Disfellowshipped

[Gregory Matthews]

On one negative vote--the majority does not rule. How did we do it? Very simple:

The first vote taken was a vote not to disfellowship. If there was even one vote not to disfellowship, the recommendation to disfellowship was withdrawn and no vote to disfellowship was taken.

On other occasions, the recommendation to disfellowship was immediately tabled.

In either case there was no majority vote to disfellwoship.

[Gregory Matthews]

Let me make a comment in regard to sin, the Bible and EGW:

Sin has a number of Biblical aspects. Each aspect is correct in itself, but does not represent the entire picture.

A number of the people posting here on this subject appear to me to be arguing a correct aspect of sin but who fail to recognize that there are other aspects that are correctly being argued.

IOW, you are both (all) correct.

Don't be so exclusive and think that your view is the only correct view.

[GreatLakesGramma]

So...my question is still the same...if we can stop sinning, do we need Christs death?

With all the 'looking' for sin in our lives and others, how do we have time for simply keeping our eyes on Christ?

Of course we do! We can never stop sinning in our own strength. Of ourselves, we don't even have the power to WANT to do good. Every last, tiny, little smidgeon of goodness any of us has was placed within us by the Holy Spirit. None of it comes from ourselves. And that goes for those who don't acknowledge God just as much for the rest of us. And without the death of Christ on our behalf, none of that would be possible.

AND, we do NOT get there by "looking for" sin. So long as we look for sin, either in ourselves or others, we will never have spiritual victory of any kind. We only get there by looking to Jesus, continually, and forgetting about ourselves. And whenever we do "get there," we won't even know it. We'll still feel unworthy. We just have to forget about all that, and just trust God to keep his promises to us - to give us a new heart, one like His, that will love what He loves and hate what He hates.

And when temptation comes, the kind that we actually have time to stop and think about, we need to immediately turn to Him for strength to resist, surrender our own will, then get up and do what we know we should, instead of what we want, in obedience to His will. I know from experience of doing this in the face of overwhelming desire for wrong, committing myself to obey just for this few minutes, then a few minutes more, that God will take away the desire. When I first started doing it, it took a few days, but it goes quicker now. There is no reason, or excuse, for anyone to ever give in to those temptations.

On the other hand, those sins that are habits, the ones we do in reaction to some trigger, before we have a chance to even consciously realize we are about to do them, I think the best we can do with those is to apologize as soon as possible to the one we've wronged. We can also try to form new habits.

We may be stuck with at least some of these so long as we are on this earth, but I do feel that the time will come, by the time probation closes, that we will be free of those too. But even then we won't realize it. And it will be by God's work in us, not our own efforts.

We still need to make the effort, not to be free of sin, but to emulate God's character. The difference is in the focus. By beholding we are changed. Even humanly speaking, we mimic those whom we admire, without realizing it. But when our focus is on sin, even if our intention is to avoid it, we will never have victory, not even small victories.

When my attention is drawn to my own sinfulness, and my own behavior, I don't feel I've changed at all, in all these years of being committed to serving my loving heavenly Father. I feel discouraged, and almost hopeless. This is what Satan wants, because he is the one who turns my thoughts there. Then, I pray again for the new heart God has promised me, and thank Him again, for His great love and mercy toward me. And I pray that I might represent him properly in my life, in a way that will not bring shame to His name, and love others as He loves them, no matter what they may do or say to me or to my loved ones.

[Dr. Shane]

Shane is simply wrong in his statement about Social Security. A cursory examination of the official government website will clearly show that although the requirements are high,the Social Security Administration does recognize common-law marrilage.

So then it appears that I am not "simply" wrong. Indeed, I know of people that have been married by common law and been refused Social Security benefits upon the death of one of the partners. Indeed, it is not a simple matter. In our discussion about disfellowshiping (which is the topic) we need to remember the 1) one must live in sin first before one can be married by common law and 2) If the Social Security Administration is going to recognize common law marriage than widows shacking up need to lose their benefits from their first marriage.

[John317]

3) While I appreciate very much the contributions that Tom W. makes to this forum, I do not agree with his post on the Biblical basis of marriage. But, this is not the time for me to debate him on that issue.

Amen and amen.

[Gregory Matthews]

Shane said:

Quote:

I know of people that have been married by common law and been refused Social Security benefits upon the death of one of the partners.

Study your case law, Shane.

It will be clear that there are many people who have filed for claims on the basis of claimed common law marriage and have been refused social security payments. I do not doubt at all your comment that you personally know of such people.

In general, the refusal by Social Security was because the hearing officer ruled that the couple did not satisfy the legal requirements to establish a common law marriage.

A regular marriage is easy to establish: One simply obtains a license and has it properly documented under the local law. In Colorado that requirement is minimal.

In actual fact, a so-called common law marriage is much harder to establish. The fact that a coupple claims to have a common law marriage does not make it a common law marriage until the legal requirements have been established. The Social Security Administration has establilshed the legal requiremts to recognize a common law marriage. Once they are documented the common law marriage is recognized by the Social Security Administration.

[Gregory Matthews]

Shane said:

Quote:

If the Social Security Administration is going to recognize common law marriage than widows shacking up need to lose their benefits from their first marriage.

That is exactly as it is.

Once the Social Security Administration recognized a common law marriage previous benefits may be lost. Howeer, until that is established they are not lost.

[Tom Wetmore]

Shane,

Gregory is quite correct. Both SSA and the IRS recognize common law marriage, deferring to state law to determine if a legal marriage exists. Eleven states and the District of Columbia and a number of other countries recognize common law marriage.

But I would take it one step further to point out that much of what you have said generally about common law marriage is also wrong.

Tom

[Woody]

Quote:

Don't be so exclusive and think that your view is the only correct view.

Well said. I appreciate this very much but at some point we have to reject the heresy of thinking that we don't have to overcome some sins because they are not on the "severe list". This teaching of John317's is a dangerous theory. For just one sin and any sin can keep us from Heaven.

We should not limit God. He can give us victory over any sin no matter how large or small. Sin IS Sin. By that our prophet means that any sin can keep you from heaven. And that all the resources of Heaven are at our disposal so that we have no excuse to sin. To say this is not true is to go against God and the SOP.

[John317]

I appreciate this very much but at some point we have to reject the heresy of thinking that we don't have to overcome some sins because they are not on the "severe list". This teaching of John317's is a dangerous theory. For just one sin and any sin can keep us from Heaven.

As I've repeatedly said, I am not attempting to excuse sin. On the contrary. I am saying that we need to repent and confess all sin to Christ and use His power to resist and overcome them as soon as God points them out to us. I've said this hundreds of times over the last 5 years.

Please show where I have ever "excused sin." Quote and give the post#. I deny that I have ever excused sin in any way and at any time on Adventist Forum.

The 28 Fundamentals teach that people do keep God's commandments and that their lives show that they are worthy of being in the first resurrection. They also teach that those who are indwelt by the Holy Spirit are not dominated by sin but overcome sin by the grace and power of God. Ellen White speaks over and over again about the importance of using Christ's power to separate sin from us. This is all part of the 28 FB.

I have never belittled certain sins or claimed that we don't have to get the victory over them. On the contrary, this is precisely what you have been arguing for a long time. You have said that even if you don't overcome, it doesn't matter because Christ died in order so that you don't need to overcome. You have said that we are saved by the blood of Christ and not by what we do. You've said that everyone is holy and that everyone who is justified is also sanctified-- that it's impossible to have one without the other. But the Bible speaks of sanctification in two ways: we are set apart for God's service the moment we are justified, and then we are forever afterward involved in a process of being made holy, or separating sin from ourselves. This is sanctification and is identical to the work by the Holy Spirit in our lives of gaining the victory over sins in our lives.

Do you now teach that you need to get the victory over all sins in your life? I believe the same thing, and it is certainly what Scripture and the Spirit of Prophecy teach. And you are right that the devil's message is that we do not need to gain the victory over every sin. He tells us that we can be saved even while we cherish them and practice them.

Quote:

We should not limit God. He can give us victory over any sin no matter how large or small. Sin IS Sin. By that our prophet means that any sin can keep you from heaven. And that all the resources of Heaven are at our disposal so that we have no excuse to sin. To say this is not true is to go against God and the SOP.

Who is doing this? If you mean that you think I am attempting to limit God, please quote my words that show this is what I have been doing. On the contrary, I am saying that God has power to keep us from sinning if we will only accept and use His power. It's a choice and He empowers us to obey Him. That's the freedom we have in the gospel.

[Woody]

Quote:

Do you now teach that you need to get the victory over all sins in your life? I believe the same thing, and it is certainly what Scripture and the Spirit of Prophecy teach.

Well John ... let me see. Can you even count the number of times I have quoted the quote below. How many times have I stated that there is NO excuse for sin. Yet ... you continue to fight against the Bible and SOP with your theories.

" It is not in the power of all the host of Satan to force the tempted to transgress. There is no excuse for sin." Mar 82

"When the Father gave His Son to live and die for man, He placed all the treasures of heaven at our disposal. There is no excuse for sin. God has given us all the advantages He possibly could give, that we may have strength to withstand the temptations of the enemy. Had man, when tested and tried, followed the example of Christ, he would have given his children and his children's children an example of steadfast purity and righteousness, and the race would not have deteriorated, but improved. . . . " TDG 318

We have been warned that there would be those who want to deceive us and spread evil gossip about God's views and people. But we must resist these lies and evil theories.

[Woody]

Quote:

I deny that I have ever excused sin in any way and at any time on Adventist Forum.

Your denials will do no good. Just as my denials about your gossip in regards to my beliefs will do no good. It seems to be the way things are going here. It is epidemic it appears to tell others what they believe. I have told you that what you have said about my views are not representitive of how I believe ... yet you refuse to delete the gossip. So onward we go.

For the record ... I again deny your portrayal of my views and ask you to stop and delete.

[Woody]

And John ... please stop the "and you have said" this is against the rules as you have pointed out to others:

Quote:

CA Rules

From John317 on 11-1-09 http://clubadventist.com/forum/ubbthread...html#Post291136

Rule # 4--Don't put words in other people's mouths that they have never said.

I am telling you clearly ... you are publically misrepresenting my views. These are not my views ... they are your fabricated and purposeful attack on me. This gossip will not go unchallenged. Each time you try this attack on me ... I will publically defend the truth about what I have stated as my views. Please stop misrepresenting my views.

In the future if you want to present what I believe ...

QUOTE ME

[Dr. Shane]

Shane is simply wrong in his statement about Social Security... the requirements are high...

Words have meanings. The above quote includes the word "simply" but then goes on to admit that it isn't a simply matter. Indeed it is not.

Only a handful of states recognize common-law marriage. I think it is about ten or twelve. In order for Social Security to recognize a common-law marriage the state the couple is living in has to recognize it first. Normally that is done for tax purposes. Indeed the requirements are high. It is no simple matter. Some couples will go to the trouble to have their common law marriage recognized by the state so they can file a joint income tax. If they have done that, when one of them dies, it is not that difficult for the survivor to collect Social Security benefits.

But that is not the context of this thread. In this thread we are talking about church discipline. In that context the concept of common law marriage has been raised as a defense of unmarried elderly people living together without getting married so that one or both of them can continue collecting survivor benefits from Social Security. So it gets so much more complex. It is hard to say "Shane is simply wrong" when the issue is so complex.

So let's say the church board recognizes this unmarried elderly couple as being married under common law. On what basis do they do that. Is the couple filing income tax jointly? If they are to be considered married by common law, what do we do about them continuing to collect survivors' benefits? Is that honest?

This is very complex issue and I dare say that most people that talk about common law marriage do not even know what it is. Most people that try to collect survivors benefits from the Social Security Administration and cite their common law marriage are turned down because the state they are living in never recognized their common law marriage. They never filed joint tax returns. They never took each other names or other such things that states typically look for to recognize a common law marriage.

[Dr. Shane]

Study your case law, Shane.

Actually I have to admit that I cheat a little bit. My office is across the hall from a Social Security lawyer. So I just ask him for the answers. All he does is get Social Security benefits for people so I am assuming he know a little bit about how things work.

[LifeHiscost]

On one negative vote--the majority does not rule. How did we do it? Very simple:

The first vote taken was a vote not to disfellowship. If there was even one vote not to disfellowship, the recommendation to disfellowship was withdrawn and no vote to disfellowship was taken.

On other occasions, the recommendation to disfellowship was immediately tabled.

In either case there was no majority vote to disfellwoship.

When individuals in the Adventist church choose to live in knowledgeable (to them) open flagrant sin, it is an offense against the rest of the body of Christ. It is told in the Scripture what the protocol is when one wishes to take action

against a brother or sister who offends them personally. Why is it necessary to go before the church board before the individuals who have been offended carry out their proper responsibility?

"“Moreover if your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he hears you, you have gained your brother. But if he will not hear, take with you one or two more, that ‘by the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.’ And if he refuses to hear them, tell it to the church. But if he refuses even to hear the church, let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector. " Matthew 18:15-17 NKJV

Blessings!

[LifeHiscost]

I feel discouraged, and almost hopeless. This is what Satan wants, because he is the one who turns my thoughts there. Then, I pray again for the new heart God has promised me, and thank Him again, for His great love and mercy toward me. And I pray that I might represent him properly in my life, in a way that will not bring shame to His name, and love others as He loves them, no matter what they may do or say to me or to my loved ones.

That was good Gramma. A testimony worth repeating. It tells the nuts and bolts of the overcoming life without being ashamed of your (our) helplessness on our own. If every person would accept the simplicity of that plan of salvation,

it wouldn't be necessary to waste so much time in debating whether the ten commandments are a viable way of life for the children of God.

"For whoever is ashamed of Me and My words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of him the Son of Man also will be ashamed when He comes in the glory of His Father with the holy angels.”" Mark 8:38 NKJV

"If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love, just as I have kept My Father’s commandments and abide in His love. "John 15:10 NKJV

Blessings!

[LifeHiscost]

I appreciate this very much but at some point we have to reject the heresy of thinking that we don't have to overcome some sins because they are not on the "severe list". This teaching of John317's is a dangerous theory.

Maybe I didn't pay close enough attention to John317's posts but I don't recall Him advancing that theory. OTOH there is definitely Scripture indicating not all sin is viewed by God the same way.

"If anyone sees his brother sinning a sin which does not lead to death, he will ask, and He will give him life for those who commit sin not leading to death. There is sin leading to death. I do not say that he should pray about that."1 John 5:16 NKJV

I would suggest that the sin that leads to death is the cherished sin, the one of which the sinner is unwilling to let go, whether that sin is mass murder or brutally beating a dog to death.

Regards!

[LifeHiscost]

" It is not in the power of all the host of Satan to force the tempted to transgress. There is no excuse for sin."

Mar 82

"“I am the vine, you are the branches. He who abides in Me, and I in him, bears much fruit; for without Me you can do nothing."John 5:15 NKJV

I think you will find this Scripture speaks to the person who believes the Word. The same as the Spirit of Prophecy that points out there is no excuse for sin.

"Therefore, to him who knows to do good and does not do it, to him it is sin."James 4:17 NKJV

Blessings!

[phkrause]

Some very good posts LifeHistCost

pk

[olger]

Originally Posted By: Redwood

Legalism is a cancer.

As is unrighteousness.

"...then you will begin to say, ‘We ate and drank in Your presence, and You taught in our streets.’ But He will say, ‘I tell you I do not know you, where you are from. Depart from Me, all you workers of iniquity (unrighteousness YLT).’ There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when you see Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God, and yourselves thrust out."Luke 13:26-28 NKJV parenthesis mine LHC

The world's ills are not a result of legalism. They are a result of the lawless.

"And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’" Matthew 7:23 NKJV

Regards!

Well spoken, Sir LHC.

"But, beloved, remember ye the words which were spoken before of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ; How that they told you there should be mockers in the last time, who should walk after their own ungodly lusts."

oG

[Gregory Matthews]

Originally Posted By: Gregory Matthews

On one negative vote--the majority does not rule. How did we do it? Very simple:

The first vote taken was a vote not to disfellowship. If there was even one vote not to disfellowship, the recommendation to disfellowship was withdrawn and no vote to disfellowship was taken.

On other occasions, the recommendation to disfellowship was immediately tabled.

In either case there was no majority vote to disfellwoship.

When individuals in the Adventist church choose to live in knowledgeable (to them) open flagrant sin, it is an offense against the rest of the body of Christ. It is told in the Scripture what the protocol is when one wishes to take action

against a brother or sister who offends them personally. Why is it necessary to go before the church board before the individuals who have been offended carry out their proper responsibility?

"“Moreover if your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he hears you, you have gained your brother. But if he will not hear, take with you one or two more, that ‘by the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.’ And if he refuses to hear them, tell it to the church. But if he refuses even to hear the church, let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector. " Matthew 18:15-17 NKJV

Blessings!

I am uncertain as to why you quoted me. Where did I say anything that is related to your response? I never mentioned open flagrant sin. I will suggest that your second citation (Matt. 18) rules out much of what is often carried on in the name of discipline. I have often used that passge to stop discipline--the requirements of Matthew 18 had not been carried out.

[Stan]

EGW said something like this once "Public sins should be dealt with publicly, private ones privately."

[Woody]

Quote:

I am uncertain as to why you quoted me. Where did I say anything that is related to your response? I never mentioned open flagrant sin. I will suggest that your second citation (Matt. 18) rules out much of what is often carried on in the name of discipline. I have often used that passge to stop discipline--the requirements of Matthew 18 had not been carried out.

[Woody]

EGW said something like this once "Public sins should be dealt with publicly, private ones privately."

I would refer one to Gregory's post regarding Matt.18 . For this statement of dealing with sins in public would fly in the face of Matt.18 . Our best course of action would be to follow scripture rather than one's recall of what Ellen White had to say. Matt.18 is the commandment for all sins ... both public and private. It is wise counsel and can prevent a multitude of sins.