Are some sinners not welcome at church? - Faith Forum - faithforum's Blog - Bakersfield.com

Apr 10, 2007 at 09:04 AM : They may be welcomed...

They may be welcomed in church to hear the word of God, Thats what the church is for. Christians are not to except known sinners who thumb their noses at christians and continue in sin drawing others to do the same. imo

Apr 10, 2007 at 09:04 AM : They would have been...

They would have been welcomed to The People's Temple; they welcomed everyone. They should be welcomed to churches run by child molesters, but it's tough to stay in business once you've been identified, unless you've got one of the really big infrastructures and a lots of dough.

Apr 10, 2007 at 12:04 PM : These guys reoffend so...

These guys reoffend so doggone much that it would be very difficult to trust one. Even churches have their limits; if someone showed up sloppy drunk on a regular basis, he would more than likely be made to feel unwelcome.

Jesus told the adultress, "Go, and sin no more," but being a floozy is not an illness. Child molesting is. I really can't blame those people for leaving the church.

Apr 10, 2007 at 08:04 PM : If you...

If you noticed jim jones was a cult leader..... He told all that became members of his so called Christianity What to do brainwashed them He made him self their God! The Christian has to know who he him self is and gaured against those that come in dressed in a sheeps cloth but are wolfs come to destroy their faith....

Apr 10, 2007 at 08:04 PM : If you...

Apr 11, 2007 at 09:04 AM : I'm in agreement...

I'm in agreement with you there, Courious. Frontline just aired a great documentary on Jim Jones the other night. Too bad there's not a Guyana to send child molesters to.

Apr 18, 2007 at 09:04 PM : If we do not forgive...

If we do not forgive one another, how should we expect forgiveness from God? If he is an unbeliever, I would let him continue to attend the church and hear the Word of God. Faith comes by hearing the Word. And if he receives faith in Christ, we will overcome his sins.

If he claims to be a follower of Christ, and continues in his sin, then one should confront him and rebuke him in love. If he refuses to repent, then (I'm taking example of one of Paul's letters) he should not be allowed back, until he does repent.

You asked if a church should get to choose which sins they allow in their midst, and which they do not?
They should not allow sins in the church. However, they should allow all sinners. Does this make sense to you?
One sin is not any better than another. All are sinners. If one believes in God and desires to repent, why should he be withheld from the congregation? The church is Christ's body--as we nourish our own body, God shall nourish His. The believers should all exhort one another daily.

If a child molester wanted to go to church, you must ask why. A prominent reason would be this: he is seeking God. If one did attend my church, I would befriend him/her, and spend time with the person. I would love that person as myself.

Apr 18, 2007 at 09:04 PM : ...

IV. WHO CAN BE EXCOMMUNICATED?

Since excommunication is the forfeiture of the spiritual privileges of ecclesiastical society, all those, but those only, can be excommunicated who, by any right whatsoever, belong to this society. Consequently excommunication can be inflicted only on baptized and living persons. Although the Church recites against the devil exorcisms in which the word anathema occurs, he cannot be excommunicated, for he in no way belongs to the Church. Among living persons, those who have not been baptized have never been members of the Christian society and therefore cannot be deprived of spiritual benefits to which they have never had a right; in this way, infidels, pagans, Mohammedans, and Jews, though outside of the Church, are not excommunicated. As the baptized cease, at death, to belong to the Church Militant, the dead cannot be excommunicated. Of course, strictly speaking, after the demise of a Christian person, it may be officially declared that such person incurred excommunication during his lifetime. Quite in the same sense he may be absolved after his death; indeed, the Roman Ritual contains the rite for absolving an excommunicated person already dead (Tit. III, cap. iv: Ritus absolvendi excommunicatum jam mortuum). However, these sentences or absolutions concern only the effects of excommunication, notably ecclesiastical burial. With the foregoing exceptions, all who have been baptized are liable to excommunication, even those who have never belonged to the true Church, since by their baptism they are really her subjects, though of course rebellious ones. Moreover, the Church excommunicates not only those who abandon the true faith to embrace schism or heresy, but likewise the members of heretical and schismatic communities who have been born therein. As to the latter, however, it is not question of personal excommunication; the censure overtakes them in their corporate capacity, as members of a community in revolt against the true Church of Jesus Christ.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05678a.htm

Apr 18, 2007 at 09:04 PM : A peace maker and a...

A peace maker and a clip for everyone in the congregation. Then swing the doors to the alter open.

And start preaching..

Apr 22, 2007 at 03:04 PM : Check out these ads...

Check out these ads from UCC...makes ya THINK! The "Ejector Pew" ad is my fav!

http://www.stillspeaking.com/media/

Jul 10, 2007 at 11:07 AM : johnburns being a...

johnburns being a floozy is not an illness. Child molesting is. ??!!!! Are you serious? Oh my gosh!! By allowing people who make a concious decision to do something that is wrong and giving them an excuse of illness is irresponsible and shows no regard to those that have been affected or wronged by such action. It is disgusting to me that anyone could consider willful child abuse an illness. (I have to make exception here for munchausen syndrome, simply because of the scientific reporting, not because I really believe that it is a sickness, and that's the only one I know of)

Jul 10, 2007 at 11:07 AM : "but being a...

"but being a floozy is not an illness. Child molesting is" so are we say that Fred Thompson is a child molester? If he had married his trophy wife at age twenty-four, she would have been one.

Jul 10, 2007 at 11:07 AM : Red, what sense does...

Red, what sense does that make in context to the statement made? Fred Thompson is a child molester if he molests, that means assaults sexually, or makes indecent sexual advances to a child. Not because his wife is 23 years his junior.

Jul 10, 2007 at 11:07 AM : OOps I stepped on the...

OOps I stepped on the modern woman. Ok, Ok how about a trophy husband, like Liz likes them. Whether you lure them with candy, money or fame, it all works the same.

Jul 10, 2007 at 12:07 PM : No Red, it...

No Red, it has absolutely nothing to do with modernism. I don't care how old two people who are in a legal, consenting relationship are. More power to the men with trophy wives and women with trophy husbands. The point I was making was in reply to something that johnburns said. It has nothing to do with consenting adults.