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.

What Advice Do You Have Or Same-Sex Couples


no name joe

Recommended Posts

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I advise the word of God for any situation.

 

Acts 26:20 “But shewed first unto them of Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the coasts of Judaea, and then to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance.”

 

It may not be popular but that is the example God has set forth for his people.

 

2 Chronicles 18:13 "And Micaiah said, As the LORD liveth, even what my God saith, that will I speak."

 

There are priests in abundance ready to support any sin and they have an adoring crowd.

 

Jeremiah 5:31 “The prophets prophesy falsely, and the priests bear rule by their means; and my people love to have it so: and what will ye do in the end thereof?”

 

John 12:28 “Father, glorify thy name. Then came there a voice from heaven, saying, I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again.”

 

Do accordingly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 148
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

God didn't intend for the bible to be worshipped. "bible believing", " biblical Christians", etc, these words point to a book but not the Author.

 

Well...it used to be enough to say that one was a Christian, which was a donning of the name of Christ--the Author. However, as people have walked away from the Christ of the Bible and made Him in their own image it has become increasingly, and depressingly, necessary to identify which Christ we follow. "Bible-believing Christian" used to be a redundant term, but not so much anymore. According the latest Barna State of the Bible report, 90% of professing "Christians" believe the Bible is a holy or sacred book. Wow....89%?? That means 11% of American Christians, or roughly 26 million "Christians", don't believe in the Bible at all. How about this one...when asked if the Bible was the literal or inspired Word of God, only 63% said yes. That means there are almost 89 million "Christians" who don't believe what God says about Himself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Very real scenario:

 

"they have conceived" 

No, this is false; is not the case you've presented and neither is it possible; the one woman and a man committed adultery through out of marriage procreation.

What do you do?  What do you tell them?  What position should the church take on this?  This puts two sins in at odds.  Homosexuality and divorce.  Maybe.  Perhaps they have decided to remain celibate.  

I give them the gospel. It is irrelevant "what position should the church take;" what the Bible says bears the only relevance. These two women set out to possibly "put two sins at odds." "remain celibate," what sin is covered by an attempt to do good works?

I am curious to know what your advice would be.  Here we have three children who are well cared for, love their mothers, and are excelling in every area of life.  If you advise them to separate and "divorce" (that is what would occur, no matter what you call it), the children would be harmed.  If you advise them to stay together, do you tell them they have to be celibate?

My advice is do what God's word says. The three children are excelling at the immediate not at the permanent; unless you forgot to mention they also are studying for the ministry and are rejecting the example of these two sinful women. Again, it isn't my words which will make any difference for these women, it is God's word. The women decided the course for these children, the selfish desires of a sin seeking life controlled their actions; with fore thought they risked the children. Sad but, "lust of the flesh, eyes, and pride" have terrible results; they have just proven God's word true. As far as an attempt to 'blame' me or God; sorry but the responsibility for this situation rests on these women and those who promote the sin.

How should the church address same-sex families in these situations?  How can the church possibly reach them if we advocate tearing their family apart? 
Again, the church is irrelevant. How does God's word approach these compounding sins? Their own lust, whichever form, created this situation; the tearing began with the women and those who provide for and allow for the sin in the first place. You're always promoting this here, in a public forum, how are you going to approach God with it?
I am friends with a couple in this very situation. I never hear Christians talk about the realities, and am curious as to your thoughts:

If your church promotes the acceptance of this sin and it is your heartfelt desire to help prevent this sin scenario then leave that church and find one which teaches God's truth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Follow up question:

 

I understand everyone here says that a same-sex couple should not be allowed to join the church unless they separated.  It would not be enough for them to remain celibate.  My question is, do you apply the same line of logic to other sins involving families?

 

Example:  Husband was unfaithful years ago.  Husband and wife divorce. Husband has remarried.  They come to your church and want to join.  Do you require that they separate?  Do you consider that Husband and new wife are married according to the God?  Same issues are involved here as the same-sex couple.  How do you handle this?  Is the husband living in sin because he remarried?  If they had a child together to you require them to separate before joining?

 

 

Does it matter why the first divorce occurred?  If a divorced woman and her children start attending and want to join, do you ask her why she got a divorce?  Is that relevant?  What if she left because he beat her or was unfaithful. 

 

These seem to be the same types of issues with same-sex couples.  I'm curious as if you see them the same or differently.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Follow up question:

 

I understand everyone here says that a same-sex couple should not be allowed to join the church unless they separated.  It would not be enough for them to remain celibate.  My question is, do you apply the same line of logic to other sins involving families?

 

Example:  Husband was unfaithful years ago.  Husband and wife divorce. Husband has remarried.  They come to your church and want to join.  Do you require that they separate?  Do you consider that Husband and new wife are married according to the God?  Same issues are involved here as the same-sex couple.  How do you handle this?  Is the husband living in sin because he remarried?  If they had a child together to you require them to separate before joining?

 

 

Does it matter why the first divorce occurred?  If a divorced woman and her children start attending and want to join, do you ask her why she got a divorce?  Is that relevant?  What if she left because he beat her or was unfaithful. 

 

These seem to be the same types of issues with same-sex couples.  I'm curious as if you see them the same or differently.

What is it you are really after with your questions anyway?  I will answer one you asked.

"Same issues are involved here as the same-sex couple."  I don't think so!

Now I will answer your real question you want to ask, but won't, for some reason.  Yes, I prOBably am a hypocrite.  Not totally consistent in my thinking and not perfect yet.

Now let's move along.

 

 

God bless,

Larry

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Example:  Husband was unfaithful years ago.  Husband and wife divorce. Husband has remarried.  They come to your church and want to join.  Do you require that they separate?  Do you consider that Husband and new wife are married according to the God?  Same issues are involved here as the same-sex couple.


To the best of my recollection, divorce is not called an abomination like homosexuality is.

I am begining to wonder if my initial impression about the OP was wrong, based on the part of the quote that I have "bolded". If it is a serious question, that is one thing. If is is an attempt at justification, that's another.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Lady Administrators

KOB, in all reality, you are comparing apples to oranges with the comparison of a same-sex relationship to a divorce/remarriage relationship.  God recognizes marriage between a man and a woman - not between same-sex couples, so the comparison is not a valid one.

 

Yes, divorce is sin.  And God hates it.  But He has made allowances for it in scripture - unlike same-sex relationships, which He has labeled abomination. He has made it plain that when a remarriage takes place it is not to be dissolved.  He has said a lot about it throughout scripture.  But He has never compared the consequences of a divorce to same-sex relationships because, again, there is no comparison.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Case by case, but , yes...Adultery has to be addressed, it is commanded.

1Co 5:11-13
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.
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.


Anishinaabe

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Follow up question:

 

I understand everyone here says that a same-sex couple should not be allowed to join the church unless they separated.  It would not be enough for them to remain celibate.  My question is, do you apply the same line of logic to other sins involving families?

 

It depends. If we're talking about a man and woman who have children, are simply shacking up, refuse to marry, then no, I don't think they should be allowed in any sort of leadership or service position within the church, nor do I believe they are eligible to participate in the Lord's Supper. That doesn't mean they can't come to church, but they aren't fit for church service, particularly as a leader or elder.

 

The scenario you presented in this post does not line up with the scenario you presented in your OP. One involves a relationship that God calls an abomination worthy of death. In the New Testament, it says that God gave them over to vile affections, that they committed shameful acts with other men. Nowhere in the Scriptures does God call divorce an abomination worthy of death, nor vile affections. It says He hates divorce. Why? Because it was never His plan for marriage; however, He made certain allowances for it. 

 

Second, the Bible is clear that sins committed prior to accepting Christ are wiped clean once we become saved. That doesn't there won't be lingering consequences of our sin (like, say, a promiscuous person contracting an incurable STD), but they will not bind us to hell. The Bible is clear that if someone commits the sin of divorce that it is an even bigger sin to divorce a subsequent spouse and try and be reunited with an ex. Yes, if both parties remain single and there can be reconciliation, that's wonderful, but if remarriages have already occurred it's just as much of a sin to divorce the new spouse as it was to divorce the previous one. 

 

Lastly, God does not recognize any sodomite relationship as a "marriage", regardless of what they believe or the state they live in. Legally, they are married, but they never will be in God's eyes. So asking them to separate in the spirit of repentance is not inconsistent, or hypocritical, if the church doesn't force the same thing on divorced and remarried heterosexuals. Now, most Bible-preaching churches will not permit a divorced and remarried man (save for cases where it is biblically permitted) to be a pastor or elder (deacon) in the church. The only churches I know of that will not allow someone who is remarried to join without divorcing their current spouse are Mennonite and Charity fellowships. I don't believe this practice is in line with the Scriptures, but that is their choice and, being divorced and remarried, I have the blessed freedom to choose not to join a Mennonite congregation. Just as a same-sex couple can certainly choose to join one of the hundreds (and growing!) number of churches that are "gay affirming". There are entire online databases dedicated to helping homosexuals find churches that will accept them and their sin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

In order to avoid lawsuits, we have spelled out that we interpret our KJV as disallowing participation by homosexuals in our worship, period.

 

A sodomite is not a candidate for church membership, regenerated people only.

 

But what about the same-sex couple who is celibate?  What do you do with them?  

 

Sodomites are unregenerated people who are not eligible for membership in a New Testament Church of the kind that Jesus Christ built and died for.  The first thing you do with them is share the gospel.  If they repent and accept Christ as Lord and Savior, with a new heart and new desires and the Holy Ghost within them, they begin to get in accord with God and become eligible for church membership.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Follow up question:

 

I understand everyone here says that a same-sex couple should not be allowed to join the church unless they separated.  It would not be enough for them to remain celibate.  My question is, do you apply the same line of logic to other sins involving families?

 

Does it matter why the first divorce occurred?  If a divorced woman and her children start attending and want to join, do you ask her why she got a divorce?  Is that relevant?  What if she left because he beat her or was unfaithful. 

 

These seem to be the same types of issues with same-sex couples.  I'm curious as if you see them the same or differently.

 

1 Chronicles 22:6-11 Then he called for Solomon his son, and charged him to build an house for the LORD God of Israel. 7 And David said to Solomon, My son, as for me, it was in my mind to build an house unto the name of the LORD my God: 8 But the word of the LORD came to me, saying, Thou hast shed blood abundantly, and hast made great wars: thou shalt not build an house unto my name, because thou hast shed much blood upon the earth in my sight. 9 Behold, a son shall be born to thee, who shall be a man of rest; and I will give him rest from all his enemies round about: for his name shall be Solomon, and I will give peace and quietness unto Israel in his days. 10 He shall build an house for my name; and he shall be my son, and I will be his father; and I will establish the throne of his kingdom over Israel for ever. 11 Now, my son, the LORD be with thee; and prosper thou, and build the house of the LORD thy God, as he hath said of thee.

 

I read the above this morning and it brought to mind this topic. David was an adulterer. Not only that, he committed murder in the hopes of covering up that adultery, but as we all know, there is no hiding our sin from God. We also see that when Nathan confronted David with his sin, David was truly repentant. If he were not God would not have put away his sin as is recorded in 2 Samuel:

 

2 Samuel 12:13 And David said unto Nathan, I have sinned against the LORD. And Nathan said unto David, The LORD also hath put away thy sin; thou shalt not die.

 

David still paid a price in that the child conceived from his adultery died in infancy, but immediately following these events Bathsheba conceived again and from this union (begun in adultery) was born the wisest king known to man and the builder of the Lord’s Temple. David was not required to turn Bathsheba away, and the child born from this union became perhaps the greatest king ever known.

Throughout his life David paid a dear cost for his adulteries (the child mentioned above, Amnon, Absalom, etc.), but he was also blessed by some of these same marriages (I think of Abigail and Bathsheba here).

 

Does God approve of adultery or polygamy? A quick review of scripture would tell us the answer is “OBviously not”, but he can and has blessed these unions and the fruit that they bore.

 

There is no such case anywhere in the Bible when referring to homosexuality. In fact (to my recollection), no homosexual couple is ever even recognized in the Bible. The most prominent record concerning homosexuality is Sodom and Gomorrah, and that didn’t turn out to good for them, nor to the person who looked back upon it (Lot's wife).

 

From this (in my mind) I see that God abhors adultery and homosexuality, but he can work with the former (pending repentance) because it is still a union between a man and a woman which is the natural order of things as He designed it (See Gen 2:21-25). Homosexuality has always been unseemly and an abomination. God did not design us this way. I think this is evident when you look at the many studies that have been done that show the life expectancy of gay and bisexual men is 8 to 21 years less than normal. The only true repentance from this sin is to terminate and abstain from such relationships.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I didn't know that Lot's wife's name was Leah.

 

Nor did I, but the fingers that move faster than my brain did. Just another one of my numerous imperfections.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

I believe comparing same-sex marriage with many second marriages is a very good comparison.

 

Husband has an affair.  Leaves wife.  Remarries.  Husband and new wife come to church and try to join.  What does repentance mean in that situation?  What if husband and new wife have a child together?  Must husband leave second wife and return to his first wife, who is innocent int he matter?  Does God recognize the second marriage?  What if husband a year or two later recognizes he was wrong and asks God to forgive him?  What does repentance mean in that situation?  Leaving and divorcing wife 2 and returning to wife 1?  Or staying with Wife 2?  What if husband had affair with wife 2, she got pregnant, then he left wife 1 and married wife 2?

 

The situation is no different than same-sex marriage.  Especially if children are involved.  A family was established as a result of sinful behavior.  If the parties seek to follow God, the question becomes how does God want to work in the midst of their situation?  What does repentance mean?  How does God's grace work and create something good out of what was made from sinful actions?  

These things happen folks.  God's grace has to be present in some way for those who seek to follow him.  What does repentance mean in these situations and how is God's grace present? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

The situation is no different than same-sex marriage.  Especially if children are involved.  A family was established as a result of sinful behavior.  If the parties seek to follow God, the question becomes how does God want to work in the midst of their situation?  What does repentance mean?  How does God's grace work and create something good out of what was made from sinful actions?  

These things happen folks.  God's grace has to be present in some way for those who seek to follow him.  What does repentance mean in these situations and how is God's grace present? 

 

In review I see that HappyChristian, Jim's Helpmeet, Swathdiver, Arbo, and myself gave you reasoned responses as to why God may be able to work with divorced, remarried couples and not with homosexual couples. Yet you keep coming back with the save type of statements with apparently no heed to what has been provided through scripture or logic. It appears to me that you're primary goal here is to find some way to justify homosexuals in the church.

 

Let's try this: With regards to people that are in adulterous affairs and to all homosexuals, as Wlane stated: you exlude them...end of story.

 

It is a tragedy for the children, but unfortunately there are a lot of adults out there who's sin harms the innocent children within their care.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

But does God recognize a second marriage where husband has affair, leaves his wife, and remarries the woman he had an affair with?  I she conceived, it is no different than same sex marriage.  A family was established through sinful behavior. 

 

How does one in this situation repent?  Must husband leave wife 2 and go back to wife 1?  Stay with wife 2 and the child?  How does the grace of God work in this situation?  I believe it does, but it takes time to heal. For one, I think what is done is done and the husband must go forward with wife 2. I think it would cause more pain to divorce a second time.

But this is no different than a same-sex couple who have conceived through artificial insemination or committed to raising children together through adoption. A family was born out of sinful actions.  So how can the family be preserved, and God work in their lives?  I believe he does and he can.

 

Knowing children who have same-sex parents, I cannot fathom that God would want that family broken apart.  I tend to think that God may call them to celibacy and complete the task for raising the children.  Them separating is akin to divorce and would be very painful to the children involved. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

But a same sex union is not in any way God endorsed.

The very fact of it being a homosexual union means that it is not and can never be considered the same as a marriage.

Until you recognise and accept that biblical fact you will never come to accept a biblical solution to your questions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

But does God recognize a second marriage where husband has affair, leaves his wife, and remarries the woman he had an affair with?  I she conceived, it is no different than same sex marriage.  A family was established through sinful behavior. 

 

How does one in this situation repent?  Must husband leave wife 2 and go back to wife 1?  Stay with wife 2 and the child?  How does the grace of God work in this situation?  I believe it does, but it takes time to heal. For one, I think what is done is done and the husband must go forward with wife 2. I think it would cause more pain to divorce a second time.

But this is no different than a same-sex couple who have conceived through artificial insemination or committed to raising children together through adoption. A family was born out of sinful actions.  So how can the family be preserved, and God work in their lives?  I believe he does and he can.

 

Knowing children who have same-sex parents, I cannot fathom that God would want that family broken apart.  I tend to think that God may call them to celibacy and complete the task for raising the children.  Them separating is akin to divorce and would be very painful to the children involved. 

 

1. He recognized David and Bathsheba. Name me one homosexual relationship in the Bible he ever recognized.

 

2. Again I refer to David and Bathsheba. Even after all of this David is called a man after God's own heart (Acts 13:22) and is in the Hebrews Hall of Faith.

 

3 Same sex couples do not have children together. One has the child, the other is "at best" an adoptive parent. God wants no families broken apart for any reason. It is man's sin that breaks families apart. By the way, a Biblical family does not have two mommies or two daddies. Nor does a healthy family. Condoning that sin or glossing over it does not take away the sin. And two homosexuals living together "celibately" (if they really do) is still giving the appearance of evil and will still end up confusing and harming the children.

 

I personally know several people that were open homosexuals who have turned from their sin, married people of the opposite gender and are living happy and normal lives. It is a sin that can be overcome (although the gay mafia don't want you to know or acknowledge that). The question is, do you love God more than your sin?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...