BChristianK – You quoted me saying
Shunning the sexually immoral is the godly response, yet you judge against Clete for his goodness in obeying God.
and you responded saying
So you assert.
Was not this also the response Jesus had to answer in Mark 9:4?
Matthew 9:10-11 Then it happened that as Jesus was reclining at the table in the house, behold, many tax collectors and sinners came and were dining with Jesus and His disciples. 11 When the Pharisees saw this, they said to His disciples, "Why is your Teacher eating with the tax collectors and sinners?"
It’s what the bible says, I hardly call that an assertion like a claim, I call in an observation or fact. If you disagree that it is a godly response to obey what God teaches according to my reference, then please say why instead of just raising attention to some other teaching. My citation is most suitable for was those who self profess to be within the body of Christ yet are grossly immoral. Your example is assumed to be among unsaved people. You need to consider the context better, the differences matter.
Then you quote me quoting the Proverbs passage where God explains what He hates, you say
First, (1) if what you mean by quoting this verse is that I, by disagreeing with Clete Phipher, have sown discord among the brethren. Then I would say that we need to apply this verse equitably and without bias.
(2) If what you mean by this verse is that anytime anyone who is a Christian disagrees with someone else who is a Christian, that is tantamount to sowing discord among the brethren, then you should beg Knight to shut down all debate on TOL between Christians and use the forums previously used for healthy debate for posting apologies, since every Christian who has ever disagreed with another Christian is guilty, according to your interpretation of this verse, of sowing discord among the brethren. And a cursory look at the interchanges between you and Freak show that you aren't exempt from this.
(3) If this isn’t what you mean, but rather you are operating under the assumption that you are absolutely right in your assessment of the treatment of all homosexuals, and then, based upon your conclusion, feel as it if is your duty to straighten a brother out using Proverbs 6:19 as the rod, then you must be consistent and admit that if it is you who are incorrect, in your interpretation of the verse you are about to use as a proof text, then it is you who are sowing discord among the brethren.
(4) Se before we start using proverbs 6:16 as a billy-club, why don’t we engage in some healthy discussion regarding your proof text.
(1) No, it’s because of disagreeing with God and or the truth of a matter that I would site causing strife and such. You tried to contradict the excommunication passage by referencing the “Jesus ate with the sinners and tax collectors” passage. But God’s word does not contradict itself, both passages are true for their own separate reasons. Yes, we should be consistent with our judgments, as well as be right with them too.
(2) That is just ridiculous. You are dragging the conversation below reasonable and intellectual levels.
(3) That is an unreasonable assumption. The tenor of this debate from both sides of the discussion is that God’s word is right and authoritative and as such invokes the reasonable assumption that both parties are (to some extent) adherents thereof. So I am simply addressing the grossly immoral who include themselves as having a righteous belief in the word of God (believers in God) and needs to be excommunicated because of it.
(4) No, I used it as God intended, as one who is offering the truth from God. As for proof texting, I dispatched your false notion of trying to contradict my reference with another. You have no standing to charge me with proof texting, I accept the entire word of God as being His word and that it does not have problem texts. As such, I am simply offering God’s word, no proof texting need apply. Your misuse of God’s word fairly evident in that tried to void the meaning of the excommunication teaching by the “Jesus ate with sinners” teaching. You are the one who needs to stand corrected for mishandling what you think is a proof text for you view, but was not.
You sited the following
1Co 5:9 I wrote to you in my epistle not to keep company with sexually immoral people. 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 unto 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.
and then you said:
(5) It is quite possible, and likely in my opinion due to verse 7, that what Paul is saying isn’t, don’t “you ever be eatin’ in the same room with no homo’s!” But rather, that the customary meal that followed the gatherings of the saints is in view (verse 7), during which the Lord’s Supper was practices. This supper should not be accompanied by believers who practice homosexual behavior. Which makes sense to me, (6) Paul didn’t want the outside world to be confused on where Christians stand on issues of moral purity. But that is a point of interpretation.
(5) I wouldn’t insert homosexuality or any other capitol offense in there. God is clear to put them to death, so shunning would not apply to the homo. Shunning only applies if you do not have the option of capitol offense.
(6) God, not just Paul, wanted everyone, not just the outside world to not be confused about absolute right and wrong. Everything is a point of interpretation if you can place any doubt about the truth of a matter.
You go on to say
However, what is not a point of interpretation was Paul’s admonition about judging those outside the church?
For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Do you not judge those who are within the church? 13 But those who are outside, God judges.
So if Clete meant that he only refused to associate with a homosexual who claim to be Christian who, despite the admonition of fellow brothers for him to reconsider his behavior, persists in homosexual behavior. Then Clete is totally in the right to disassociate with such a person and exclude him from the Lord’s Supper, and possibly, to refuse to be around him at all.
If that is what Clete mean't, then I have misunderstood his point, and applogize for that misunderstanding.
But based on his statement:
All I can do is post on this web site and shun as many homos as I come in contact with.
It doesn't appear as if I have misunderstood him.
It appears that Clete is passing judgment on
all homosexuals, even those outside the church. If that is the case, then he, or you since you have taken up the cause of defending him, needs to explain
why Paul clearly doesn't as is evident by verse 10 and verse 13.
Finally, I would ask that you not count your chicken before they are hatched and refrain from using Proverbs 6:19 as a judgement text against others until you can remove all doubt that you have not overshot the aim of 1 Corinthians 5:11, and find that it is pointed at you.
Misjudging God’s word again. All capitol offenders are to be rejected and excommunicated, they are worse than just being sexually immoral, in fact, they are supposed to be excommunicated from life for good.
Secondly, God’s word is teaching through the writings of Paul by drawing a distinction over what issue?
It’s over who to accept as being a professing believer, and it is concerning that issue that Paul eliminates the rest of the world from this type of personal judgment because they are not “accountable” to the brethren for their morality in the same way that fellow believers are, the unsaved world is accountable just as everyone ultimately is, to God. But believers have an extra layer of accountability, which is the issue at hand, not otherwise.
There are many of other teachings that do not impose restrictions upon believers in Christ to righteously judge against the world. In fact, that is step one for a righteous evangelization of the lost, the message of God’s condemnation against them unless they repent and get saved, and that you as a personal representative of God also judge against them that they should go to hell unless they repent and get saved.
God is the ultimate judge, yet God thought it wise and good to delegate all judgment unto Jesus Christ, and Jesus Christ and the Word of God says that the saints will judge the world and that if you are spiritual, you judge all things.
- Heb 12:23 to the general assembly and church of the firstborn [who are] registered in heaven, to God the Judge of all, to the spirits of just men made perfect,
Joh 5:22 "For the Father judges no one, but has committed all judgment to the Son,
1Co 6:1 Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unrighteous, and not before the saints? 2 Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world will be judged by you, are you unworthy to judge the smallest matters? 3 Do you not know that we shall judge angels? How much more, things that pertain to this life?
1Co 2:15 But he who is spiritual judges all things, yet he himself is [rightly] judged by no one.
Joh 7:24 "Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment."
Again we see in 1Co that God is teaching a teaching for how to judge within the brethren, yet this time, as part of the reasoning for why we should do so within ourselves, God teaches that it is partly because the unbelieving world is so bad off, that they should be disqualified to judge such matters, after all, we will be judging them and the angels, and how much more so Christians should be judging the things in this life. So by taking in a wider context, it is plain that believers are to judge “everything” with righteous judgment, but when it comes to gross immorality, we hold “professing believers” to an unique accountability that the rest of the world does not share between Christians.
Christians, nor anyone who assumes or grants the name of Jesus for righteousness (i.e. trust in the scriptures for righteousness) are not islands unto themselves who can do and say whatever they please, we are subject to each other in terms of moral accountability. At the same time, we are to judge against sin and evil and wickedness and immorality, those are matters of absolute right and wrong, everyone is included.
- Shunning is challenged in favor of acceptance and a call to repent//shunning is right to the extent that the immoral one assumes faith or righteousness in God
- Homosexuality should be assumed in the excommunication teaching//it should be assumed as a capitol offense
- You suggested that believers are only supposed to judge against (excommunicate) other believers//but you who are spiritual are to judge all things with righteous judgment, we will judge the unsaved world and the angels, so how much more we should be judging things in this life.
I agree that not all homo’s should be treated the same. If you are a homo that is a self professing believer in God (site God and His word for righteousness), you should be personally rejected for such wickedness. If you are a homo and you commit sodomy or promote that abomination of a lifestyle where two of the same sex should engage in sexual intimacy that is supposed to be between man and woman, then that is a capitol offense according to God, they “should” be put to death.
