John wrote:
> But don't you see that if we regard gluttony
> and homosexuality the same, we cannot
> order anyone out of our churches? Where
> would we be if sinners were actually allowed
> and even encouraged to attend?
If a person in the church professing to be a brother in Christ believed that
he had a civil right to be a glutton, but he does have a civil right to be either a glutton or a homosexual !! and that people in the church were
wrong to consider gluttony a sin, here we are close to being in agreement. then that person should be put out of the
church. I a fellow believer was promoting gluttony through advocacy in the
church, that person should be rebuked, and if he did believe that he needed
to repent of such, he should be put out of the church.
This is not about treating one sin different from anoth er. Ah, but here we are again. In the immediate above, you argue aganst one who is teaching his sin as acceptable. That is not the same thing as "treating one sin different[ly] from another." The fact is we do this very thing. It is obvious, often, that a glutton is a glutton. Yet, I have never heard of anyone being disfellowshipped for this failing. On the other hand, if one attends a church on a regular basis and it becomes public knowlege that he is gay, well, there are many , many churches that would present him from attending.
> But don't you see that if we regard gluttony
> and homosexuality the same, we cannot
> order anyone out of our churches? Where
> would we be if sinners were actually allowed
> and even encouraged to attend?
If a person in the church professing to be a brother in Christ believed that
he had a civil right to be a glutton, but he does have a civil right to be either a glutton or a homosexual !! and that people in the church were
wrong to consider gluttony a sin, here we are close to being in agreement. then that person should be put out of the
church. I a fellow believer was promoting gluttony through advocacy in the
church, that person should be rebuked, and if he did believe that he needed
to repent of such, he should be put out of the church.
This is not about treating one sin different from anoth er. Ah, but here we are again. In the immediate above, you argue aganst one who is teaching his sin as acceptable. That is not the same thing as "treating one sin different[ly] from another." The fact is we do this very thing. It is obvious, often, that a glutton is a glutton. Yet, I have never heard of anyone being disfellowshipped for this failing. On the other hand, if one attends a church on a regular basis and it becomes public knowlege that he is gay, well, there are many , many churches that would present him from attending.
It is about a
great deception concerning the sinfulness of homosexuality. It is about a
false stereotype toward those who teach sound doctrine. It is about bigotry
against those who embrace the apostle's doctrrine. There is truth in what you say here.
David Miller.
great deception concerning the sinfulness of homosexuality. It is about a
false stereotype toward those who teach sound doctrine. It is about bigotry
against those who embrace the apostle's doctrrine. There is truth in what you say here.
David Miller.
