Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!mips!dimacs.rutgers.edu!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: I AM DISGUSTED! Message-ID: Date: 11 May 91 03:22:01 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: University of Georgia, Athens Lines: 86 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu In article mib@gnu.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell) writes: , for it tries to deal responsibly with the >individual(s) involved, rather than using broad, offensive, and >hate-filled techniques like shunning. It certainly isn't perfect at >these two goals, but it is considerably better than many who call >themselves Christian. The concept of shunning is a Biblical one. Christians should feel free to associate with drug users, prostitutes, murderers, etc. as long as good judgement is used in doing so. But we should not associate with immoral people who call themselves Christians. In I Corinthians chapter 5, Paul discusses how the church whould deal with a man who was having an incestuous relationship with his stepmother or possibly his mother. Paul said that the man should be delivered to Satan for a while in order that in the end, his spirit might be saved. He further explained how can associate with sinners, but not with those who call themselves brothers who are sexually immoral, swindlers, drunkards, and practicers of several other sins. We should purge these people out of the church. That is our duty. Why should we do this. Well in my opinion, by associating ourselves with these people, we say to the world "this is what it means to be a Christian." Thus we blaspheme the name of God and the name of Christ with our witness. We can associate with sinners who are not Christians. By removing the "leaven" from the church, we give the non-Christians an example of how to live when they come into the church. Well, does this show Christian love? Is this applying Christian principles to our lives? Why did Paul say he delivered the man over to Satan? So that his spirit might be saved! It seems that by keeping such people in the church, we encourage them not to change. We endanger the salvation of their spirits! Is this true love? No. Love looks beyond the short term. Love doesn't always take the easy way out. It would be easier to accept these people. It is hard to cut the person off. It hurts when you have to amputate a member of your body. But it has to be done, or the poison will spread. Of course, this illistrations only goes so far. We are to cut the evil-doers off so that they will feel ashamed. Hopefully, they will turn from their sin, and come back to God. Then, this poisoned member can healed and restored to the body. If we really love someone, we will not encourage them to sin. It is clear from Scripture that homosexuality is a sin. I Corinthians 6, says that homosexuals, along with many other sins, that we might consider lesser and greater, will not inherit the kingdom of God. That is a serious statement. I have read the argument here that we are not under any kind of law, including the law of Paul. I recall a sentence in I Corinthians 9. Paul said that when he was with those who wer without law, he became as one without law. Not as being without law to God, but as being under the law of Christ. or something to that effect. Though we are not under the Torah, we do have some restrictions. For example, when the council of Jerusalem wrote a letter to the Gentiles to explain that they are not under the law, they were told to abstain from fornication, from idolatry, adn from eating blood. We cannot practice these things without sinning. And we are not to sin knowing that we will be forgiven. Hebrews 10 indicates that by trampling on the blood of Christ in sucha manner, we incur a greater penalty than death under the law. We are under the "law of liberty" according to James (2). We will be judged by this law. The Nicolatians taught that it was permissable to commit fornication, and various other sins. Their teaching is compared to the "way of Balaam." Jesus said in Revelations 2, that if the members of the church that had listened to these teachings did not repent, he would come against them with a sword. Peter also refers to such teachers who followed the "way of Balaam." (Ballam had according to Revelation, encouraged Israel to commit fornication and eat meat offered to idols.) Peter strongly condemns these false teachers in II Peter 2. He even says "For if after they have excaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse for them than the beginning. For it had been better for them not to have known the way of rioghteousness, than, after they had known it, to turn from the holy commandment, delivered unto them. But it is happened to them according to the true proverb, the dog is turned to his own vomit again, and the sow that was eashed ot her wallowing in the mire." I might have made a few mistakes, but this is the essence of it. Sorry for using the KJV. a Thank you. Link Hudson