DescentBB

It was not my desire to start a whole topic on this subject, but in the interest of not further cluttering the source topic, here it is. If you have no respect for the Bible, kindly move along to a topic that does interest you. Thanks.

Kilarin wrote:The Church is a place for sinners. EVERYONE THERE is a sinner. None worse than any other. A Christian church that is truly operating in the Spirit of Christ should be actively out searching for homosexuals and inviting them to come and fellowship with them. Christ said "They that are whole need not a physician; but they that are sick" And Christian Doctrine declares that we are all deathly ill with sin, and in desperate need of the same cure. Christ.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:I intend to reply more to earlier statements in this topic, when I get a chance, but I just wanted to deal with something:

Kilarin wrote:The Church is a place for sinners. EVERYONE THERE is a sinner. None worse than any other. A Christian church that is truly operating in the Spirit of Christ should be actively out searching for homosexuals and inviting them to come and fellowship with them. Christ said "They that are whole need not a physician; but they that are sick" And Christian Doctrine declares that we are all deathly ill with sin, and in desperate need of the same cure. Christ.

Now hold on, there. You don't find what you're saying in the Bible. The church is a place for saints (Note: the Catholic church departed from the Biblical meaning of the word "saint," and invented a new definition), not dead sinners.

Acts 2:47b wrote:And the Lord added to the church daily those who were being saved.

I think it's pretty clear in scripture that people who are dead in sins are to have the gospel preached to them, not to be fellowshipped with.

2 Corinthians 6:14b wrote:For what fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness? And what communion has light with darkness?

You could bring up the verse in 1 Corinthians 14:24, but that doesn't negate the whole purpose of the assembly of the saints--the church--which is to build up the believers, not to be a venue for indirect conversion. A church that is "truly operating in the Spirit of Christ" is not going to conduct themselves contrary to His design for the church.

I'd suggest you also read 1 Cor 5, whenever you look into what I'm saying.

Kilarin wrote:

Sergeant Thorne wrote:

Kilarin wrote:The Church is a place for sinners. EVERYONE THERE is a sinner.

Now hold on, there. You don't find what you're saying in the Bible.

Yes you do.

Mt 9:10-13 And it came to pass, as Jesus sat at meat in the house, behold, many publicans and sinners came and sat down with him and his disciples. And when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto his disciples, Why eateth your Master with publicans and sinners? But when Jesus heard that, he said unto them, They that be whole need not a physician, but they that are sick. But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:I think it's pretty clear in scripture that people who are dead in sins are to have the gospel preached to them, not to be fellowshipped with.

You will note that the exact complaint that the Pharisees are making in the above text is that Christ is fellowshiping with these sinners.

But we can take it further. Who composed Christ's "church" while He was here on earth? Obviously we could debate about the multitudes, but certainly the 12 disciples would qualify?

And yet, ALL of them were guilty of persistent, repeated, known sin. Pride.
Mark 9:33-34 And he came to Capernaum: and being in the house he asked them, What was it that ye disputed among yourselves by the way? But they held their peace: for by the way they had disputed among themselves, who should be the greatest.

And note that the above makes it abundantly clear that they are not only guilty of pride, but are well aware that it is a sin, otherwise they would not have been ashamed and resisted telling Christ what they were doing. And these were not just people Christ was preaching to, but were CLEARLY those he fellowshiped with on a regular basis. And let's not forget, that right up until the last minute, Judas was among those twelve. He wasn't thrown out. He left.

Everyone in the Church is a sinner
1 Jn 1:8-10 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

Now then, that said, you are absolutely correct that church discipline has it's place, as 1 Cor 5 makes clear. A wise person in my church once told me: "We have very low standards for fellowship, anyone is welcome to come here and hear to word of the Lord, just so long as they are not disruptive. We have higher standards for membership, and the very highest standards of all for those who hold office"

This issue was addressed in the sermon I listened to just this Sabbath. The preacher said that the church is a HOSPITAL for sin, not a hospice. A hospice is a place you go to be made comfortable while you die. A hospital is a place you go to get well. The church should absolutely welcome sinners, that is what it is THERE for. But it is NOT to tell them that sin is ok.

Foil wrote:

Sergeant Thorne wrote:I think it's pretty clear in scripture that people who are dead in sins are... not to be fellowshipped with.

Where are you getting this, Thorne? It certainly can't be from the example of Christ.

Christ not only spent significant time with sinners and unbelievers (prostitutes, convicts, tax collectors, the hyprocritical pharisees, and others), he even spent time with the culturally 'untouchable' (women, children, the sick, crippled, even lepers)!

The idea that "the Church is only for believers" is completely backwards from what Christ said:

Matthew 9:13, echoed in Mark 2:17 and Luke 5:32 wrote:...I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.

As Kilarin pointed out, you're quite right that the I Corinthians verses you mentioned speak to the importance of church discipline, but to turn that into a policy of church exclusiveness runs contrary to the compassionate nature of God we see in Christ.

------------------

Back to the subject:

From my experience (ask me, I'll tell you a couple of stories), the Christian church has often done a horrible job of being Christ-like when it comes to how it treats homosexual people. Rather than being open-armed as Jesus was, the church has nearly always alienated them.

Kilarin wrote:Yes you do.

Mt 9:10-13 And it came to pass, as Jesus sat at meat in the house, behold, many publicans and sinners came and sat down with him and his disciples. And when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto his disciples, Why eateth your Master with publicans and sinners? But when Jesus heard that, he said unto them, They that be whole need not a physician, but they that are sick. But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.

Kilarin wrote:You will note that the exact complaint that the Pharisees are making in the above text is that Christ is fellowshiping with these sinners.

You fail to understand what fellowship is. Grab yourself a Webster's. You quoted it yourself: "for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance." They accused him of fellowshipping, basically, but what he was doing was calling them to repentance and teaching them.

Foil, in failing to recognize just what the "church" (the assembly of the saints) is, and using the word "church" when you're speaking of Christianity as a whole, you end up accusing me of asserting that only saints can be believers, which is just silly.

I'm not talking down to either of you. I realize that this is almost certainly a completely foreign concept to you, as it has been to any church I've ever visited, but I believe it is definitely supported by scripture, and scriptural accounts of the early churches.

Notice that to defeat my point, you had to go back before any mention of the church, and you misconstrued the actions of Jesus as patterns for fellowship. The Bible says that the church is Jesus's body. How then could Jesus himself be a member of a church? Could he be a member of his own body? The Bible never even suggests a parallel between Jesus's gatherings and the church, so I'd sure like to know where you got it (for the record, no one ever taught me that it necessarily wasn't, it just doesn't fit). Not only that, but you seemed to just ignore 2 Corinthians 6:14b. That in itself totally dismisses the notion of fellowshipping with people who haven't turned to the Lord. There would be no fellowship! The question you need to ask yourselves is, can you find any scriptures that support using the assembly of the saints as a conversion center, or the assembly being a mix of saints and sinners? It seems to me that the saints were always sent out to minister.

1 [color=lime]John[/color] 1:7 wrote:But if we walk in the light as He is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanses us from all sin.

And again, because there is no getting around it.

2 Corinthians 6:14b wrote:For what fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness? And what communion has light with darkness?

Your both right,
Since we are all sinners and missed the mark in God's eyes, Kilarin is correct, everyone who attends Church is a sinner,
but since anyone that has accepted Christ as their Savior is a Saint and without sin before God's eyes. so you are Correct
unfortunatelly not everyone that attends Church falls into the later catagory. so this bring us a point. if we are not to \"Fellowship\" with sinners do we kick out the people that attend church and have not made that commitment to Christ???

Sergeant Thorne wrote:Foil, in failing to recognize just what the "church" (the assembly of the saints) is, and using the word "church" when you're speaking of Christianity as a whole, you end up accusing me of asserting that only saints can be believers, which is just silly.

If you want to make more precise distinctions than my usage of the term, that's fine. When referring to Christianity as a whole, I can certainly use a different term.

But don't put words in my mouth.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:And again, because there is no getting around it.

2 Corinthians 6:14b wrote:For what fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness? And what communion has light with darkness?

Please, let's look at the whole passage. In the latter portion of II Corinthians 6 through the first verse of chapter 7, Paul is encouraging the readers to essentially keep themselves pure, by not "yoking together" (an analogy referring to farm animals harnessed together) with unbelievers.

Paul is right, of course. As Christians, we should not be "yoked together" with unbelievers in a situation which would allow us to be dragged down. Apparently, this level of closeness is what you are referring to with the term "fellowship".

--------------

However, that kind of relationship was not what I was getting at in my post quoted above. I was responding to statements that essentially implied "Christians and churches should avoid sinners", which is clearly a very un-Christ-like sentiment that goes directly against Christ's teaching and example. Unfortunately, it's a very common sentiment among Christians, and has resulted in more than a few people I know being completely alienated from our faith.

Honestly, reading the way you defend your precise definition of "fellowship" as rationale for a policy of exclusiveness, with very little mention of ministry... it reminds me of the way some people I know were pushed away from Christianity. And that bothers me. A lot.

CUDA wrote:... unfortunatelly not everyone that attends Church falls into the later catagory. so this bring us a point. if we are not to "Fellowship" with sinners do we kick out the people that attend church and have not made that commitment to Christ???

I wouldn't endeavor to suggest anything beyond what I know, which, at this point, I wouldn't claim to be any more than just what the Bible says (not that I would expect to have knowledge beyond the Bible, but rather further understanding and experience in things that are already touched on in the Bible) I know that by and large the "Christian" churches aren't even close to the pattern given to us in the New Testament, and I owe that insight to my Dad, and not without study on my part.

Honestly, unless I were the leader of a church, I wouldn't even venture to speculate on what should be done, because I don't think that's something that should be done purely on our own understanding. Though the scriptures certainly serve as a guide not to be deviated from.

However, if, by any slight chance, your point is that things cannot be done according to the pattern set forth in the Bible because the consequences would be too troublesome or unthinkable, you will have gotten my dander up.

Just to point out, your title is misinformed. Even the saints were sinners.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:

CUDA wrote:if we are not to "Fellowship" with sinners do we kick out the people that attend church and have not made that commitment to Christ???

I wouldn't endeavor to suggest anything beyond what I know, which, at this point, I wouldn't claim to be any more than just what the Bible says (not that I would expect to have knowledge beyond the Bible, but rather further understanding and experience in things that are already touched on in the Bible)

That's an easy one. The "pattern set forth in the Bible" (as you put it) from Christ, the early church, and the apostles is one of inclusiveness and growth.

In Christ's time as man, he included the most marginalized outsiders and sinners in his ministry. Lepers, murderers, prostitutes, women, children... even Samaritans and Romans were welcomed into his kingdom.

In the early church, the example over and over and over is of expansion to bring in not only the Jews, but to the unbelieving sinning Gentiles as well.

In the example we have of Paul and the other apostles, look at who they are writing to! In large part, the readers are Gentile congregations, outsiders!

Yes, there are places where Paul talks of getting disruptive and evil people out of a congregation, and that's important. But by and large, the refrain heard over and over and over and over in the New Testament is one of inclusiveness. Christ himself said he came for the outsiders; even the "Great Commission" is to outsiders and sinners!


...So why do so many churches close their doors and stained-glass windows to anyone who doesn't fit "the profile"?

Alter-Fox wrote:Even the saints were sinners.

Yep. If the church were comprised of "only the saints who were never sinners", it would be a group of zero.

Foil wrote:

Sergeant Thorne wrote:Foil, in failing to recognize just what the "church" (the assembly of the saints) is, and using the word "church" when you're speaking of Christianity as a whole, you end up accusing me of asserting that only saints can be believers, which is just silly.

If you want to make more precise distinctions than my usage of the term, that's fine. When referring to Christianity as a whole, I can certainly use a different term.

But don't put words in my mouth.

You were arguing against what I said about the church by quoting what Jesus said about the lost sheep of Israel--not coming to call the righteous but sinners to repentance. Saying that the church should be a place for not only believers but unbelievers as well, because Jesus did not come to call the righteous but sinners to repentance. You present two parallel ideas as if they're opposing. I started to apologize several times during the writing of this post, but I don't think I was totally wrong (though it was a bold statement). Your argument doesn't make sense unless you start from the assumption that he's speaking of the church, because I see no indication of it. We might say that Jesus gave us an example, to call not the righteous, but sinners to repentance. However, Jesus said "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature." Even if that didn't fallen flat as a pattern, it still fails to address the church. It addresses ministry and you assume that takes place in the church.

Foil wrote:

Sergeant Thorne wrote:And again, because there is no getting around it.

2 Corinthians 6:14b wrote:For what fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness? And what communion has light with darkness?

Please, let's look at the whole passage. In the latter portion of II Corinthians 6 through the first verse of chapter 7, Paul is encouraging the readers to essentially keep themselves pure, by not "yoking together" (an analogy referring to farm animals harnessed together) with unbelievers.

Paul is right, of course. As Christians, we should not be "yoked together" with unbelievers in a situation which would allow us to be dragged down. Apparently, this level of closeness is what you are referring to with the term "fellowship".

Your detailed explanation does not change the fact that this verse sets forth an important truth. The answer to both questions is an obvious "none." Righteousness has no fellowship with lawlessness, and light has no communion with darkness. Which goes along with the conditional statement:

1 John 1:7 wrote:But if we walk in the light as He is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanses us from all sin.

Foil wrote:However, that kind of relationship was not what I was getting at in my post quoted above. I was responding to statements that essentially implied "Christians and churches should avoid sinners", which is clearly a very un-Christ-like sentiment that goes directly against Christ's teaching and example.

The statement was simply that churches should not include sinners. And the definition used here, of a sinner, is someone who has not repented and believed in Jesus Christ as the son of God. The Bible says that "all have sinned," but it calls believers saints, not sinners.

Foil wrote:Unfortunately, it's a very common sentiment among Christians, and has resulted in more than a few people I know being completely alienated from our faith.

Based on a lot of the things I've read, I believe that "our" faith has only labels in common.

Foil wrote:Honestly, reading the way you defend your precise definition of "fellowship" as rationale for a policy of exclusiveness, with very little mention of ministry... it reminds me of the way some people I know were pushed away from Christianity. And that bothers me. A lot.

Why should it bother you that there is very little mention of ministry? I would say the Bible mentions it plenty. That would be the obvious, Biblical alternative to the modern idea of inviting the sinners into the church: to go out to them. I'm not at all suggesting that saints separate themselves from sinners, or that saints were not themselves sinners. Only that there can be no fellowship between believers and unbelievers in the church of the living God. And, also, I believe it would be harmful:

1 Cor 5 wrote:6 ... Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump?

Foil wrote:That's an easy one. The "pattern set forth in the Bible" (as you put it) from Christ, the early church, and the apostles is one of inclusiveness and growth.

In Christ's time as man, he included the most marginalized outsiders and sinners in his ministry. Lepers, murderers, prostitutes, women, children... even Samaritans and Romans were welcomed into his kingdom.

In the early church, the example over and over and over is of expansion to bring in not only the Jews, but to the unbelieving sinning Gentiles as well.

In the example we have of Paul and the other apostles, look at who they are writing to! In large part, the readers are Gentile congregations, outsiders!

Yes, there are places where Paul talks of getting disruptive and evil people out of a congregation, and that's important. But by and large, the refrain heard over and over and over and over in the New Testament is one of inclusiveness. Christ himself said he came for the outsiders; even the "Great Commission" is to outsiders and sinners!


...So why do so many churches close their doors and stained-glass windows to anyone who doesn't fit "the profile"?

You have missed the most important part. Repentance. The inclusion is conditional on that one thing alone. The gospel is to be preached to all people, but only those who repent and believe in Jesus Christ are saints and saved.

Luke 24:47 wrote:"and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

Mark 16 wrote:15 And He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. 16 "He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.

Alter-Fox wrote:Just to point out, your title is misinformed. Even the saints were sinners.

The Bible makes a distinction between saints and sinners, not forgetting that "all have sinned," (Romans 3:23) and "If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us." (1 John 1:8)

1 John 3:5 wrote: And you know that He was manifested to take away our sins, and in Him there is no sin.

All of that theological training, and no mention of repentance or faith... What good has it done you? Without those two elements, it's not the gospel of Jesus Christ at all.

Thorne, I think your failing to make the distinction between our earthly Body and our Heavenly body. our earthly body sins every day, that is why we are told if we confess our sins he will be faithful and just to forgive us. this is why we regularly have communion to bring our sins before God to be wiped clean. our whole point as a believer is to go forth and make disciples, how can we make new disciples if we do nothing but spend time with other disciples.

░

Thorne,


We agree on the following (I'm following your terminology here):

- Believers are cautioned against \"fellowship\" with unbelievers (II Corinthians 6, etc.)
- Inclusion into the faith is dependent on repentance
- The Kingdom of God is for everyone, \"sinners\" and \"saints\" alike


Where we disagree is the orientation of the church/believers to outsiders/sinners.

Unless I misunderstand, from what you have said, you believe there is a mutually exclusive dichotomy between the arena of the church and the arena of ministry. In other words, you believe the church is solely for the saved (the \"saints\"), sinners don't belong, and the saints should \"go out\" to evangelize rather than \"bringing in\" the outsiders.


Let me see if I can concisely clarify the issue I have with that view:

That attitude toward outsiders seems to be nothing less than \"Keep them at arm's-length unless they're saved\".

Why is that view wrong? Because it runs completely contrary to the compassionate and open-armed nature of God that we see in Christ.


I'm sorry, but that's the attitude I see in your posts, Thorne. From the beginning of the discussion about this topic, your intent has been to demonstrate a reason why to avoid non-Christians.

When I tried to make a point about the example of Christ versus my experience with Christians who treated outsiders and sinners with disdain, you jumped on my terminology.

When I tried to make a point about the inclusive nature of the examples of Christ and the early church, you attacked me by saying I wasn't clear enough about the requirements for inclusion (which we agree on, by the way).

Thus, my impression is that for whatever reason, you have the idea that Christians should avoid outsiders in every situation, with the possible exception of preaching to them. Maybe this impression is incorrect, but I'd venture to guess that I'm pretty close.

... And that's the perspective I'm trying to say is flawed. When you focus on the warnings against fellowship with unbelievers, to the extent that nearly anything but strict evangelism is acceptable, you have not only alienated those unbelievers, you are treating them completely opposite to the way Christ did.

Foil wrote:- The Kingdom of God is for everyone, "sinners" and "saints" alike

I think that's kind of a funny distinction. "Saints," as the Bible uses the term, are not exemplary Christians--super-Christians: they are Christians. But if you're saying that the kingdom of God is for people who are converted, and for people who aren't converted if they become converted, why even bother saying that? Why not just say that the kingdom of God is for people who are converted? Then it's obvious that if those who are not converted become converted... they are converted.

I can't help but wonder if some terms aren't being misapplied, in all of this. Sort of generalized.

Absolutely as simply as possible:
What is the kingdom of God?
What is the Church?
What is Christianity?
What is a sinner?
What is a saint?
Extra points for scriptural references to every facet of your definition, since the Bible is the only authority.

Foil wrote:That attitude toward outsiders seems to be nothing less than "Keep them at arm's-length unless they're saved".

This is simply not so.

Foil wrote:I'm sorry, but that's the attitude I see in your posts, Thorne. From the beginning of the discussion about this topic, your intent has been to demonstrate a reason why to avoid non-Christians.

Strike 2.

Foil wrote:Thus, my impression is that for whatever reason, you have the idea that Christians should avoid outsiders in every situation, with the possible exception of preaching to them. Maybe this impression is incorrect, but I'd venture to guess that I'm pretty close.

A great deal of your conclusions seem to be results of assumptions about my position made along the way, rather than things I've said. For instance, where did you get, "possibly"? Where did you get, "avoid outsiders in every situation"? You're arguing against your impressions instead of what I'm trying to convey.

Do you realize that all anyone on this BB has to do to convince me of anything about the Bible is to show it to me? You don't have to write a thesis. You don't have to corner me. The word of God is good enough for me. I don't have any investment in these things except, as a believer, to conform to the word of God.

And if I quote one part of the Bible, don't automatically assume I'm ignoring another part (but feel free to mention it).

Sergeant Thorne wrote:

Foil wrote:- The Kingdom of God is for everyone, "sinners" and "saints" alike

I think that's kind of a funny distinction. "Saints," as the Bible uses the term...

Why are you still quibbling about terminology? I believe the point of the phrase "saints and sinners" (i.e. everyone) is pretty darn clear.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:I can't help but wonder if some terms aren't being misapplied, in all of this. Sort of generalized.

Absolutely as simply as possible:
What is the kingdom of God?
What is the Church?
What is Christianity?
What is a sinner?
What is a saint?
Extra points for scriptural references to every facet of your definition, since the Bible is the only authority.

(Sigh) You seem so over-zealous about the terminology I'm using, that it seems you're ignoring my point. Yes, semantics are admittedly very important in a deep debate, but in a relatively simple discussion like this, I think we can understand each other without a "reference of definitions".

Sergeant Thorne wrote:

Foil wrote:That attitude toward outsiders seems to be nothing less than "Keep them at arm's-length unless they're saved".

This is simply not so.

Foil wrote:I'm sorry, but that's the attitude I see in your posts, Thorne. From the beginning of the discussion about this topic, your intent has been to demonstrate a reason why to avoid non-Christians.

Strike 2.
...assumptions about my position made along the way, rather than things I've said.

Then accept my apologies, because to me it seemed very clear that your intent was to argue against any relationship other than evangelism between Christians and non-Christians.

So, since my impression was wrong, allow me to pose a scenario to make sure I understand your position:

John is not a Christian, but for various reasons (the influence of Christians in his life, the working of God on his heart, whatever the case) he is considering giving his life to Christ. He has begun to acquaint himself and spend time with a local congregation of Christians.

How should John be treated by the congregation?
(You seem to be very concerned about "fellowship" only happening between believers, so I'm very curious to know how you think a believer should treat John.)

Foil wrote:You seem to be very concerned about "fellowship" only happening between believers

You know, that seems to be part of the misconception. I have no reason to be, at the moment. I'm not part of a church. It doesn't effect me. To say I'm concerned could give the wrong impression. Only, when I saw the original statement by Kilarin, it was immediately apparent to me that it was contrary to scripture. Thus the argument. Not because it's a pet peeve, or a personal vendetta.

As for the terminology, take my word for it, there's a misunderstanding there, and it's evidenced by the fact that you maintain that "saint"="sinner". An understanding of the terminology is central to even a basic discussion, because without it you get people thinking that when I make a difference between saints and sinners (it's not me, but the Bible that makes a difference) I'm saying that saints have no sin. But don't just take my word for it, take my challenge on the definitions.

To answer your scenario (a thing I don't like to do, because of it's hypothetical nature), for the sake of understanding, I would say that, in my judgment, when "John" comes to the church he should have the gospel--the whole gospel--preached to him then and there.

Acts 16 wrote:29 Then he called for a light, ran in, and fell down trembling before Paul and Silas. 30 And he brought them out and said, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?" 31 So they said, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household." 32 Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. 33 And he took them the same hour of the night and washed [their] stripes. And immediately he and all his family were baptized. 34 Now when he had brought them into his house, he set food before them; and he rejoiced, having believed in God with all his household.

(Paul must have forgotten to mention the part about receiving Jesus into their hearts)

Most churches that I know of don't even know the whole gospel.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:As for the terminology, take my word for it, there's a misunderstanding there, and it's evidenced by the fact that you maintain that "saint"="sinner".

No. I don't.

I've used the well-known and well-understood phrase "saints and sinners" when referring to everyone, and I've echoed the point made by others that everyone has sinned, but I certainly don't equate "saint" (a converted Christian, imperfect but redeemed through grace) and "sinner" (a non-believer, maybe a decent person, but unsaved).

I hope you'll stop putting words in my mouth at some point.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:To answer your scenario (a thing I don't like to do, because of it's hypothetical nature), for the sake of understanding, I would say that, in my judgment, when "John" comes to the church he should have the gospel--the whole gospel--preached to him then and there.

Okay, but that still doesn't really answer my question. I am trying to understand at what point your definition of believers-only "fellowship" would require a Christian to turn away a non-Christian like John.

So, allow me to continue and be more specific with the scenario... John has had the gospel preached to him, and he is considering it. He wants to know more about scripture, and asks to come along to a Bible-study.

Does your definition of "fellowship" require that John be told he can't go?

Foil wrote:No. I don't.

I've used the well-known and well-understood phrase "saints and sinners" when referring to everyone, and I've echoed the point made by others that everyone has sinned, but I certainly don't equate "saint" (a converted Christian, imperfect but redeemed through grace) and "sinner" (a non-believer, maybe a decent person, but unsaved).

I hope you'll stop putting words in my mouth at some point.

Ok. That was my mistake. I'm sorry.


Well, at this point I would suggest that whoever has preached the gospel to John hasn't done so with adequate "ability" (1 Peter 4:11). Another problem with your scenario, is that you seem to consider conversion to be largely a mental thing ("he is considering it", "He wants to know more about scripture"). But the Apostle Paul says:

1 Cor 1:17 wrote:For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of no effect.

and

1 Cor 2 wrote: 2 For I determined not to know anything among you except Jesus Christ and Him crucified. 3 I was with you in weakness, in fear, and in much trembling. 4 And my speech and my preaching [were] not with persuasive words of human wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, 5 that your faith should not be in the wisdom of men but in the power of God.

Maybe John should consider joining a club, rather than "considering" whether or not to accept the salvation purchased with God's own blood.

I'm with Foil on this. And I'll add few more points and questions of my own.

Sergeant Thorn wrote:Only, when I saw the original statement by Kilarin, it was immediately apparent to me that it was contrary to scripture
...
there's a misunderstanding there, and it's evidenced by the fact that you maintain that "saint"="sinner"

1 Jn 1:8-10 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

From the above, any "saint" who claims they are not sinners is a liar.

You object to using Jesus and his Disciples as an example because they were not yet members of a "Christian" church. I find that really odd, but we can work around that. Paul was definitely a member of the Christian Church. One of the primary founders. So wouldn't he qualify as a saint?

1 Tim 1:15 This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.

Saint's are just sinners who have been forgiven. And still have to BE forgiven, over and over and over.

Sergeant Thorn wrote:I would say that, in my judgment, when "John" comes to the church he should have the gospel--the whole gospel--preached to him then and there.

Oh, I absolutely agree. The church is a HOSPITAL for sinners, not a hospice. But I have the same question that Foil does. Suppose John hears the message, and does not accept all of it, but still wants to attend church and listen. Do you throw him out?

To give a very real life example, in my church, smoking is a big no-no. Same as in yours I suspect. Yet there are sometimes people who attend my church who stink of tobacco. People who slip out between Sabbath school and church to take a drag on a cigarette. And we are GLAD they are there.

No, they aren't members. And yes, the smoking would have to go before they could become members. And the church is quite prepared to assist them with that nightmare if they choose to give up the cigs. But in the meantime, until they make that decision, we not only welcome them to attend and fellowship with us, we actively invite and beg them to come and join us. If they stop showing up, someone goes out to visit them and ask them back. No one tells them that smoking is ok. We don't nag, because they already know what we believe, but also, the preacher isn't going to stop preaching that smoking is bad in his sermons just because a smoker is in attendance.

Now I'm only using smoking as an example, it could be any particular doctrine of your church. If someone is willing to listen, why on EARTH would you not want them to fellowship with you? Inviting them in is a direct BIBLICAL principle.

[edit]
Sorry, your post came in while I was spell checking mine

Sergent Thorn wrote:Maybe John should consider joining a club, rather than "considering" whether or not to accept the salvation purchased with God's own blood

So, to be absolutely clear, you ARE saying that you think anyone who does not accept the entire gospel and doctrine of your church should be forbidden to attend?

Sergeant Thorne wrote:Maybe John should consider joining a club, rather than "considering" whether or not to accept the salvation purchased with God's own blood.

WOW so let me get this right! your telling the Unbeliever Submit or get the hell out, because we don't want to have anything to do with your kind, we don't care if you goto hell, we gave you your one and only shot and you blew it.

just a weeee bit harsh don't ya think? not to mention TOTALLY against Christs teachings

Matthew 5:47 wrote:And if you greet only your brethren, what more than others are you doing? Do not even the Gentiles (the heathen) do that?

this seems to be your approach Thorne

CUDA wrote:

Sergeant Thorne wrote:Maybe John should consider joining a club, rather than "considering" whether or not to accept the salvation purchased with God's own blood.

WOW so let me get this right! your telling the Unbeliever Submit or get the hell out, because we don't want to have anything to do with your kind, we don't care if you goto hell, we gave you your one and only shot and you blew it.

I don't think he's saying that, but he still seems to be dodging my question: will "John" be welcomed, or treated as an outsider, or something in between?

seems to me like he did answer your question.

John we have no room for you at the Inn, we are not a loving group of people here at this Church, We gave you your shot but you couldn't make up your mind fast enough for our liking. So the Grace, Forgiveness, Patience and the Love that our Lord Jesus Christ has repeatedly offered us we do not extend to you. bring lots of sunscreen at your next \"club\" and have a nice day.

Kilarin wrote:To give a very real life example, in my church, smoking is a big no-no. Same as in yours I suspect. Yet there are sometimes people who attend my church who stink of tobacco. People who slip out between Sabbath school and church to take a drag on a cigarette. And we are GLAD they are there.

No, they aren't members. And yes, the smoking would have to go before they could become members. And the church is quite prepared to assist them with that nightmare if they choose to give up the cigs. But in the meantime, until they make that decision, we not only welcome them to attend and fellowship with us, we actively invite and beg them to come and join us. If they stop showing up, someone goes out to visit them and ask them back. No one tells them that smoking is ok. We don't nag, because they already know what we believe, but also, the preacher isn't going to stop preaching that smoking is bad in his sermons just because a smoker is in attendance.

Now I'm only using smoking as an example, it could be any particular doctrine of your church. If someone is willing to listen, why on EARTH would you not want them to fellowship with you? Inviting them in is a direct BIBLICAL principle.

Thorne, before you react to Kilarin's use of the term "fellowship", please note that he is using it to describe the kind of welcoming compassionate relationship Christ had with outsiders, not the definition you're using for the relationship between believers (which I assume comes from the original Greek "koinonia").

Kilarin's example is an excellent one, and points directly to the way Christ treated even the most marginalized and sinful folk who wanted to be close to Him. Meanwhile, those with your perspective stand aside and complain... does sound like any characters in the gospels to you?

1 Jn 1:8-10 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

From the above, any \"saint\" who claims they are not sinners is a liar.

I take issue with this and consider it untrue, although it's common theology.

This is talking about a one time deal. It says ALL unrighteousness. Present past and future. We were sinners but are no longer. We were condemned, but have been pardoned. We are not on parole. Yes we stumble but we are no longer living in our sins. Or rather shouldn't be. If you ARE then you need a reality check with your relationship with God. If we say we are continuing as sinner, we negate the work of the cross. (pardon my christianese) We are not sinners with a hall pass! We are NEW CREATIONS. The old has passed away and all things are made new. (remember that one?) that means we are no longer \"sinners\". It doesn't mean we are immune from temptation.

Duper wrote:We are not sinners with a hall pass! We are NEW CREATIONS. The old has passed away and all things are made new.

I agree, absolutely, and we may just be having a problem with semantics.

Let me clarify. When I say that Saints are Sinners, I mean that even after we are forgiven, we will still have times when we fall. Christ is in us, changing us, improving us, all the time, but not even Paul reached the point of perfection. Saints are Sinners, not because they continue to live in sin willfully, but because they continue to need forgiveness as Christ works in their lives.

When a converted "saint" sees an unconverted "sinner", they do not think, "Thank goodness I'm better than that person", but "I'm just as bad as they are, thank goodness I'm forgiven and God is changing me!"

Yep. We could certainly go into some deeper discussion of what it means to be freed from sin by grace.

Yes, Duper and Thorne, you are both quite correct to say that while every believer has sinned (Romans 3) and cannot claim the absence of sin (I John 1), we are \"saints\" and no longer \"sinners\" because of grace through Christ. [edit: Thank you for the further clarification about the continuing need for grace, Kilarin.] I believe we can all agree on those points.

... But that's still missing the point of this thread.

The question being posed is basically: \"How should a sinner/outsider be treated by a church congregation - should they be included, or excluded?\"

It appears to me the insistence on making the point that \"saints are not sinners\" is nothing less than an argument for a policy of exclusion in a congregation. (If I'm wrong, show me by giving your answer regarding the \"John the seeker\" scenario above.)

It's that policy of exclusion which bothers me and has me so fired up. Why? Because it directly contradicts everything we see in the compassionate and open-armed nature of God through the direct Biblical examples of Christ, the apostles, and the early church.

The whole point is \"Church, Sinners, Saints or Both\" yes in our Spritual body we are free of sin, but our Earthly bodies are mired in it. while I agree that before God we are clean and without sin, that is not the case while on Earth. we sin everyday. and those that deny sinning are liars, there is a reason for the saying \"Christians aren't perfect just forgiven\". if you confess your sin he will be faithful and just to forgive us

Foil wrote:
It appears to me the insistence on making the point that "saints are not sinners" is nothing less than an argument for a policy of exclusion in a congregation. (If I'm wrong, show me by giving your answer regarding the "John the seeker" scenario above.)

It's that policy of exclusion which bothers me and has me so fired up. Why? Because it directly contradicts everything we see in the compassionate and open-armed nature of God through the direct Biblical examples of Christ, the apostles, and the early church.

+1

there are few things that fire me up more than making a non-believer feel unwelcome before God. I for one do not want to stand before the Lord on judgement day and have him show me where I was responsible for turning someone away from him.

CUDA wrote:The whole point is "Church, Sinners, Saints or Both" yes in our Spritual body we are free of sin, but our Earthly bodies are mired in it. while I agree that before God we are clean and without sin, that is not the case while on Earth. we sin everyday. and those that deny sinning are liars, there is a reason for the saying "Christians aren't perfect just forgiven". if you confess your sin he will be faithful and just to forgive us

Perfect.

(there is a "but" however)

being in this state,we don't concern ourselves with it. That is we don't focus on it as it does not have a hold on us. If our lives are focused on Christ, sin is nothing and is not to be given the time of day so to speak.

Duper wrote: If our lives are focused on Christ, sin is nothing and is not to be given the time of day so to speak.

ok so again back to the Topic question, are there sinners in our Church's or are there just the Saints?

Duper wrote: If our lives are focused on Christ, sin is nothing and is not to be given the time of day so to speak.

So does that imply outsiders/sinners are "not to be given the time of day", either?

If so, that stance runs completely contrary to the example of Christ.

That is not what I'm saying. Come on Foil. You should know that. I'm referring to sin in regards to one's own self. I'm not to judge those who are not covered by Christ's blood. Thus i can't \"reckon them as sin\". That's the Lord's place not mine.

I ride the bus every day to work and have for the last year or so. It's been quite an experience. Among other things, I'm reminded DAILY that everyone on that bus is loved by God and each is deserving the chance to know Christ.... no matter how they are acting or what they look like. My feelings are irrelevant.

Sorry, Duper.

It just seemed that way because I thought you were defending the way Thorne is using the definition of \"sinner\" as an argument for exclusion.

np. quite understandable.I'm going to spend the time this weekend to read through this entire thread more carefully. This is a difficult topic to get one's head around and the teaching we accept often times depends more one our personalities than what we ought to. There are some fine lines and will often times seem like semantics if one is used to seeing things on a broader scale. And that is regularly the case as a broader understanding is easier to swallow or sometimes that's all that's taught.

And also there is the fact that as each of us are different so is our understanding. (just to complicate matters.) While it doesn't always make us wrong, it can cause a bit of a hair ball. If there is one thing I've gleaned from this board over the years, is that most of us are passionate people. We all strongly believe what it is we do believe for whatever reasons there are. Often times I get put out by the constant tail chasing but it doesn't change that most of us are pretty decent people...(who like descent of course) And while I don't commonly announce it here, I actually learn quite a bit from everyone. <yes even you Roid, if you're reading> ... can you tell I've had plenty of sleep? It's like the discussion on being evil the other day.

I know there are things that effect/influence our actions and decisions legitimately, but as I understand it, before God we are still held accountable. Now to a non-believer, this is going to seem horribly unfair, but as a believer I expect it (in relation to myself.. I take no pleasure in someone else's suffering deserved or otherwise). In fact, as believers we can take comfort in Gods judgments as we are safe. He will not go beyond what He says He will do. David points this out to us several times in the Psalms and when he rebelled against God in taking a census. He chose a judgment that harmed the people of Israel as a whole rather than a judgment that solely effected him alone. Why? Because the former put control directly into Gods hands. The other two involved being chased by David's enemies and involved the personage of men. Something not to be trusted in this case.
Paul also elaborates on this topic in the book of Timothy.

God's judgments are perfect; both in mercy and discipline, or even in catastrophe.

CUDA wrote:

Duper wrote: If our lives are focused on Christ, sin is nothing and is not to be given the time of day so to speak.

ok so again back to the Topic question, are there sinners in our Church's or are there just the Saints?

Well.. again, I think it really depends on what you think a Saint and a sinner is. Everyone has their own idea. (as stated in my previous post) but this is the way I understand it.

A saint is nothing more than a person who's life is hidden in Christ's. That is to say he/she is a genuine Christian. This does NOT mean they are "perfect" as the world sees it. You know the stereotypes. It IS someone who earnestly strives to emulate Jesus and his life.
For me, you are a perfect example Cuda. I know you personally (though admittedly not well) and how you are on line. You are not perfect. As neither am I as you well know; but I don't let this blur the fact of who you are in private and your daily spiritual life. You, by definition are a saint. I do not hold to the Catholic definition... but then I wasn't raised in the Catholic church... but neither do I consider them "evil"... but I digress..

A sinner, as I understand it, is someone who's life is controlled by sin; those who's actions and attitudes are apposed to God. In short: those who are not covered by Christ's blood. (that wording is very carefully chosen for reasons I won't go into here).

Soo.. if you mean the Church as God sees it: no. If you mean the church as an organization of people? With out a doubt. I don't think that Thorne was off the mark in calling for a list of definitions. If we don't understand what each is talking about, then there will be little understanding at all.

So I disagree with Kilarin on that premise.

The question, in the literal and strictest sense is an oxymoron. But in the vernacular, I think you laid it out the best Cuda.

before God we are clean and without sin, that is not the case while on Earth. we sin everyday.

We daily do things that are outside of God's precepts but it does not break covenant. As Christians, we are not sinners. To say otherwise would be negating everything we gained in our confession. Paul is pretty clear about this very topic in several areas.

Just wanted to make a comment, aimed at Cuda. I've been kinda busy lately.

Here's where I'm coming from, Cuda. I don't consider myself better than a non-Christian because I'm a Christian. I think in some ways I'm a pretty pathetic Christian, even. The Bible shows that God is absolutely impartial, and for me that just destroys any ideas of elitism. We are saved by grace through faith, and that not of ourselves, it is the gift of God. I don't fancy myself part of some special congregation where we are going to be the real Christians and everyone else is wrong. I stand on level ground with everyone else before the Lord. I do not consider myself to be a shoe-in to heaven. In fact, as I read it, and as I perceive it, the odds are stacked against me.

There is an almost absolutely pervasive tendency to disregard the conditions, the absolutes, and the guidelines set forth in the Bible in favor of concentrating wholey on the more easy and attractive ideas of love, acceptance, and "tolerance", etc. I am a firm believer in the idea that God is not stupid. I don't think he included these specifics in the Bible so that they could be ignored in favor of the more general themes that Jesus spoke on. I think that most everyone is downright careless in regard to salvation and the doctrine of Jesus Christ. People take what they like, and leave what they don't. If that is a person's approach, they don't have the truth. The Bible talks about having a love of the truth. This is my prayer and my aim in life. If I don't end up with anything but the truth, it will have been worth it for me.

My statement regarding John joining a club could be misunderstood to mean that I think John should only have one chance, and it he doesn't take it, then he doesn't deserve it. The Bible demonstrates in Job and elsewhere that it is God's nature to give people numerous warnings and opportunities to turn. My point was that John wasn't taking the gospel seriously enough, and ultimately that is very dangerous. He would be better off rejecting it outright, in my judgment, then entering in half-heartedly. The gospel is life and death; if John doesn't believe this, he certainly won't put up with the many things that the New Testament promises will happen to those who believe. Christianity isn't a beautiful life-style. It's salvation and truth, but it's difficulty and suffering. The Bible tells us to count the cost.

One of my favorite verses--sort of a reality-check--is Psalm 50:21:

Psalm 50:21 wrote: These things you have done, and I kept silent; You thought that I was altogether like you; But I will rebuke you, And set them in order before your eyes.

When will God rebuke? It's a fearful thought, for me, that it may not be until the end.

These are some of the reasons that I am so big on the Bible itself. The degree to which I trust any source regarding Christianity outside of the Bible is the degree to which it agrees with the Bible. I don't trust anything else. And why should I? "Opinions are like ass-holes," but the word of God doesn't change.

If one were to paint a picture, so to speak, of the Christian life and the Christian church based soley/strictly on the descriptions in the Bible, the comparison, when set next to a picture, of today's "Christians" and "churches" would be devastating.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:There is an almost absolutely pervasive tendency to disregard the conditions, the absolutes, and the guidelines set forth in the Bible in favor of concentrating wholey on the more easy and attractive ideas of love, acceptance, and "tolerance", etc.
...
I think that most everyone is downright careless in regard to salvation and the doctrine of Jesus Christ.

If you think I'm coming from an "I'm okay, you're okay, we're all okay, we should all just tolerate and accept everyone" perspective, you're very very wrong.

In my scenario about John, I never said that he was "okay" as a non-believer. He's not, he needs God's grace and salvation. And that's why I still want to know where you stand on whether the congregation should turn him away or not.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:My point was that John wasn't taking the gospel seriously enough, and ultimately that is very dangerous.

I still need you to answer my question, Thorne.

You've questioned whether John was preached the gospel adequately, and you've questioned John's motives and commitment... those are certainly valid questions.

But you still haven't given me an answer on my original question: should the congregation turn John away?

If your answer is "yes", then I have to question your statements about following only the Bible, because what we see in scripture is not only a call to repentance, but example after example after example after example of God's forgiveness and grace.

Foil wrote:If you think I'm coming from an "I'm okay, you're okay, we're all okay" perspective, you're very very wrong.

I don't think I'd say that about you. I make no apology for where the shoe(s) might fit, though.

Foil wrote:... I still want to know where you stand on whether the congregation should turn him away or not.

I don't really have a stance on this. I could think about it some more and give you answer, perhaps. Such judgment is generally something that I like to reserve for real situations, though, since scenarios are subject to imperfect understanding. Recall that the whole discussion started because of the suggestion that Christians should bring unrepentant sinners into the church as a means of evangelization, and particularly homosexuals. It was never about whether or not to let John in. Should John be allowed in? The New Testament seems to suggest that people were not barred from the assembly:

1 Cor 14 wrote:23 Therefore if the whole church comes together in one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in [those who are] uninformed or unbelievers, will they not say that you are out of your mind? 24 But if all prophesy, and an unbeliever or an uninformed person comes in, he is convinced by all, he is convicted by all. 25 And thus the secrets of his heart are revealed; and so, falling down on [his] face, he will worship God and report that God is truly among you.

Nevertheless, as a practice, that is completely other than the examples, patterns, and commands for evangelism presented in the Bible. To depart from these and expect that the end result will be good or genuine is foolish. Are you wiser than the author? Something that is truly according to the spirit of Christ's ministry cannot disagree with the Word of God.

2 Timothy 3 wrote:16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.