Baptism of Married Lesbian

[Gerr]

19 hours ago, CoAspen said:

Gerry, 

Above is what I suggested would be an interesting discussion. But, I did say it would most likly focus on'sexual orientation. Was I not correct? The elephant isn't what the church did, but rather our own attitudes on how others should be treated and what baptism really means. It is not just about homosexuals, but many others as well. Our eyes burn bright with righteous indignation when the subject of homsexual and church come up, but would you be surprised at all the others who have been baptized with sins, according to some, in their lives and still practicing the same? Would it surprise you that in the past people have been rejected for baptism, such as ring wearing, and other 'standards' imposed by humans? So, no, I don't believe the subject should be discussed just because this was about homosexuals, but rather our attitudes.

The elephant IS what the pastor did!  And intertwined with sexual orientation.  What is supposed to be my attitude when a plain "thus says the Lord" is ignored?  Embrace it? Love and redeem the sinner, YES!  But  correct  me if I'm wrong, what I read was baptism of sin and sinner.  Is that what baptism represents?

[Gerr]

18 hours ago, phkrause said:

It seems to me, that even though the article doesn't go into all the specifics, at least in my mind, that the individual must of made some kind of commitment? Otherwise I would think that they would not have baptized her at all? Don't you think?? Because I would think that she will always be a lesbian, just like an alcoholic, for the rest of her life?? I could be wrong! She is not any worse of a sinner than anyone of us!

I could be wrong, but the article seems to indicate that the one baptized was still in active relationship with the partner, otherwise there would be no controversy whatsoever.

[Gregory Matthews]

Gerry the reality is that the full story as to what pastor and church did has not been made public.  You do not know and neither do I.  That is the bottom line.

Further, you do not know exactly what the denominational officials did in response to this incident.

In reality the only thing that we can say is:

An issue of concern was brought to the attention of denominational officials.  The proper people investigated it and took action based upon that investigation.

Anything else that we might say is speculation and potentially incorrect.

 

[Gary K]

12 hours ago, CoAspen said:

Gary K, I said nothing about politics, you are bringing it up, I feel to avoid the matter/subject of what I think is worth talking about. Since you and others don't, start a thread with your thoughts!

To avoid the issue?  The issue is political.  It is used as a battering ram to denigrate Biblical beliefs.  Would I love to see all sinners repent and come to Christ, no matter what their sin?  Of course I do.   I know, and have known, gays and lesbians and never treat them any different than I do anyone else.  But, and this is a big but, I would not see an unrepentant theif baptized into the church.  I would not see an unrepentant bigot baptized into the church.  I would not see an unrepentant pagan baptized into the church.  I would not see an unrepentant liar baptized into the church. Sin needs to be repented of and forsaken before baptism.  There is far too much open sin in the church and that open sin is one of the greatest reasons the church is spiritually weak and enfeebled.  The Bible tells us this and the SOP tell us this. 

Look at what Paul told the Corinthians when they had a member who was sleeping with his father's wife.  He castigated them soundly and told them to get him out of the church, not only for their sake, but for the sinner's sake.  To place a person at ease about their spiritual condition when known sin is being openly lived is NOT in their best interest.  It gives them a false sense of security.  It leads them to think sin is OK.  It is not.  No sin, and I don't care what sin you point to, is OK.  If we keep on committing it, it will keep us out of heaven.  That, is God's word on the matter.  The Bible tells us that too clearly to be disputed.

Accepting people and accepting sin are two separate issues.  We are always to accept people.  We are never to accept sin.

[Gary K]

14 minutes ago, Gerry Cabalo said:

I could be wrong, but the article seems to indicate that the one baptized was still in active relationship with the partner, otherwise there would be no controversy whatsoever.

That is exactly right Gerry.  No controversy whatsoever.  I think most of us would rejoice in the news if it was clear that the sin had been left behind.  I know I would.  I am an addict, but I am not a practicing addict.  The fact that addiction is in my genetic code does not make that behavior an acceptable sin.

[Gary K]

One addition to my reply to Gerry: God's grace is sufficient to overcome all sin.  Where sin abounds, grace abounds even more. 

[LifeHiscost]

On 2/28/2017 at 10:04 AM, phkrause said:

She is not any worse of a sinner than anyone of us!

Granted, however she may be failing to follow Who she professes to believe.

…10Then Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are your accusers? Has no one condemned you?” 11“No one, Lord,” she answered. “Neither do I condemn you, Jesus declared. “Now” go and sin no more. 12Once again, Jesus spoke to the people and said, “I am the light of the world. Whoever follows Me will never walk in the darkness, but will have the light of life.”…..John 8

God is Love!~Jesus saves!    

[Gregory Matthews]

The Wanderer said about me, see below:

Please go back to the OP and note who posted this stuff.  It was not me.

 

I dont know why you would even post such a topic. . . .Why bother posting such stuff?

[APL]

The software running this forum will mis-quote text at times.  I've seen this happen a number of types.  It tries to be smart, but then mis-quotes.  For example, if I select the words in the post immediately above, "Wanderer said about me", a little popup will appear saying "Quote this".  If you click "Quote this" it will say,  "The Wanderer said", when it was "Gregory Matthew" that said.  So quotes with in quotes may not play well.  I'll bet this is how most mis-quotes happen here.  Is it a bug or a feature???

 

[Gerr]

On 3/1/2017 at 7:53 AM, Gregory Matthews said:

Gerry the reality is that the full story as to what pastor and church did has not been made public.  You do not know and neither do I.  That is the bottom line.

Further, you do not know exactly what the denominational officials did in response to this incident.

In reality the only thing that we can say is:

An issue of concern was brought to the attention of denominational officials.  The proper people investigated it and took action based upon that investigation.

Anything else that we might say is speculation and potentially incorrect.

 

True, so my comments were in response to the article as the incident was presented.

[Jessie-Jess]

ultra-conservative?

[Jessie-Jess]

If someone is going to be baptized, they need to first have a clear understanding of what baptism is (death to the old self, crucifying the lusts of the flesh and sinful nature with Christ and being resurrected in Christ to a new life of freedom from sin and service to Him). They need to know what is sin, and what God requires of them and that He can give them victory over that sin, and be willing to make the necessary lifestyle changes in harmony with these Christian principles.

 

[Gregory Matthews]

Three comments:

1)  My present understanding is:  A major stated fact in what has been published in this case is incorrect and false.  Frankly, this is often true what one reads on the Internet.

2)  The SDA denomination has a process to bring to trial people who are accused of wrong doing.  As the Church is human, that process may at times be flawed and  imperfect.  But, in my opinion, a person accused should only be tried once.  Once a decision has been made that the evidence does not support the charge, anything further should be left to God.  The person should not be tried again. 

 3)  Further, the denominational process grants the right to bring to trial to a specified group.  That right does not extend to public discussion and trial  by the world-wide body.  That world-wide body is not entitled to every bit in information about that alleged case against a person.  In the final end, God will rectify any mistakes that have been made.