PDA

View Full Version : How are we accountable to others?



Warrior4God
Oct 1st 2012, 04:28 AM
Another thread I read recently got me thinking. The person opening the thread felt it's only God and His Word that we Christians are accountable to, not other Christians and not churches. The thread got shut down as the moderator felt the poster, not being involved in a church, was trying to influence people here to leave organized religion. I don't know that the poster necessarily had that intention, but it got me wondering who all we are accountable to as Christians in our walk and to what degree are we accountable to them?

Boo
Oct 1st 2012, 09:51 AM
I believe that God did not create a few million independent churches. He created one church under the Lordship of Jesus. We are that body with each of us having a role as given by God in that church. While we are always accountable to God for our actions, we are accountable to each other in promoting the well-being of the church.

We sometimes disregard that given relationship. Hopefully, with loving kindness, someone will help us back into the fellowship that was intended for us.

Ta-An
Oct 1st 2012, 11:15 AM
I see accountability to others in the same way as this verse: Rom 14:21.... we should not allow our brothers to stumble... by our example we witness :)

Dani H
Oct 1st 2012, 02:20 PM
Giving account has to do with explaining your behavior and taking responsibility for it. It has to do with being an honest witness and being upright and transparent about the way you conduct your life. In order to live with a clear concience, we need the support of others in a community based on love and trust. Nobod is an island. Evil thrives in darkness and isolation. Good thrives in light and connectivity and unity where people can call one aother out on their garbage and help each other live right. satan's motto is to divide and conquer. Therefore our motto as believers should be to unite and overcome. It's not a forced thing but a voluntary thing. Those who understand the truth about the fallen human condition, will learn to partner with others as a source of strength and support. But, that also includes being able to have the things exposed about us that are questionable and destructive, so that freedom can happen. Why struggle alone? It's silly.

The things that people go through, there's always somebody else who has been there, done that, who can lend their insight and experience, that we can learn from. The human condition hasn't changed, the temptations are the same, and the sin is the same. We're being deluded into thinking "I'm so extra special that nobody else is going through what I'm going through." That's a complete lie. Yes you're special as a unique person, but nothing you experience here on earth is unique. There's nothing new under the sun. A lie is still a lie, and whether you write it on a papyrus scroll or type it on a computer, is the exact same.

People who have nothing to hide, have no problems letting others in. People only jave a reason to fear IRS audits if they know they've been dishonest in their record keeping. People with a clear conscience, can give account for anything they do, at any moment, because they live free, clear and exposed before God who by the way is a lot more scrutinous than people, because He sees clearly what people are blind to, and nothing is hidden from Him, ever, anywhere.

That doesn't mean you let strangers have access to everything about you, because obviously there's people out there who take advantage of those things and do evil with what they know about others. So be careful who you trust as not everyone is trustworthy. But at the same time, if you've sinned against a person, then seek forgiveness. If what you're doing is hurting others, then stop doing it and come clean about it. It's always better to be proactive than it is to wait to get caught and heaping sin upon sin in an effort to cover up the original one. My kids are always in less trouble if they're honest and take responsibility rather than lying about what they've been doing.

Warrior4God
Oct 1st 2012, 02:42 PM
Giving account has to do with explaining your behavior and taking responsibility for it. It has to do with being an honest witness and being upright and transparent about the way you conduct your life. In order to live with a clear concience, we need the support of others in a community based on love and trust. Nobod is an island. Evil thrives in darkness and isolation. Good thrives in light and connectivity and unity where people can call one aother out on their garbage and help each other live right. satan's motto is to divide and conquer. Therefore our motto as believers should be to unite and overcome. It's not a forced thing but a voluntary thing. Those who understand the truth about the fallen human condition, will learn to partner with others as a source of strength and support. But, that also includes being able to have the things exposed about us that are questionable and destructive, so that freedom can happen. Why struggle alone? It's silly.

The things that people go through, there's always somebody else who has been there, done that, who can lend their insight and experience, that we can learn from. The human condition hasn't changed, the temptations are the same, and the sin is the same. We're being deluded into thinking "I'm so extra special that nobody else is going through what I'm going through." That's a complete lie. Yes you're special as a unique person, but nothing you experience here on earth is unique. There's nothing new under the sun. A lie is still a lie, and whether you write it on a papyrus scroll or type it on a computer, is the exact same.

People who have nothing to hide, have no problems letting others in. People only jave a reason to fear IRS audits if they know they've been dishonest in their record keeping. People with a clear conscience, can give account for anything they do, at any moment, because they live free, clear and exposed before God who by the way is a lot more scrutinous than people, because He sees clearly what people are blind to, and nothing is hidden from Him, ever, anywhere.

That doesn't mean you let strangers have access to everything about you, because obviously there's people out there who take advantage of those things and do evil with what they know about others. So be careful who you trust as not everyone is trustworthy. But at the same time, if you've sinned against a person, then seek forgiveness. If what you're doing is hurting others, then stop doing it and come clean about it. It's always better to be proactive than it is to wait to get caught and heaping sin upon sin in an effort to cover up the original one. My kids are always in less trouble if they're honest and take responsibility rather than lying about what they've been doing.

I agree with much of what you say here, but let me ask this. In an effort to be "accountable" to others, am I obligated to answer any question, without defensiveness or an attitude about it, a brother or sister in Christ asks me about my personal life? For instance, say somebody is just wanting to be nosy and find out more about my personal life, say, my sex life. It's not that I'm sinning or even giving the appearance of sinning. They're just being nosy, and, in an effort to satisfy their own curiosity, trying to find out more about my life. Even if I have nothing sinful to hide, am I obligated to answer their questions about such a personal component of my life in order to show I'm innocent of any wrongdoing?

Slug1
Oct 1st 2012, 02:52 PM
Another thread I read recently got me thinking. The person opening the thread felt it's only God and His Word that we Christians are accountable to, not other Christians and not churches. The thread got shut down as the moderator felt the poster, not being involved in a church, was trying to influence people here to leave organized religion. I don't know that the poster necessarily had that intention, but it got me wondering who all we are accountable to as Christians in our walk and to what degree are we accountable to them?Yes we are accountable to leadership in a church. God specifically places "shepherds" over the flock. Pastors are the shepherds and the sheep in the flock are all those who are led by God to be under a pastor. Those pastors are ALSO under leadership and are accountable to those who are their shepherd.

The reason why some teach or believe that people are NOT to be accountable under the leadership of a church is so that they cannot be disciplined. Imagine should a church leader need to enforce 1 Cor 5:5 upon a person who is in Christ, a member of their church and has fallen into error? If the person believes that they are NOT accountable to church leadership, how is church leadership to execute their duty of discipline which is an element of discipleship? This is why such belief is not godly and to teach or believe that a person does not have to be accountable to leadership of a church, as a teaching is FALSE teaching and to believe it... is to be in error.

ContractKeeper
Oct 1st 2012, 04:28 PM
Modern perception and the common uses and common understanding of the definitions of original words used in our bibles is in total confusion/babble and purposely kept in darkness to weaken, rob and steal from YOU a member of the body of Christ.

To answer as a follower and disciple of Christ, how we are to demonstrate this accountability :
Just ask how do we demonstrate our love to others ?

To answer as a follower and disciple of Christ, who we are accountable to (and for) :
We are always accountable to our brothers and sisters in Christ: our fellow members of His body.
Whether we are gathered together with our fellow believers or not we are always a member of the body of Christ and accountable to (and for) one another.

We are part or a member of the "church" only when we gather together. When we are not gathering or gathered together then we are not part of or a member of "church" or "the church" but we are always a member of Christ body whether we are gathered together or not.

Lately there seems to be a lot of confusion and babble because a stable/unchanging definition of "church" or "the church" is not kept.... this keeps our enemy strong and in bountiful increase !

Some of you might slight or think this mechanical definition of the word "church" that I share and keep is a trivial technicality and not even noteworthy let alone significant to our lives.

Well it should be boldly pointed out that there are definite and purposeful reason's' why most modern word's definitions in the Christian vocabulary have morphed in meaning and why those word's original definitions are purposely kept archaic from our understanding.
We will perish for our lack of knowledge and understanding (Anyone ever hear that before ?)

Our bibles original introduction to the mind's of the member's of the body of Christ of the word "Church".
Church/ekklēsia (call no# 1577) :Gathering together as coming from one place to gather to another place.

1) a gathering of citizens called out from their homes into some public place, an assembly
a) an assembly of the people convened at the public place of the council for the purpose of deliberating
b) the assembly of the Israelites
c) any gathering or throng of men assembled by chance, tumultuously
d) in a Christian sense
...an assembly of Christians gathered for worship in a religious meeting
...a company of Christian, or of those who, hoping for eternal salvation through Jesus Christ, observe their own religious rites, hold their own religious meetings, and manage their own affairs, according to regulations prescribed for the body for order's sake
...those who anywhere, in a city, village, constitute such a company and are united into one body
...the whole body of Christians scattered throughout the earth
...the assembly of faithful Christians already dead and received into heaven






John 4:1 Worship on Spirit.
God bless.

Scooby_Snacks
Oct 1st 2012, 06:54 PM
I agree with much of what you say here, but let me ask this. In an effort to be "accountable" to others, am I obligated to answer any question, without defensiveness or an attitude about it, a brother or sister in Christ asks me about my personal life? For instance, say somebody is just wanting to be nosy and find out more about my personal life, say, my sex life. It's not that I'm sinning or even giving the appearance of sinning. They're just being nosy, and, in an effort to satisfy their own curiosity, trying to find out more about my life. Even if I have nothing sinful to hide, am I obligated to answer their questions about such a personal component of my life in order to show I'm innocent of any wrongdoing?

I would say someone who is fishing for intimate details about you without having an intimate relationship with you already tried and true is probably a red flag.

You do have the freedom to choose who is safe for you to talk to and who is not. God can give you discernment (and probably has) as to what is appropriate and what is inappropriate regarding being open. Accountability is something like Dani said that is a choice. It is humbling to know when a problem exists that needs tending to, and even more so to be willing to ask for help in being responsible for dealing with it.

Dani H
Oct 1st 2012, 11:57 PM
I agree with much of what you say here, but let me ask this. In an effort to be "accountable" to others, am I obligated to answer any question, without defensiveness or an attitude about it, a brother or sister in Christ asks me about my personal life? For instance, say somebody is just wanting to be nosy and find out more about my personal life, say, my sex life. It's not that I'm sinning or even giving the appearance of sinning. They're just being nosy, and, in an effort to satisfy their own curiosity, trying to find out more about my life. Even if I have nothing sinful to hide, am I obligated to answer their questions about such a personal component of my life in order to show I'm innocent of any wrongdoing?

Absolutely not. The people to be honest and open with are those who are trustworthy and who have proven to have your best interest at heart. Love, you know? Busybodies need not apply.

Use your discretion and use wisdom, above all. Some people can't handle knowing that much about another person without misusing certain kinds of information. With them, less is more. :)

Boo
Oct 2nd 2012, 09:09 AM
Yes we are accountable to leadership in a church. God specifically places "shepherds" over the flock. Pastors are the shepherds and the sheep in the flock are all those who are led by God to be under a pastor. Those pastors are ALSO under leadership and are accountable to those who are their shepherd.

The reason why some teach or believe that people are NOT to be accountable under the leadership of a church is so that they cannot be disciplined. Imagine should a church leader need to enforce 1 Cor 5:5 upon a person who is in Christ, a member of their church and has fallen into error? If the person believes that they are NOT accountable to church leadership, how is church leadership to execute their duty of discipline which is an element of discipleship? This is why such belief is not godly and to teach or believe that a person does not have to be accountable to leadership of a church, as a teaching is FALSE teaching and to believe it... is to be in error.

Hey, Ken, I have asked you before about this, but you didn't answer.

How do you implement 1Cor 5:5?

As for submitting ourselves to the discipline of a Pastor, I would imagine that it may be because their don't necessarily see the Pastor as qualified to be the leader they need. Such was my case. I chose someone else to guide me, and he even let me down. Just because a man is a Pastor of a church body does not mean he is right for everyone. Some people attend a certain church because their spouse or family goes to it. It is not necessarily because everyone their has the same regard for the Pastor.

Now I am at a different church, and this Pastor is much more of a Godly man, and I have much more regard for him. I will place myself under his guidance willingly.

It is not all cut'n dried.

Boo
Oct 2nd 2012, 09:16 AM
Modern perception and the common uses and common understanding of the definitions of original words used in our bibles is in total confusion/babble and purposely kept in darkness to weaken, rob and steal from YOU a member of the body of Christ.

To answer as a follower and disciple of Christ, how we are to demonstrate this accountability :
Just ask how do we demonstrate our love to others ?

To answer as a follower and disciple of Christ, who we are accountable to (and for) :
We are always accountable to our brothers and sisters in Christ: our fellow members of His body.
Whether we are gathered together with our fellow believers or not we are always a member of the body of Christ and accountable to (and for) one another.

We are part or a member of the "church" only when we gather together. When we are not gathering or gathered together then we are not part of or a member of "church" or "the church" but we are always a member of Christ body whether we are gathered together or not.

Lately there seems to be a lot of confusion and babble because a stable/unchanging definition of "church" or "the church" is not kept.... this keeps our enemy strong and in bountiful increase !

Some of you might slight or think this mechanical definition of the word "church" that I share and keep is a trivial technicality and not even noteworthy let alone significant to our lives.

Well it should be boldly pointed out that there are definite and purposeful reason's' why most modern word's definitions in the Christian vocabulary have morphed in meaning and why those word's original definitions are purposely kept archaic from our understanding.
We will perish for our lack of knowledge and understanding (Anyone ever hear that before ?)

Our bibles original introduction to the mind's of the member's of the body of Christ of the word "Church".
Church/ekklēsia (call no# 1577) :Gathering together as coming from one place to gather to another place.

1) a gathering of citizens called out from their homes into some public place, an assembly
a) an assembly of the people convened at the public place of the council for the purpose of deliberating
b) the assembly of the Israelites
c) any gathering or throng of men assembled by chance, tumultuously
d) in a Christian sense
...an assembly of Christians gathered for worship in a religious meeting
...a company of Christian, or of those who, hoping for eternal salvation through Jesus Christ, observe their own religious rites, hold their own religious meetings, and manage their own affairs, according to regulations prescribed for the body for order's sake
...those who anywhere, in a city, village, constitute such a company and are united into one body
...the whole body of Christians scattered throughout the earth
...the assembly of faithful Christians already dead and received into heaven






John 4:1 Worship on Spirit.
God bless.

Your definition of "church" (in red) doesn't fit very well in this frame:

English Standard Version (2001)

And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

We are His church whether we are under the same roof or in the same garden or not. When you are in the body of Christ, you are in His church.

What you say about the definitions of word have morphed is true. That is why we cannot take just any dictionary and understand what the original scriptural meaning was. Our dictionaries have added the new definitions to the words and we mistake those new definitions as being the original meaning.

Slug1
Oct 2nd 2012, 02:39 PM
Hey, Ken, I have asked you before about this, but you didn't answer.

How do you implement 1Cor 5:5?

Paul did this 3 times as we can read in the scriptures.

1 Tim 1:20 of whom are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I delivered to Satan that they may learn not to blaspheme.

2 Tim 2:17 And their message will spread like cancer. Hymenaeus and Philetus are of this sort,

Now, with Philetus, we can only assume he was delivered to satan. The other two, it is clear that Paul booted them out of the church. Also seems this enforcement was not accepted by them and they continued to spread false teaching, based on the 2 Tim 2 scriptures.

Now... how DOES leadership execute discipleship that is of the disciplinary sort?

Well, this begins with the process taught to us in the scriptures beginning with Matthew 18:15-20. Concerning 1 Cor 5:5, this can be a final act of discipline. So, for any church to actually KNOW how to execute 1 Cor 5:5, this means that they MUST be a church that will do as they are to do and also execute Matthew 18:15-20. Yet, there are not many leaders in churches today that are willing to do their DUTY because they don't want to look bad. Some churches ignore the (open) sin of those in their congregation. Some actually turn a blind eye and are truly unaware of any open sin.

How does 1 Cor 5:5 get implemented? It gets implemented because leadership IS willing to do their duty and they ARE responsible and they ARE willing to do a HARD right, over an easy wrong. So if the point is reached by a sinful brother or sister... they will be TOLD to leave the church.

However, even for leadership who are willing to do their duty, reaching this point is rare... do you want to know why? Because when the Matthew 18:15-20 discipline begins, MOST people in a church will be OFFENDED that their sin is being addressed and they will simply leave the church. Many of them will place blame ON the church and it leadership OF that church. Believe me, in my position over the years as Sn. Elder and now as an Assoc. Pastor... I'm amazed at how people pass on blame to others.

So... it begins with the leadership in discipling the (their) church properly. I'm a counselor, I'm in college right now full time with a Pastoral Counseling Leadership major... I do ALL I possibly can to help others but when it is clear they DON'T WANT TO BE HELPED, the REST of the sheep have to be protected. I'm not the final authority in the church that God has me serving Him, my Sn. Pastor is... he is who makes the decision after MUCH prayer, much discussion with the Elder Board and even the Pastoral Counseling Board. He'll even address his superiors should he be led to for advice/counsel/prayer and based on their experiences concerning this form of discipline, a final decision will be reached and once reached, executed.

Along with all this is the proper disciplining of a church concerning a brother/sister who has been disciplined and what ALL the church must do concerning an "admission" of their sin and a breaking of their heart and seeking of repentance with God first and of restoration/reconciliation with those they hurt. I mean... what GOOD is it to discipline a person and this discipline works as it should and when they return to the church or go to the brother/sister they hurt and there is NO forgiveness and acceptance of them???

2 Cor 2:5 But if anyone has caused grief, he has not grieved me, but all of you to some extent—not to be too severe. 6 This punishment which was inflicted by the majority is sufficient for such a man, 7 so that, on the contrary, you ought rather to forgive and comfort him, lest perhaps such a one be swallowed up with too much sorrow. 8 Therefore I urge you to reaffirm your love to him.

So... if a church is not able to do this as well, I can understand why they also may not be able to execute disciplinary action in the first place.

This is an in depth topic... maybe worthy of it's own thread?

ContractKeeper
Oct 3rd 2012, 05:03 AM
Hi Boo,

Your definition of "church" (in red) doesn't fit very well in this frame:
It is not my definition sister, it is Strong's exhaustive concordance's definition.
I am eager to receive what your or any other definition might possibly be for that word Church/ekklēsia (call no# 1577). It is used 118 times in our bibles.




English Standard Version (2001)


We are His church whether we are under the same roof or in the same garden or not. When you are in the body of Christ, you are in His church. I do not see yet where Strong's definition of the original Greek word Church/ekklēsia (call no# 1577) used there does not fit the passage you shared, maybe you could share a more specific point as to how it does not fit within your view ?




You do know that all of our bibles many modern English versions (including the ESV) are all translated from one of four earliest found text of our bibles, three of which are canonized text variants, right ?

And per variant all of them agree with one another coherently among all the books, chapters and verses that they all four commonly contain, right ?

Although some contain books and verses that the others do not, the books that they contain in common with one another (with the exception of the apocrypha) all agree with one another coherently, right ?

I asked those three questions of you because by reading your post it looks like you may be thinking that different versions of our modern bibles are translated from vastly differing earliest text's of our scripture and new testament writings.... They are not.
All main stream versions of our modern bibles in existence today are translated from one of four different variants of the earliest text.

The Septuagint
Sometime between the 4th and the 1st century BCE, Jewish scholars, in an attempt to broaden the reach of the Jewish Bible, translated the bible into Greek, producing the Septuagint. Due both to the process of translation as well as the source material, this translation resulted in extra books being added to the canon which are not generally recognized by Orthodox Jews or Protestant Christian Churches. The Septuagint is one of the main sources for the Greek authors of the New Testament.
The Septuagint, not the Hebrew texts used by Judaism and modern Christian Bible translators, is still the official form of the Old Testament as used by most of eastern Christianity.
In Jewish tradition (and in the Talmud) the Rabbis translated the Torah, the five books of Moses, and the other books were translated by others. This led to the incorrect translation in Isaiah 7:14 of "עלמה" ("almah") to "virgin".

Targum
The term Targum was given to translations of the Jewish Bible into Aramaic, made by the convert Onkelos for the Torah and by Jonathan Ben Uziel for the prophets. It was the vernacular language of Roman-era Judaism, as well as much of the Levantine area overall. It would also have been the vernacular of Jesus.

Pe****ta
Similarly, many early Middle Eastern Christians spoke Syriac as a lingua franca, and their Bible translation (still used by many Eastern Christian rites, particularly those not in communion with the Orthodox Church) is known as the Pe****ta.

The Vulgate
The Vulgate, a 5th century translation of the Christian Canon into Latin by St. Jerome, was the first form of the Roman Catholic Bible, and the one on which the modern Catholic canon is based. This was the first time that a Latin version of the Old Testament was based on the Hebrew Tanakh and not on the Greek Septuagint, which was the basis of the earlier Latin translations, collectively known as the Vetus Latina (Old Latin). While the Vulgate is still used as the primary Latin translation by the Vatican, it is no longer the basis for modern Catholic Bible translations except among traditionalist Catholics.

My labored point being is: all of these earliest text that our modern English bibles (all versions) with no exceptions are translated from agree with one another coherently among all the books, chapters and verses that they all four commonly contain with no noteworthy differences.
(With the exception of some of our earliest text contain certain books that the others will not: (the apocrypha)

I hope to make you aware of that before or if you decide to reply again in the position that the original Greeks word: Church/ekklēsia (call no# 1577) is somehow only exclusively found in certain versions of our bible. It is not.
...And there are NO differing definitions of that word Church/ekklēsia (call no# 1577) when translated into our English word "church" used in any of our many modern English versions of the bible either.





What you say about the definitions of word have morphed is true. That is why we cannot take just any dictionary and understand what the original scriptural meaning was. Our dictionaries have added the new definitions to the words and we mistake those new definitions as being the original meaning. I can agree with you here sister but, if you are assuming that I use a dictionary to study an interpret God's word, then you are mislead by that assumption.
The only references used by me for study of God's word is prayer of course and then lexicons of the archaic Greek, Aramaic and Hebrew words which are the three languages used when God's word was penned by the ORIGINAL authors of the text's found in our old and new testaments.

Your visitor message on my profile that I had to delete was perplexing to me, sister.
If my keeping the definitions of God's word offends you, then by all means place me on your ignore list because I will not slow or alter my path to accommodate your comfort zone.
I am His servant first, and then yours, in that order.
Peace to you. :hug:


John 4:1 Worship in Spirit.
God bless.

Boo
Oct 3rd 2012, 09:25 AM
Now... how DOES leadership execute discipleship that is of the disciplinary sort?



I guess, what you are saying is that turning a person over to Satan simply means removing them from the assembly?


you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord.

The difficult part for me is the part after the word Satan. I guess it would be better if it were in a separate thread.

I understand Matthew 18.

Boo
Oct 3rd 2012, 09:34 AM
Hi Boo,
It is not my definition sister, it is Strong's exhaustive concordance's definition.

Two points, my brother.

First, I am your brother, not your sister.

Second, my response is that the verse I cited indicates that we are His church all the time. In the definition you posted, that is one of the definitions, yet you stated that you choose to believe that His church exists only when gathered together.


I can agree with you here sister but, if you are assuming that I use a dictionary to study an interpret God's word, then you are mislead by that assumption.

I am not making any assumptions about how you interpret God's word. I don't know how you decided to select the "gathered assembly" as the definition of choice, but my response was no accusation at all.


Your visitor message on my profile that I had to delete was perplexing to me, sister.
If my keeping the definitions of God's word offends you, then by all means place me on your ignore list because I will not slow or alter my path to accommodate your comfort zone.


You must have me confused with someone else. I left no messages to anyone in this forum that would merit deletion. I am perplexed that you would think that I am offended by anything you have posted. I have not asked you to slow or alter anything.

I am amazed at all this. Yes, you must have me confused with someone else.

I truly do not know what leads you to respond to me like this.

Peace and blessings, my brother.

Warrior4God
Oct 3rd 2012, 12:35 PM
Two points, my brother.

First, I am your brother, not your sister.

In all fairness, when I first looked at your profile pic, I also wasn't sure if you were the guy or the lady in it. :lol:

Indueseason
Oct 3rd 2012, 06:41 PM
Since this topic is under debate, I'm moving this thread to Bible Chat, where the debate can continue

Slug1
Oct 4th 2012, 01:26 AM
I guess, what you are saying is that turning a person over to Satan simply means removing them from the assembly?
That is what Paul did to those three people...

amazzin
Oct 4th 2012, 03:22 AM
Another thread I read recently got me thinking. The person opening the thread felt it's only God and His Word that we Christians are accountable to, not other Christians and not churches. The thread got shut down as the moderator felt the poster, not being involved in a church, was trying to influence people here to leave organized religion. I don't know that the poster necessarily had that intention, but it got me wondering who all we are accountable to as Christians in our walk and to what degree are we accountable to them?

Wanna bet? There are posts you don't see. It was his one and only purpose...... derail

(back to retirement)

Boo
Oct 4th 2012, 12:29 PM
That is what Paul did to those three people...

I understand that. I just know how it is done. Is it a physical thing? Is it some religious ceremony? Is it to just shun them?

My question is because I can't wrap my mind around the concept.

Boo
Oct 4th 2012, 12:37 PM
In all fairness, when I first looked at your profile pic, I also wasn't sure if you were the guy or the lady in it. :lol:

OK. For whatever reason, it seems that my words indicate that I am one or the other to some people. I really don't know what that would be. I guess I don't sound "macho" enough. :D

My wife, in the photo, was God's gift to me and led me to Jesus. She, however, would never participate in a forum like this. She is the silent type when it comes to subjects outside of cooking and dogs.

Warrior4God
Oct 4th 2012, 04:52 PM
Wanna bet? There are posts you don't see. It was his one and only purpose...... derail

(back to retirement)

Ok. Fair enough. I made my comment based on seeing only one of his posts. To me, you can't say the guy's intention was to get people to bail on organize religion based on one post, unless he bluntly stated such, which he didn't. To me, one single post isn't enough to indict the guy. However, as you point out, there were other posts I didn't see, that you did, which made you come to the conclusion about him that you did.