| |
some insight please.....wisdom?K. (the Mrs.) has a sister who is unsaved. She is carrying on an adulterous affair with a man who is still with his wife albeit living in the basement. All parties including the wife of the adulterer are aware of the affair.
Well Kim as tradition would have it, had her family over for dinner on Christmas day. Some are saved, some questionable, some flat out not born again. They have no problem with the adulterating sister in for dinner but the snag is the guy.
D., K.'s husband says no to having him in!!! K. says yes because her family is extremely sensitive and she worries if she says no, well the family unity allready strained by other factors will be shot.
I am in agreement with D. My wife sides with K. Can you please give me your input as I told them I would post this and get back to them with your insight. Gratefully yours in Christ Barry
Messages
Untitled
some insight please.....wisdom? (BarryT)My initial reaction was the same as your, namely, invite the sister over but not her stud. Then I got to thinking - what biblically valid reason is there for excluding him which does not also apply to the sister? IOW, if he is not welcome because he is committing adultery, wouldn't the sister be excluded for the same reason?
I'm not sure how I would handle the situation. The closest experience I have had was when my divorced brother and his girlfriend (who was not in any way the cause for the divorce) came to visit last summer. I welcomed both of them into my home, but I did politely insist that they not share a bedroom while under my roof. If there is a general principle here, I suppose it would be that sinners are welcome in my home (else I would have to leave!), but I am responsible to God for the moral tone in my home, so egregious sinful behavior cannot be tolerated there.
In Him
Steve
Boy, aint life grand!
some insight please.....wisdom? (BarryT)I also wonder if there are going to be children present at the dinner. What would it be saying to them? To me it is one thing to allow two people in a fornicative relationship in your home; while it is quite another to allow an adulterous relationship in the house. Is there any consideration here for the other wife? As Christians, what would we be saying to her about the value of marriage?
It really is hard to say what to do without understanding all the players. Biblically, I would say they are probably free to follow their conscience on the matter. As a long time believer and church elder, I would question the wisdom of doing so.
Humbly submitted - Tim M.
thanks Tim.....
Boy, aint life grand! (Tim M.)ps. D. does recognize his responsibility as head and did make his voice on the matter heard but......that is all I can really say.
A modest proposal
some insight please.....wisdom? (BarryT)I have a very simple solution to all this unfaithfulness. First, let's get rid of bridesmaids and grooms. They've outlived their function. Instead, the family of the bride and groom each put an assassin and a private detective on retainer. (I think this would be a wash in terms of price because they'd be saving all that money for bridesmaid's dresses and tuxedos.) If either party believes someone is cheating, they call in their experts to first verify, then deal with the problem.
For families that can't afford this, we could have a new ceremony called the Exchange of the Most Holy Saturday Night Special. "With this gun I do pledge my perpetual fear of ever cheating on you, and realize that my life is forfeit if I break my vows."
***
Okay, I know. People are sissies and would never go for this.
Now, about your situation. In my opinion, standing up for moral principle trumps offending sensitive family members every time. By inviting the man, they would be saying that in their family faithfulness doesn't matter, marriage vows don't mean anything, and niceness and smiles at dinner is more important than truth and love and honor.
Invite the adulterous sister, pull her aside and collectively read her the riot act, tell her she's ruining several lives and is in danger of losing her soul. Under no circumstances give family sanction to the relationship by inviting her married boyfriend.
Greg
Thanks Greg, didn't know whether to laugh or cry on your proposal BTW, it is sadly so true (nt)
A modest proposal (Greg K)
I agree with you Greg, but what does "in danger of losing her soul" mean? (nt)
A modest proposal (Greg K)
Adulterers have no inheritance in the kingdom of God
I agree with you Greg, but what does "in danger of losing her soul" mean? (nt) (Jack Whitehead)As I understand the story, the woman is carrying on an adulteress affair. Adulterers go to Hell. That's what I mean.
Greg
Thanks, Greg, but would you square that with dealing with sinning Christians, please? Thanks again. (nt)
Adulterers have no inheritance in the kingdom of God (Greg K)
No bright line test
Thanks, Greg, but would you square that with dealing with sinning Christians, please? Thanks again. (nt) Christians sin, but "no one who is born of God practices sin." (1 John 3:9) All sins and transgressions will be forgiven men, but adulterers and liars have no inheritance in the kingdom of God.
There is a line between the repentant sinner, who is forgiven, and the unrepentant sinner, who is not. I don't know of any clear test to tell the one from the other, but generally speaking a person who practices sin, lives in sin, and shows no sign of repentance has no hope of heaven -- i.e., without repenting.
A person who is in the middle of an adulterous affair has no reasonable hope of heaven. If he repents, there is forgiveness, but there is no forgiveness for unrepentant sinners.
Greg
In other words, you treat people according to how they are living.
No bright line test (Greg K)I tend to agree with you, and I think the basis for it is the way Scripture deals with judgment: If you sow to the flesh you'll reap corruption. A case can be made that one's eternal destiny will be revealed by the way one has lived not by the profession one has made.
But I still question the idea that a Christian -- a genuine Christian -- can commit anything that would put his or her soul in jeopardy. The person who lives in a habitual life of sin w/o repentance is not saved in my understanding no matter what.
Anyway, thanks for the answer.
Sincerely,
Jack
You come up with the toughies, don't you, Barry!
some insight please.....wisdom? (BarryT)
I have written you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people - not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. But I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolator or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man you should not even eat. (1 Cor 5:9-11)
OTOH, you have no obligation to invite everybody off the street into your house. This fellow isn't even a family member, but a friend of a family member.
Maybe I would think about it this way: If another family member wanted to bring along a friend who was habitually comitting some other sin (perhaps in business, like Charles Keating), whould I refuse to invite him/her? As for the children, all they need to know is that this fellow is a friend of the sister and that's why he was invited- because of our regard for her.
Anyway, it's your family's house and you would have to make the call.
Dave
wish it was a case of me coming up with a toughie <g>....
You come up with the toughies, don't you, Barry! (Dave)This, your answer as well as the others is precisely why I come here for these friends of mine. I knew I would get more angles than my pea-brain could come up with and I do appreciate and gratefully thank-you.
While I have you Dave. Something has been bothering me personally and I wonder if you could give me a quick word addressing it. It concerns universalists. I am getting myself into alot of hot-water because to be honest I guess I am coming from the presupposition that they are not my brothers and sisters. And I am not mincing words in letting them know that. But I have been bothered in my spirit. What is your view towards these people.
I do not discern the above maliciously, but from the pt. of view that I am not helping them by pretending they are saved when in my gut I don't feel they are. But in my gut I also don't think I should "Judge" (their word towards me of course) if that indeed is what I am doing. Can I have your thought on this. Am I judging? Do I not have the right to discern? To win. Or am I in fact banging my head against a brick wall with them for they sure seem to be obstinant as I am sure they would also consider me. Thanks.
p.s. the 1 Cor. passage you used in your post seemed to apply to the universalists in that they seem to slander Christ by calling Him a torturer of millions (not implying justness but something sinister) if there be a hell.
Now we're back to heresy again!
wish it was a case of me coming up with a toughie <g>.... (BarryT)Being ohhh sooo suave (ha ha), I would tell a Universalist that I think they're wrong in this area (and I have told them that on this Forum), but I'd say it in a matter-of-fact way. Just as someone who believes peaches can cure cancer is wrong, so too they are wrong. The important thing for them to think about, is not other people's final states, but what they believe about their own sin and how it is taken care of. I would add that I'm no better than them, so I'm not judging them or looking down on them. "Remember," I would say, "I'm not a Christian because I'm better than anybody else, only because I've been given a free gift."
BTW, when someone gets defensive because you don't think they are saved, they probably regard being saved as a measure of their worth- I'm saved because I'm a good person. In that case, they probably haven't come to accept salvation as a free gift.
As somebody else said around here, our job is to be faithful and tell the truth. (It was in a post about amil/postmil stuff.) We want to be sure we're respectful and let others know we're not superior, because to do other is sin on our part. But in the end we're only responsible to tell the truth, the Holy Spirit is responsible for the results.
Hope these rambling thought are helpful to you.
Dave
If you follow Rushdoony's theology,don't invite the man. If you follow Christ,....
some insight please.....wisdom? (BarryT)
excellent point ex.....
If you follow Rushdoony's theology,don't invite the man. If you follow Christ,.... (ex Parte)Jesus never had a place to lay His head let alone a home. We all know that. It follows then that Jesus never had these people into His home. He was always invited. He was in other peoples homes. I am talking here of my friends own home. Is there a difference. I really don't know for sure.
I would not argue against what you say but wisdom seems to tell me that as head of my home I am responsible for not just myself but others, my wife and children, other believers, weak and strong, and my guests.
My brother is homosexual and we have reason to believe he has aids. Now my stand is that he is welcome but I believe I must set certain parameters. I must protect my wife and children. I will go with him to the end of the earth, even walk with him but that is for "me". I have another responsibility to others.
Sure this is an isolated incident. But what of the next time, and the next and the next. Evil company corrupts good habits. I certainly tend to agree with you on the surface but digging a little deeper I am not so sure.
You also seemed to say that "rejecting" this practicing adulterer would make him anti-Christian. I do not see that that "must" necessarily be the case. This "could" be used of the Lord to make him see that this sort of behaviour is not looked upon favorably by everyone in the world.
Anyways the sister is also just as guilty as him. And I did make it clear she is welcome. She knows the disapproval and perhaps "him" not being made welcome might reveal to her the seriousness of D & K's disapproval.
Still a little confused BTW and just posting a few thoughts as they come to me. It is not an easy situation and I do not think there is an easy solution; so many factors come into play.
Thanks Barry
