Is there any sin the toleration of which warrrants leaving a church/denomination?

wolfsbane · 05-09-2011 08:44PM #1

The CoI has entered a new crisis:
Church rocked by gay clergystorm
http://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/local/church_rocked_by_gay_clergy_storm_1_3027272

I listened to this dean on radio - he's not talking about a celibate relationship.

How can any Christian remain in a church that condones conduct which is plainly condemned in Scripture and has been condemned by the Church throughout its history?

Is there any sin the toleration of which would cause an Anglican to separate themselves from the CoI? Or other Christians from any other church?

***********************************************************************
2 Corinthians 6:14 Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers. For what fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness? And what communion has light with darkness? 15 And what accord has Christ with Belial? Or what part has a believer with an unbeliever? 16 And what agreement has the temple of God with idols? For you are the temple of the living God. As God has said:

“ I will dwell in them
And walk among them.
I will be their God,
And they shall be My people.”

gimmebroadband · 05-09-2011 08:52PM

IMHO. You don't leave a church just because some members failed to live up to it's teachings, you leave because you no longer believe what it preaches!

Keaton · 05-09-2011 09:20PM

gimmebroadband wrote: »

IMHO. You don't leave a church just because some members failed to live up to it's teachings, you leave because you no longer believe what it preaches!

The true Church would never teach that gay acts were acceptable. I understand the Anglicans have come round to gay unions as being acceptable.

gimmebroadband · 05-09-2011 09:46PM

Keaton wrote: »

The true Church would never teach that gay acts were acceptable. I understand the Anglicans have come round to gay unions as being acceptable.

Exactly! I guess I could have phrased it better.

Some preach it and practice it - Lesbian Vicar marries partner!!!

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-280.html/

PatricaMcKay2 · 05-09-2011 10:10PM

This puts me in a difficult position, hopefully there will be a split and those who choose to ignore the clear teaching of Scripture go their own way, otherwise I dont know what I will do. Maybe God will restrain the nonsense. The Church of Ireland has many problems which she isnt facing.

PDN · 06-09-2011 08:01AM

Yes, there are plenty of sins, the toleration of which IMHO would be good grounds for leaving a denomination.

I would not personally remain in any denomination that permitted its leaders or members to practice sexual activity (heterosexual or homosexual) outside of marriage.

homer911 · 06-09-2011 08:40AM

The Bible is quite clear that leaders in a Christian Church must be above reproach.

I am saddened to see this, but I'm not altogether surprised. I left the Church of Ireland nearly 30 years ago and I've no regrets, but there are some amazing evangelicals there and many members would be upset at these developments.

Cybercelesta · 06-09-2011 11:09AM

PDN wrote: »

Yes, there are plenty of sins, the toleration of which IMHO would be good grounds for leaving a denomination.

I would not personally remain in any denomination that permitted its leaders or members to practice sexual activity (heterosexual or homosexual) outside of marriage.

To practice sexual activity outside of hetrosexual marriage is a sin and forgivable, to preach that it is acceptable and normal is heretical!!!

antiskeptic · 06-09-2011 11:23AM

Cybercelesta wrote: »

To practice sexual activity outside of hetrosexual marriage is a sin and forgivable, to preach that it is acceptable and normal is heretical!!!

Heresy being a sin and forgivable too.

homer911 · 06-09-2011 11:31AM

antiskeptic wrote: »

Heresy being a sin and forgivable too.

Provided of course that one repents of these sins....

antiskeptic · 06-09-2011 02:02PM

homer911 wrote: »

Provided of course that one repents of these sins....

What happens if you (as a Christian) get run over by a bus before you can repent of a particular sin (whether heresy, lust, robbing paperclips at work)?

PDN · 06-09-2011 02:15PM

Cybercelesta wrote: »

To practice sexual activity outside of hetrosexual marriage is a sin and forgivable, to preach that it is acceptable and normal is heretical!!!

Not quite sure why you're responding to me with all those exclamation marks.

Onesimus · 06-09-2011 02:54PM

PDN wrote: »

Not quite sure why you're responding to me with all those exclamation marks.

He is shouting at you PDN ban him......BAN HIM........BAN HIMMMMM

:pac::pac::pac::pac::P

Cybercelesta · 06-09-2011 03:10PM

PDN wrote: »

Not quite sure why you're responding to me with all those exclamation marks.

Sorry...typing style!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

homer911 · 06-09-2011 04:28PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

What happens if you (as a Christian) get run over by a bus before you can repent of a particular sin (whether heresy, lust, robbing paperclips at work)?

Is this for the purposes of discussion? I'm sure antiskeptic that you know the answer to that one..

I agree of course that its forgivable, but is it forgiven? (I'm referring to the original heresy reference..)

We are all sinners and we can all be forgiven, but to whom much is given, much will be taken away...

wolfsbane · 06-09-2011 05:16PM

I'm heartened that many of you do not subscribe to toleration of on-going sin.

I fear some denominations - Evangelical churches among them - are already (unofficially) declassifying fornication and homosexuality as sins; and abortion; drunkenness; unbelief.

I feel for true brethren in such churches - and it can happen to any of our churches. Historically they have chosen to either:
1. Protest and leave if it is not dealt with.
2. Protest and remain, fighting for it to be dealt with.
3. Protest and remain, not fighting, but merely hoping that someday it will be dealt with.

Position 1 is a good witness to the sinners that they are in fact sinning.

Position 2 is also a good witness, but risks turning into a toleration by default: the protesters are allowed to shout, as long as they do nothing to stop the rot.

Position 3 is a bad witness - like Lot in Sodom. Personal piety that does not witness to the sinner to turn him from destruction.

I am praying that my brethren will soon make a clear witness against such evil by separating themselves from it, and join with faithful brethren elsewhere.

***************************************************************************
2 Corinthians 6:17 Therefore

“ Come out from among them
And be separate, says the Lord.
Do not touch what is unclean,
And I will receive you.”[c]
18 “ I will be a Father to you,
And you shall be My sons and daughters,
Says the LORD Almighty.”

soterpisc · 06-09-2011 07:26PM

The problem is that many Church's are on a slippery path away from true faith. Catholic Church have had many failings, but its teachings have been clear on this area. We devalue the family, The Role of a Father and a Mother. Society today is pushing this ideal world where a gay man can find his perfect partner. Reality is Men move from partner to partner, no commitment and many are not happy.

The biggest threat is today is the treat to the family. No faith at home. Low parental commitment.

PatricaMcKay2 · 06-09-2011 07:47PM

The problem that I have is there are no other Churches expect the Lutheran one in Dublin that take the "Via Media" between Roman excess and extreme Protestantism. Giving it up would mean mainly worshipping at home.

philologos · 06-09-2011 07:47PM

Keaton wrote: »

The true Church would never teach that gay acts were acceptable. I understand the Anglicans have come round to gay unions as being acceptable.

Some != All.

Opinion is divided on this subject. I'd suspect that opinion is also divided in the RCC if one is willing to accept that there are liberal members of the RCC that is.

Personally I would fall to the conservative side of this argument, but there is nothing more distasteful than people taking potshots at other churches.

alex73 · 06-09-2011 09:05PM

philologos wrote: »

Personally I would fall to the conservative side of this argument, but there is nothing more distasteful than people taking potshots at other churches.

When a church has no eucharist, no apostolic sucession, invents its own interpretation of the Bible, and rewrites what is moral...Is it a Church?

philologos · 06-09-2011 09:17PM

alex73 wrote: »

When a church has no eucharist, no apostolic sucession, invents its own interpretation of the Bible, and rewrites what is moral...Is it a Church?

1. No Eucharist - Not the case of Anglicanism (or many Christian churches at all) despite how much it's detractors might like to say so.

2. No Apostolic Succession? - Not true of Anglicanism as the Church of England kept most priests that were in the former church. They also ordained new clerics and bishops. That said, anyone who has accepted the Christian faith full stop can be traced back to the Apostles through a line of evangelism.

3. Invents own interpretation of the Bible - When reading any text anyone interprets it. This is as much true of RC's reading the Bible as it is of anyone else. The church I currently attend places a huge emphasis on reading the Bible both on a personal level and with others as it is God speaking through it. I would rather understand God on a one-to-one level rather than having it mediated through a cleric.

4. Rewrites what is moral? Who are you talking about? I think that many people including people in your church have done this. Pointing the finger is invalid.

Protestant - Catholic megathread continues....

PatricaMcKay2 · 06-09-2011 09:18PM

alex73 wrote: »

When a church has no eucharist, no apostolic sucession, invents its own interpretation of the Bible, and rewrites what is moral...Is it a Church?

The C of I does have apostolic sucession and does have the Eucharist.

Is a Church that makes up dogmas not found in the first 1000 years of Christian history and proclaims that they must be believed on pain of hell fire still a Church? What about a Church that ignores the Bible?

PatricaMcKay2 · 06-09-2011 09:22PM

Philo are you originally from Ireland?

philologos · 06-09-2011 09:24PM

PatricaMcKay2 wrote: »

Philo are you originally from Ireland?

Yes. I moved to London a few weeks ago for work.

PatricaMcKay2 · 06-09-2011 09:25PM

This is an important subject that I would like to back to once Ive prayed, read and thought more about it, but I would say to wolfsbane that I find the idea of homosexuals having authority in the Church unacceptable. So please dont lock this thread of allow it to run off topic.

gozunda · 06-09-2011 10:29PM

PatricaMcKay2 wrote: »

This is an important subject that I would like to back to once Ive prayed, read and thought more about it, but I would say to wolfsbane that I find the idea of homosexuals having authority in the Church unacceptable. So please dont lock this thread of allow it to run off topic.

If I remember my history correctly there have been a number of homosexual popes....

soterpisc · 06-09-2011 10:31PM

gozunda wrote: »

If I remember my history correctly there have been a number of homosexual popes....

Could have been... But they didn't change the Faith saying it was ok.

gozunda · 06-09-2011 10:38PM

soterpisc wrote: »

Could have been... But they didn't change the Faith saying it was ok.

Thing is they had authority in the Church. I might find McDonalds unacceptable but is doesnt mean that it is tbh...

gimmebroadband · 06-09-2011 11:26PM

gozunda wrote: »

Thing is they had authority in the Church. I might find McDonalds unacceptable but is doesnt mean that it is tbh...

Limits to Papal Authority.

"The pope's authority, in the first place, is limited to matters of religion -- that is, of faith and morals, and such things as canon law, liturgy, marriage cases, ecclesiastical censures and so on, which are part of faith and morals. The pope has no authority from Christ in temporal matters, in questions of politics. He has no authority from Christ to teach mathematics, geography, history. His authority is ecclesiastical authority; it goes no further than that of the Church herself. But even in religious matters the pope is bound, very considerably, by the divine constitution of the Church."

There are any number of things that the pope cannot do in religion. He cannot modify, nor touch in any way, one single point of the revelation Christ gave to the Church; his business is only to guard this against attack and false interpretation. We believe that God will so guide him that his decisions of this nature will be nothing more than a defense or unfolding of what Christ revealed.

The pope can neither make nor unmake a sacrament, he cannot affect the essence of any sacrament in any way. He cannot touch the Bible; he can neither take away a text from the inspired Scriptures nor add one to them. His business is to believe the revelation of Christ, as all Catholics believe it, and to defend it against heresy. He cannot take away the divine authority of any of his fellow bishops as long as they are Catholic bishops in normal possession of their sees; though he can, as chief authority of the Church on earth, under certain circumstances, try, suspend or depose an unworthy bishop. The pope can, in extraordinary circumstances, rearrange dioceses; he cannot abolish the universal episcopate"

http://www.stjohn17v20-21.com/magist02.htm

gozunda · 06-09-2011 11:51PM

gimmebroadband wrote: »

Limits to Papal Authority.

"The pope's authority, in the first place, is limited to matters of religion -- that is, of faith and morals, and such things as canon law, liturgy, marriage cases, ecclesiastical censures and so on, which are part of faith and morals. The pope has no authority from Christ in temporal matters, in questions of politics. He has no authority from Christ to teach mathematics, geography, history. His authority is ecclesiastical authority; it goes no further than that of the Church herself. But even in religious matters the pope is bound, very considerably, by the divine constitution of the Church."

There are any number of things that the pope cannot do in religion. He cannot modify, nor touch in any way, one single point of the revelation Christ gave to the Church; his business is only to guard this against attack and false interpretation. We believe that God will so guide him that his decisions of this nature will be nothing more than a defense or unfolding of what Christ revealed.

The pope can neither make nor unmake a sacrament, he cannot affect the essence of any sacrament in any way. He cannot touch the Bible; he can neither take away a text from the inspired Scriptures nor add one to them. His business is to believe the revelation of Christ, as all Catholics believe it, and to defend it against heresy. He cannot take away the divine authority of any of his fellow bishops as long as they are Catholic bishops in normal possession of their sees; though he can, as chief authority of the Church on earth, under certain circumstances, try, suspend or depose an unworthy bishop. The pope can, in extraordinary circumstances, rearrange dioceses; he cannot abolish the universal episcopate"

http://www.stjohn17v20-21.com/magist02.htm

I dont get your point?

santing · 07-09-2011 08:09AM

homer911 wrote: »

The Bible is quite clear that leaders in a Christian Church must be above reproach.

I am saddened to see this, but I'm not altogether surprised. I left the Church of Ireland nearly 30 years ago and I've no regrets, but there are some amazing evangelicals there and many members would be upset at these developments.

It is indeed amazing how quickly we accept the change in morals (in Ireland) and become unaware of what sin is. It was "easy" to preach Biblical morals, say 30 years ago, when the Irish Society still practiced Biblical morals. But the change in society has shown that many Christians have no clear vision of God's holiness either.

Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, (1Ti 3:2 ESV)

Is there any sin the toleration of which warrrants leaving a church/denomination?

Comments