That is quite a leap in logic to make from the actions of one church. You might as well use the Rev. Fred Phelps as the cause of declining church attendance.

 

It would seem to a big leap especially if I said THIS CHURCH IS WHY....

 

However, I cited it as one example .

This one seems apropo, too. Although on this one, I do think that the key here is that stoning would have led to the ladies death and eternal judgement on her soul at that point. With Jesus saying for her to go sin no more, he was indicating that she now had a chance to change her life and get away from eternal punishment.

 

John 8:4-11 (New Living Translation)

 

4 “Teacher,” they said to Jesus, “this woman was caught in the act of adultery. 5 The law of Moses says to stone her. What do you say?”

 

6 They were trying to trap him into saying something they could use against him, but Jesus stooped down and wrote in the dust with his finger. 7 They kept demanding an answer, so he stood up again and said, “All right, but let the one who has never sinned throw the first stone!” 8 Then he stooped down again and wrote in the dust.

 

9 When the accusers heard this, they slipped away one by one, beginning with the oldest, until only Jesus was left in the middle of the crowd with the woman. 10 Then Jesus stood up again and said to the woman, “Where are your accusers? Didn’t even one of them condemn you?”

 

11 “No, Lord,” she said.

 

And Jesus said, “Neither do I. Go and sin no more.”

This one seems apropo, too. Although on this one, I do think that the key here is that stoning would have led to the ladies death and eternal judgement on her soul at that point. With Jesus saying for her to go sin no more, he was indicating that she now had a chance to change her life and get away from eternal punishment.

 

John 8:4-11 (New Living Translation)

 

4 “Teacher,” they said to Jesus, “this woman was caught in the act of adultery. 5 The law of Moses says to stone her. What do you say?”

 

6 They were trying to trap him into saying something they could use against him, but Jesus stooped down and wrote in the dust with his finger. 7 They kept demanding an answer, so he stood up again and said, “All right, but let the one who has never sinned throw the first stone!” 8 Then he stooped down again and wrote in the dust.

 

9 When the accusers heard this, they slipped away one by one, beginning with the oldest, until only Jesus was left in the middle of the crowd with the woman. 10 Then Jesus stood up again and said to the woman, “Where are your accusers? Didn’t even one of them condemn you?”

 

11 “No, Lord,” she said.

 

And Jesus said, “Neither do I. Go and sin no more.”

 

Actually, I would submit that the relevent part of this passage in regards to this particular thread is Jesus specifically saying that those guilty of sin (i.e., ALL of us) should be wary of condemning (as opposed to counselling or helping) someone else for their sin. Judge not lest ye be judged. Would appear to be telling the pastor from the Florida church that it would not be proper for him - a pastor, but nonetheless not without sin - to stand before his congregation and cast public judgment on this woman.

 

Or at least that's my first take on it.

Actually, I would submit that the relevent part of this passage in regards to this particular thread is Jesus specifically saying that those guilty of sin (i.e., ALL of us) should be wary of condemning (as opposed to counselling or helping) someone else for their sin. Judge not lest ye be judged. Would appear to be telling the pastor from the Florida church that it would not be proper for him - a pastor, but nonetheless not without sin - to stand before his congregation and cast public judgment on this woman.

 

Or at least that's my first take on it.

 

Condemning would be casting a stone that would lead to taking the woman's life because with the taking of her life she would be condemned to Hell.

 

It could be argued that the pastor is doing no more than what Jesus did at the end only with a lot more attention. Telling her to go and sin no more.

 

Did Jesus counsel or help her when he told her to go and sin no more?

 

And based on reading between the lines of the story, it seems that counseling and helping her has been done and she has rejected it.

"Condemned to hell"...So does she lose her salvation?

 

She mentions a personal relationship with Jesus and "he knows my heart".

 

Whats the story on the dude?

 

I know of a young couple who is planning on getting married, but he moved in with her because the lease was up on his apartment. They stay in seperate bedrooms. He does work with the youth in the church, a buddy of mine took him to lunch and they talked...the next day he moved in with his Mom.

 

Sometimes you have to do what the bible teaches.

 

1st Corinthians 5:9 Avoid people who ingage in Sexual sin.

 

6:13 Body not made for sexual immorality.

 

2nd Samual 11 David/Bathsheba

 

Colossians 3:5 Keep clear of Sexual sin.

 

Romans 13:13 No immoral living.

 

!st Corinthinans 10:8 Sexual immorality brings judgement.

"Condemned to hell"...So does she lose her salvation?

 

She mentions a personal relationship with Jesus and "he knows my heart".

 

Whats the story on the dude?

 

I know of a young couple who is planning on getting married, but he moved in with her because the lease was up on his apartment. They stay in seperate bedrooms. He does work with the youth in the church, a buddy of mine took him to lunch and they talked...the next day he moved in with his Mom.

 

Sometimes you have to do what the bible teaches.

 

1st Corinthians 5:9 Avoid people who ingage in Sexual sin.

 

6:13 Body not made for sexual immorality.

 

2nd Samual 11 David/Bathsheba

 

Colossians 3:5 Keep clear of Sexual sin.

 

Romans 13:13 No immoral living.

 

!st Corinthinans 10:8 Sexual immorality brings judgement.

 

All stipulated.

 

Now convince me the church has the right to publicly confront her in front of the entire church body for her actions.

 

And then explain to me the pastor's statements concerning their need to "punish" the lady.

All stipulated.

 

Now convince me the church has the right to publicly confront her in front of the entire church body for her actions.

 

And then explain to me the pastor's statements concerning their need to "punish" the lady.

 

The pastor of her church issued a no comment. So, he did not say that.

 

The comment you are referring to was a faceless comment that the reporter indicated unknown, unnamed pastors of other churches said.

 

So,

1) the pastor in question say nothing about punishing

2) who knows if any other pastors really said that because none are quoted but rather it is a statement that the reporter made that others supposedly said and never quotes them actually saying that.

The pastor of her church issued a no comment. So, he did not say that.

 

The comment you are referring to was a faceless comment that the reporter indicated unknown, unnamed pastors of other churches said.

 

So,

1) the pastor in question say nothing about punishing

2) who knows if any other pastors really said that because none are quoted but rather it is a statement that the reporter made that others supposedly said and never quotes them actually saying that.

 

Well, I'm just going to assume for now that Channel 4 didn't fabricate interviews with other pastors and make up such comments. Pretty big leap you're taking there.

 

So here's exactly what the story said:

 

Pastors with whom Channel 4 spoke on Monday said announcing a sin to a congregation is not abnormal. They said it's written in the Bible to punish sinners who continue to sin.

 

The difference in Hancock's case is that she has left the church, and the pastors said that's is usually where punishment ends.

 

So explain the pastors' statements that seem to imply that it is their or the church's right/responsibility to "punish sinners who continue to sin" and to decide the point at which "punishment ends."

 

We're all sinners. We call "continue to sin" every day. Therefore it would be hypocritical for anyone within the church to take the role of "punishing" someone else for their sins. The goal of publicly confronting someone before the church if you have been personally sinned against by the person is not one of "punishment", but of trying to improve that person's character and restore your relationship with them and their relationship with God. Probably best if we leave the role of punishing/disciplining to God.

LBBC- We are to live like Jesus but I do not think that we have the ability (like God) to judge correctly at all times, which is why I think the public route is unacceptable. I think it is best to confront in private rather than in public.

 

If the sinning continued, I'd continue to do it in a private way. We can't objectively judge sins like God, but there is one thing that we absolutely can do to be like God- give love and forgiveness, with no conditions asked. Think about it this way- do you do the right thing to please God or to avoid Hell? I do what is right because it is right, not because I am afraid of punishment. Similarly, if unabounding forgiveness and concern does not help, then I can't imagine punishment helping more. Even if the private way does not seem to work, I still wouldn't go public with it. I don't understand why someone would respond positively to humiliation but not to love and support. Even if they changed their ways after being humiliated, are they even turning from sin for the right reasons? No, they are just doing it to avoid being embarrassed.

LBBC- We are to live like Jesus but I do not think that we have the ability (like God) to judge correctly at all times, which is why I think the public route is unacceptable. I think it is best to confront in private rather than in public.

 

If the sinning continued, I'd continue to do it in a private way. We can't objectively judge sins like God, but there is one thing that we absolutely can do to be like God- give love and forgiveness, with no conditions asked. Think about it this way- do you do the right thing to please God or to avoid Hell? I do what is right because it is right, not because I am afraid of punishment. Similarly, if unabounding forgiveness and concern does not help, then I can't imagine punishment helping more. Even if the private way does not seem to work, I still wouldn't go public with it. I don't understand why someone would respond positively to humiliation but not to love and support. Even if they changed their ways after being humiliated, are they even turning from sin for the right reasons? No, they are just doing it to avoid being embarrassed.

 

And I have continually said you are right that it should be done privately.

 

And in this case based on reading between the lines of the story, it seems that WAS DONE!!!!!!!!

 

And she rejected it and the church feeling that her salvation might be endangered, assuming they believe you can lose your salvation, went to the next step.

 

If they simply let her leave with no further statement what does that say to HER children and other youth on the importance of repenting from sin?

 

As long as you are not a member of our church and tithing, we don't care if your eternal soul is in danger or not? What an unloving church that would be.

Well, I'm just going to assume for now that Channel 4 didn't fabricate interviews with other pastors and make up such comments. Pretty big leap you're taking there.

 

So here's exactly what the story said:

 

Pastors with whom Channel 4 spoke on Monday said announcing a sin to a congregation is not abnormal. They said it's written in the Bible to punish sinners who continue to sin.

 

The difference in Hancock's case is that she has left the church, and the pastors said that's is usually where punishment ends.

 

So explain the pastors' statements that seem to imply that it is their or the church's right/responsibility to "punish sinners who continue to sin" and to decide the point at which "punishment ends."

 

We're all sinners. We call "continue to sin" every day. Therefore it would be hypocritical for anyone within the church to take the role of "punishing" someone else for their sins. The goal of publicly confronting someone before the church if you have been personally sinned against by the person is not one of "punishment", but of trying to improve that person's character and restore your relationship with them and their relationship with God. Probably best if we leave the role of punishing/disciplining to God.

 

The term you are objecting to is not directly quoted to any pastor but a word choice from the reporter. We don't know that the pastors didn't say that the church has the right to publically call out the sinner for their actions and even kick them out of the church and the reporter views that as punishment so the reporter used the term punishment.

:thumb::thumb: You have made some very good points. We all fall short, so why point out one's sins over anothers?:confused: Sin is sin and one is no bigger than the other.

 

Amen! I personally would never be part of a group that believes this way or acts in this way. Humiliation will not bring someone to repent.

Amen! I personally would never be part of a group that believes this way or acts in this way. Humiliation will not bring someone to repent.

 

So, Jesus was wrong when he took whips and beat the moneychangers in the temple????

 

Notice the question marks because I am asking and not implying you said that.

The BIG difference is...we are not Jesus.

 

Where does it say Jesus took "whips" to the moneychangers in the temple? In the several different versions I have of the bible...he overturned their tables and said that his house should be a place of prayer not commerce.

Ladies, Jesus beat them with a whip? He did use a whip, but that was to drive the animals from the Temple, I don't think he "beat" anyone.

 

All four Gospels give an account of this with Mark/John having more detail.