" sins plural is the
> human predicament. The Gospel maintains that capital "S" Sin singular -
> unbelief - is the predicament.
>
> This is the difference between David's understa nding of repentance and
> Bill's/JD's.
>
> D
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.14.17/229 - Release Date: 1/13/2006
>
> ----------
> "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how
> you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org
>
> If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend
> who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and
> he will be subscribed.
