Jump to content
Online Baptist Community
  • Newest Sermon Entry

    • By Jim_Alaska in Jim_Alaska's Sermons & Devotionals
         14
      Closed Communion
      James Foley
       
      I Corinthians 11:17-34: "Now in this that I declare unto you I praise you not, that ye come together not for the better, but for the worse. For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it. For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you. When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's Supper. For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken. What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not. For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till he come. Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep. For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged. But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world. Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another. And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come."

      INTRODUCTION

      Historic Baptists, true Baptists, have believed in and still believe in closed communion. Baptists impose upon themselves the same restrictions that they impose on others concerning the Lord’s Supper. Baptists have always insisted that it is the Lord’s Table, not theirs; and He alone has the right to say who shall sit at His table. No amount of so called brotherly love, or ecumenical spirit, should cause us to invite to His table those who have not complied with the requirements laid down plainly in His inspired Word. With respect to Bible doctrines we must always use the scripture as our guide and practice. For Baptists, two of the most important doctrines are Baptism and The Lord’s Supper. These are the only two doctrines we recognize as Church Ordinances. The Bible is very clear in teaching how these doctrines are to be practiced and by whom.

      We only have two ordinances that we must never compromise or we risk our very existence, they are Baptism and The Lord’s Supper.

      The moment we deviate from the precise method God has prescribed we have started down the slippery slope of error. True Baptists have held fast to the original doctrine of The Lord’s Supper from the time of Christ and the Apostles.

      Unfortunately, in this day of what the Bible describes as the age of luke warmness, Baptists are becoming careless in regard to strictly following the pattern laid out for us in Scripture. Many of our Bible colleges are graduating otherwise sincere, Godly and dedicated pastors and teachers who have not been taught the very strict, biblical requirements that surround the Lord’s Supper. Any Bible college that neglects to teach its students the differences surrounding Closed Communion, Close Communion and Open Communion is not simply short changing its students; it is also not equipping their students to carry on sound Bible traditions. The result is men of God and churches that fall into error. And as we will see, this is serious error.

      Should we as Baptists ignore the restrictions made by our Lord and Master? NO! When we hold to the restrictions placed upon the Lord’s Supper by our Master, we are defending the "faith which was once delivered to the saints" Jude 3.

      The Lord’s Supper is rigidly restricted and I will show this in the following facts:

      IT IS RESTRICTED AS TO PLACE

      A. I Corinthians 11:18 says, "When ye come together in the church." This does not mean the church building; they had none. In other words, when the church assembles. The supper is to be observed by the church, in church capacity. Again this does not mean the church house. Ekklesia, the Greek word for church, means assembly. "When ye come together in the church," is when the church assembles.

      B. When we say church we mean an assembly of properly baptized believers. Acts 2:41-42: "Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls. And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers."

      The church is made up of saved people who are baptized by immersion. In the Bible, belief precedes baptism. That’s the Bible way.

      Acts 8:12-13, "But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done."

      When we say properly baptized, we mean immersed. No unbeliever should take the Lord’s supper, and no non-immersed believer should take the supper. Those who are sprinkled are not baptized and cannot receive the supper. The Greek word for baptize is baptizo, and it always means to immerse.

      "In every case where communion is referred to, or where it may possibly have been administered, the believers had been baptized Acts 2:42; 8:12; 8:38; 10:47; 6:14-15; 18:8; 20:7. Baptism comes before communion, just as repentance and faith precede baptism".

      C. The Lord’s Supper is for baptized believers in church capacity: "When ye come together in the church," again not a building, but the assembly of the properly baptized believers.

      D. The fact that the Lord’s Supper is a church ordinance, to be observed in church capacity, is pointed out by the fact that it is for those who have been immersed and added to the fellowship of the church.

      E. The Lord’s Supper is never spoken of in connection with individuals. When it is referred to, it is only referred to in reference to baptized believers in local church capacity I Cor. 11:20-26).

      I want to quote Dr. W.W. Hamilton,

      "The individual administration of the ordinance has no Bible warrant and is a relic of Romanism. The Lord’s Supper is a church ordinance, and anything which goes beyond or comes short of this fails for want of scriptural example or command".

      “The practice of taking a little communion kit to hospitals, nursing homes, etc. is unscriptural and does not follow the scriptural example.”

      IT IS RESTRICTED TO A UNITED CHURCH

      A. The Bible in I Cor. 11:18 is very strong in condemning divisions around the Lord’s table. For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it.
      19 For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.
      20 When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper.

      There were no less than four divisions in the Corinthian church.
      I Cor. 1:12: "Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ."

      Because of these divisions, it was impossible for them to scripturally eat the Lord’s Supper. Division in the local church is reason to hold off observing the Lord’s Supper. But there are also other reasons to forego taking the Lord’s Supper. If there is gross sin in the membership we do not take it. Here is scriptural evidence for this: 1Co 5:7 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 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.

      B. At this point, I want to ask these questions: Are there not doctrinal divisions among the many denominations? Is it not our doctrinal differences that cause us to be separate religious bodies?

      IT IS RESTRICTED BY DOCTRINE

      A. Those in the early church at Jerusalem who partook "continued stedfastly in the apostles’ doctrine" Acts 2:42. And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.

      B. Those that do not hold to apostolic truth are not to partake. This means there is to be discipline in the local body. How can you discipline those who do not belong to the local body? You can’t. The clear command of scripture is to withdraw fellowship from those who are not doctrinally sound.

      II Thes 3:6: "Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us."
      Rom. 16:17: "Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them."
      To commune together means to have the same doctrine.
      II Thes. 2:15: "Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle."
      II John 10-11: "If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds."

      C. Some Baptists in our day have watered down this doctrine by practicing what they call “Close Communion.” By this they mean that they believe that members of another Baptist church may take communion with us because they are of the same beliefs. Once again, this is unscriptural.

      The welcome to the Lord's Table should not be extended beyond the discipline of the local church. When we take the Lord’s Supper there is supposed to be no gross sin among us and no divisions among us. We have no idea of the spiritual condition of another church’s members. If there is sin or division in the case of this other church’s members, we have no way of knowing it. We cannot discipline them because they are not members of our church. This is why we practice “Closed” communion, meaning it is restricted solely to our church membership. 
      So then, in closing I would like to reiterate the three different ideas concerning the Lord’s Supper and who is to take it. 
      Closed Communion = Only members of a single local church. 
      Close Communion = Members of like faith and order may partake. 
      Open Communion = If you claim to be a Christian, or simply attending the service, you may partake. 
      It is no small thing to attempt to change that which was implemented by our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. 
      Mt. 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen. 
      Many of our Baptist churches have a real need to consider the gravity of the act of observing The Lord’s Supper. It is not a light thing that is to be taken casually or without regard to the spiritual condition of ourselves or our church.
      1Co. 11:27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.

       28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.

       29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.

       30 For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.

Gay couple win suit over names on birth certificate


JerryNumbers
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Advanced Member

If two people are in a committed relationship raising a child and providing a good, loving home for that child, then they are that child's parents.

Some lesbian friends visited ours visited church and brought their lovely 9 month old daughter. My friend carried the baby and gave birth, and her partner is her other parent. I introduced my friend and her baby, and her partner walked up and took the baby. The lady asked my friend if that was the baby's aunt. She didn't know how to respond, so I said that no, that is the baby's other mommy.

Whether we think their lifestyle is sinful or not, to that child, both partners are parents. They love that child just like I love my daughters. I think that ought to be recognized.

Gay couples in a committed relationship ought to be able to adopt. There are far too many children growing up without parents or in foster care, and many of them could find a good loving home with gay parents.

I know most if not all here will disagree with me. But think about it. In the case of my lesbian friend who caried the baby to term, or many others like her, what if she died when the child was 8 years old? Who would have the rights to the child? The other mom, who that child knows and loves, or the extended family of the deceased, who may have disowned their daughter for being lesbian? I believe the legal rights ought to be with the other mom (unless she is abusive or there is another reason). It would be terrible to rip a child away from that mom, and very traumatic for that child.

Edited by kindofblue1977
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

You're right - such a situation would be traumatic for a child. That's why such situations should never be allowed to develop in the first place. We as Christians are instructed to 'train up a child in the way he should go.' Putting a child in a situation where they will grow up thinking that sins of this nature are all right (in the case of a foster or adopted child) certainly goes against this admonition. I realize that this world/society does not recognize God's commands, but we are restrained to make them the center of our worldviews and opinions.

One often hears people argue that we have to adjust God's clear directives to allow for the complications of such convoluted situations as the example given here. It seems to me that it is the effects of sin in our lives and in this world that create 'complicated' situations like this. If the sin was removed, the complications might just cease. It is not practical to expect that sin will ever be eradicated in this present world, but we should not use the consequences of sin as an excuse to ignore the commands of Christ.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

You're right - such a situation would be traumatic for a child. That's why such situations should never be allowed to develop in the first place. We as Christians are instructed to 'train up a child in the way he should go.' Putting a child in a situation where they will grow up thinking that sins of this nature are all right (in the case of a foster or adopted child) certainly goes against this admonition. I realize that this world/society does not recognize God's commands, but we are restrained to make them the center of our worldviews and opinions.

One often hears people argue that we have to adjust God's clear directives to allow for the complications of such convoluted situations as the example given here. It seems to me that it is the effects of sin in our lives and in this world that create 'complicated' situations like this. If the sin was removed, the complications might just cease. It is not practical to expect that sin will ever be eradicated in this present world, but we should not use the consequences of sin as an excuse to ignore the commands of Christ.


We all have a sin nature and sin in our lives. If that were the standard, none of us would be fit to be parents. If that were the case, people of other religions should not be allowed to be parents. What two people do in their bedroom affects no one and causes no harm. It is far better for two loving people who are gay to raise children than a verbally and physically absusive parent.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is a sin sick and perverted nation we've allowed to evolve. We know God hates sin and God can't have fellowship with non-repenting sinners. We know God specifically targeted sodomy as a sin akin to idolatry. For both of these sins nations become so far out of God's will and in opposition to him they are driven into his anger and destruction follows. As Christians we must take some blame for not standing against this sin and allowing it to appear in the extreme we see now.

The argument above for the toleration of the sin of homosexuality because God's choice for parents sin through child abuse is utterly preposterous. What? Let's promote one sin to prevent another sin? Please, I may be ignorant at times but, I'm not void of intelligence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

It is a sin sick and perverted nation we've allowed to evolve. We know God hates sin and God can't have fellowship with non-repenting sinners. We know God specifically targeted sodomy as a e sin akin to idolatry. For both of these sins nations become so far out of God's will and in opposition to him they are driven into his anger and destruction follows. As Christians we must take some blame for not standing against this sin and allowing it to appear in the extreme we see now.

The argument above for the toleration of the sin of homosexuality because God's choice for parents sin through child abuse is utterly preposterous. What? Let's promote one sin to prevent another sin? Please, I may be ignorant at times but, I'm not void of intelligence.


All humans are sinners. We all struggle with sin. What I am saying is that we have a broken world, and we must make the best of what the reality is. The reality is there are thousands of children in foster care waiting to be adopted. There are many couples, both homosexual and heterosexual, who would love to adopt some of these children. Placing a child in a loving homosexual home is much better for the child than placing the child in foster care where he or she will bounce around from house to house.

If a lesbian couple has a child, then the woman that carried that child is the mother. Who is the other parent? It isn't the father who happend to donate sperm to a sperm bank. He is not involved in the child's life and never will be. It is the other mother, who will raise and love that child as her own, who is committed to her partner. Her name should be on the birth certificate. She should be given preference for custody should the other mother die.

When is it appropriate to terminate parental rights? When the child is endangered. When a child is beaten. When a child is neglected. When a child is abused. When a child is not given proper physical care. Are you saying we should terminate a mother's rights who gave birth because she is a lesbian. In that case, my parental rights should be terminated because I too, am a sinner.

I know many heterosexual couples who are a sad excuse for parents, but in many of those cases, it is not appropriate to take away their children, if they are not abused or neglected. My lesbian friend and her partner are wonderful parents and provide a wonderful home for their child. I fail to see anything wrong with that, regardless of what I think happens in their bedroom (I have no idea, they may be celebate for all I know).
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

If two people are in a committed relationship raising a child and providing a good, loving home for that child, then they are that child's parents.

Some lesbian friends visited ours visited church and brought their lovely 9 month old daughter. My friend carried the baby and gave birth, and her partner is her other parent. I introduced my friend and her baby, and her partner walked up and took the baby. The lady asked my friend if that was the baby's aunt. She didn't know how to respond, so I said that no, that is the baby's other mommy.

Whether we think their lifestyle is sinful or not, to that child, both partners are parents. They love that child just like I love my daughters. I think that ought to be recognized.

Gay couples in a committed relationship ought to be able to adopt. There are far too many children growing up without parents or in foster care, and many of them could find a good loving home with gay parents.

I know most if not all here will disagree with me. But think about it. In the case of my lesbian friend who caried the baby to term, or many others like her, what if she died when the child was 8 years old? Who would have the rights to the child? The other mom, who that child knows and loves, or the extended family of the deceased, who may have disowned their daughter for being lesbian? I believe the legal rights ought to be with the other mom (unless she is abusive or there is another reason). It would be terrible to rip a child away from that mom, and very traumatic for that child.


What do you mean, if we think that life style is sinful or not. The Bible is very clear on that, that life style is sinful.

What are we to do, rebuke sin, not go along with it, glossing it over as if its a good thing.

Of course rebuking sin means one has to stand with Christ.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member



What do you mean, if we think that life style is sinful or not. The Bible is very clear on that, that life style is sinful.

What are we to do, rebuke sin, not go along with it, glossing it over as if its a good thing.

Of course rebuking sin means one has to stand with Christ.


I mean there are two very separate and distinct issues here:

1. Is the behavior sinful? I agree that homosexual sex is sinful.

2. What behavior is necessary to terminate or refuse parental rights? The answer to that should be if behavior is abusive to a child or neglects a child. Mere sinful behavior is not sufficient under the law to terminate paretnal rights. If that were the case, none of us would have any rights as parents. I happen to believe, and can back it up with people I know, that a homosexual or lesbian couple who are committed to one another can be very good parents (not all are, but neither are all heterosexual couples).

If you deny one partner from being a parent to a child, what is to say someone cannot come in and terminate the paretnal rights of the birth mother who is a lesbian? Do you think that is right, even if she is providing physically and emotinally for the child's wellbeing? Edited by kindofblue1977
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Romans 1: 24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

If two people are in a committed relationship raising a child and providing a good, loving home for that child, then they are that child's parents.

Some lesbian friends visited ours visited church and brought their lovely 9 month old daughter. My friend carried the baby and gave birth, and her partner is her other parent. I introduced my friend and her baby, and her partner walked up and took the baby. The lady asked my friend if that was the baby's aunt. She didn't know how to respond, so I said that no, that is the baby's other mommy.

Whether we think their lifestyle is sinful or not, to that child, both partners are parents. They love that child just like I love my daughters. I think that ought to be recognized.

Gay couples in a committed relationship ought to be able to adopt. There are far too many children growing up without parents or in foster care, and many of them could find a good loving home with gay parents.

I know most if not all here will disagree with me. But think about it. In the case of my lesbian friend who caried the baby to term, or many others like her, what if she died when the child was 8 years old? Who would have the rights to the child? The other mom, who that child knows and loves, or the extended family of the deceased, who may have disowned their daughter for being lesbian? I believe the legal rights ought to be with the other mom (unless she is abusive or there is another reason). It would be terrible to rip a child away from that mom, and very traumatic for that child.

Your response is excellent on the grounds of secularism but totally wrong if Christianity is considered at all.
Link to comment
Share on other sites




All humans are sinners. We all struggle with sin. What I am saying is that we have a broken world, and we must make the best of what the reality is. The reality is there are thousands of children in foster care waiting to be adopted. There are many couples, both homosexual and heterosexual, who would love to adopt some of these children. Placing a child in a loving homosexual home is much better for the child than placing the child in foster care where he or she will bounce around from house to house.

If a lesbian couple has a child, then the woman that carried that child is the mother. Who is the other parent? It isn't the father who happend to donate sperm to a sperm bank. He is not involved in the child's life and never will be. It is the other mother, who will raise and love that child as her own, who is committed to her partner. Her name should be on the birth certificate. She should be given preference for custody should the other mother die.

When is it appropriate to terminate parental rights? When the child is endangered. When a child is beaten. When a child is neglected. When a child is abused. When a child is not given proper physical care. Are you saying we should terminate a mother's rights who gave birth because she is a lesbian. In that case, my parental rights should be terminated because I too, am a sinner.

I know many heterosexual couples who are a sad excuse for parents, but in many of those cases, it is not appropriate to take away their children, if they are not abused or neglected. My lesbian friend and her partner are wonderful parents and provide a wonderful home for their child. I fail to see anything wrong with that, regardless of what I think happens in their bedroom (I have no idea, they may be celebate for all I know).



All humans are sinners. We all struggle with sin. What I am saying is that we have a broken world, and we must make the best of what the reality is. The reality is there are thousands of children in foster care waiting to be adopted. There are many couples, both homosexual and heterosexual, who would love to adopt some of these children. Placing a child in a loving homosexual home is much better for the child than placing the child in foster care where he or she will bounce around from house to house.


The reality is Christians are ostracized in society for speaking against this growing sin epidemic in our nation and the world. Homosexuality has an agenda and it plays well in to a plan orchestrated by Satan; anytime God’s word disagrees with personal preference you are free to ignore God’s word. It’s just like all the other forms of self-gratifying sin. Again, substitute one sin for another?

If a lesbian couple has a child, then the woman that carried that child is the mother. Who is the other parent? It isn't the father who happend to donate sperm to a sperm bank. He is not involved in the child's life and never will be. It is the other mother, who will raise and love that child as her own, who is committed to her partner. Her name should be on the birth certificate. She should be given preference for custody should the other mother die.


Here is where Romans chapter 1 becomes so apparent. Reject Christ for a preference toward self-centered, self-satisfying, and self-gratifying preference. What can the outcome be? Teaching the child to reject God and favor sin. Hopefully the child would grow to learn of Christ in some way and reject the sin of these homosexuals and be saved; however, what do you think the chances are for a child to learn the truth of the Bible in this environment? Your statement above is the homosexual mantra and the mantra of Satan’s church…denying God created them male and female attacks God’s creation and ultimately denying Christ. It is no different than saying, “Ye shall not surely die:”

When is it appropriate to terminate parental rights? When the child is endangered. When a child is beaten. When a child is neglected. When a child is abused. When a child is not given proper physical care. Are you saying we should terminate a mother's rights who gave birth because she is a lesbian. In that case, my parental rights should be terminated because I too, am a sinner.


You should not substitute sin as the answer for sin. The Savior is the answer for sin. I’m saying if Christians perform due diligence the opportunity for a woman living in the open sin of homosexuality would not happen in the first place. However, we have far too many “Christians” standing up for the sin and sitting on their hands for the Savior.

I know many heterosexual couples who are a sad excuse for parents, but in many of those cases, it is not appropriate to take away their children, if they are not abused or neglected. My lesbian friend and her partner are wonderful parents and provide a wonderful home for their child. I fail to see anything wrong with that, regardless of what I think happens in their bedroom (I have no idea, they may be celebate for all I know).


Your example of two sinning self-centered homosexuals can only teach one thing. They can teach preference toward sin and rejection of Christ. Try a visit to discussion boards of homosexuals on the internet it won't take you long to understand the perversions going on behind their closed doors...or, on the streets during homosexual pride parades. Is this something you believe is acceptable for Christians, that is, to accept this practice of sin over Savior? Edited by 1Tim115
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Sinful behavior on the part of the parent is enough to doom a child's soul to everlasting hell. Tell us something that's worse than that.

Amen! Condoning, approving and legalizing sin does no good to any child or anyone else.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Sinful behavior on the part of the parent is enough to doom a child's soul to everlasting hell. Tell us something that's worse than that.


You are missing my point..

At what point do you think it is appropriate to step in and take a child away from the people who have loved and raised that child, and whom that child considers his or her parents? Are you saying that any time a parent is living in sin and is not a believer, the child should be taken away and placed in a Christian home?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

In your 1st post you seemed to be condoling this type of relationship. It seemed you attitude was to ignore the sin right in front of this mother, acting like all was well. Them you stated this, ”Whether we think their lifestyle is sinful or not, to that child, both partners are parents. They love that child just like I love my daughters. I think that ought to be recognized.”

And it seemed to be going on at church, Why not tell this person that their lifestyle of being a lesbian disagrees with God, that God does not condone such a lifestyle. Of course if you speak God’s truths there is risk, this lesbian mother may hate you for it, hate church for it, but it’s a fact, the sinner will not turn from their sin until they’re exposed. But there is another risk, they just might turn from their sin, turning to God.

2Ti 4:2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.

You did not do this, you seemed to just act nicy nicy. Rebuke sin, try & be nice about it, try to do so in a loving caring way. Sad to say, no matter how nice, loving, caring, we may be, that person may not accept it in that manner. Yet if we don’t do this, they will think we approve & welcome those living in such sins to our church families.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

In your 1st post you seemed to be condoling this type of relationship. It seemed you attitude was to ignore the sin right in front of this mother, acting like all was well. Them you stated this, ”Whether we think their lifestyle is sinful or not, to that child, both partners are parents. They love that child just like I love my daughters. I think that ought to be recognized.”

And it seemed to be going on at church, Why not tell this person that their lifestyle of being a lesbian disagrees with God, that God does not condone such a lifestyle. Of course if you speak God’s truths there is risk, this lesbian mother may hate you for it, hate church for it, but it’s a fact, the sinner will not turn from their sin until they’re exposed. But there is another risk, they just might turn from their sin, turning to God.

2Ti 4:2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.

You did not do this, you seemed to just act nicy nicy. Rebuke sin, try & be nice about it, try to do so in a loving caring way. Sad to say, no matter how nice, loving, caring, we may be, that person may not accept it in that manner. Yet if we don’t do this, they will think we approve & welcome those living in such sins to our church families.


Background....my friend is the daughter of a minister at the church I attended at the time. She knows we beleive the Bible and knows what it says. She disagrees with it, and I can respect her for her decision, though I disagree with it. Having said that, I believe I am supposed to show the love of Christ by all of my actions and words. If I say I love her, but then do not treat her in a respectful manner and tell her she does not have a right to raise her child because she is a lesbian, is that showing her the love of Christ? If I do not respect her decision to have a lesbian partner and make her feel uncomfortable at church by demeaning her in front of other people, is that showing her love?

She knows my position on homosexuality, so there is no need to beat a dead horse. I will continue to show her love through my actions and words. I will continue to have her and her spouse to dinner with me on occassion. I will not change her. It is not my job to change her. It is my job to love her as a sister. It is my job to respect her decisions. Her actions are between her and God. I will let God work on that.

When I introduced my friend to someone else at church, and her partner walked up, she was uncomfortable because she knows what the church thinks. When the other person asked who her partner was, should I have said, yes, she is the "aunt" or "friend?" That would be a lie. I simply said, "No, this is the other mother." To which she replied, "It is nice to meet you."

They know the Bible. They know what we think of homosexual sex. Their willingness to bring their child to church and come to church is very encouraging, and shows they may be open to Christ. If I started trying to force my convictions on them, they would leave immediately. Instead, I will make them feel welcome, and hope the message of Christ penetrates their hearts. Only Christ can change them. I can do nothing but love them.

But that is off point. the point here is whether parental rights should be terminated merely because one is gay. I do not believe it should be.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

So you attend a church that the pastors daughter is living openly as a lesbian & attends this church.


It was our education minister. I attended it until I moved to a new town. I don't see what the decsions of an adult child have to do with a minister's role in the church. She doesn't attend regularly, only when she comes into town to visit her family. Edited by kindofblue1977
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

So you attend a church that the pastors daughter is living openly as a lesbian & attends this church.


I believe the appropriate question would be a distinction between attends and is a member.

Just like heterosexual "shack-ups", attendance is one thing, membership is out of the question.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...