LadyRaven

Fatima, what reward does a Muslim woman get for blowing herself up and murdering the "infidel?" We know the men get 40 virgins, but what would you get?

She isn't allow in the inner court anymore, once it became obvious that she was muslim. Just wanted you to know so you dont talk to the air.

I like how the OP reminded us to serve within our churches. Too often we (and I include myself in this perhaps more than most people) think we're going to church solely to be ministered to. But who's supposed to be doing all this ministering?

<snip>

Maybe I'm an idealist, but I think that small gestures like that could make a big difference in our churches.

I have been in churches where there is a group of like 6-10 women and one or two men who teach sunday school. The second one or two of these individuals decide to take a year off because of burnout, there is a crisis. No one else will do it. Suddenly we're trying to figure out if ALL the high school kids can learn together or if it's ok to have 1, 2 and 3 grade together because there isn't a teacher! There will be over a hundred families in the church. Yet these ones are the ones to visit the visitors, visit the sick, cook the casseroles when someone is ill or dies, mow the yards for the elderly, cleans the church, teaches the kids, plans the dinners, and runs the small group bible studies. You have to wonder why they dont burn out more often.

Why is it that nobody wants to serve?

THANK YOU VERY MUCH!!!

this is just what I was saying, to go around saying that a church is teaching false doctrine because you dont agree on eschatological items or on how to baptize or so forth is just hurting the cause of Christianity.

I suppose it depends upon how it is done. If you say it in such a way that it leads people to believe you are speaking of heresy, then I'll concede your point. If it's obvious we're talking about a simple disagreement over something smaller, I'm not sure I do.

The unbelievers are quite aware of the fact that we disagree with each other on a good variety of issues. It's obvious. All they have to do is drive around some.

So when you are asked why you dont attend Park Baptist, stating that you believe their doctrine about worship is false and they believe that your doctrine about worship is false makes a good deal of sense. It sounds like there is a good reason, a legitimate disagreement. If you say you dont like their music, it makes Christianity look trivial.

I tend not to use it, I just tend to say "I dont believe in dispensationalism." or whatever. But if the terminology is used wisely, there is nothing wrong with saying that you believe dispensationalism is false.

I realise that it can be shocking to some sensibilities, which is why I always put the 'i believe' in front if I use it at all. But honestly, it's something new in the culture nowadays that one would have to pad one's opinion this way. Read doctrinal material written in the 1800's and early 1900s ... That terminology is all over it, for stuff we just disagree on, like baptism. I dont think that the older theologians were offensive and brash, I believe that modern man is too easily offended and wimpy.

but you are missing the point that on issues like the trinity the vast, vast majority of churches teach this, so if there is an opposing view it is very much in the minority and is taught in few churches. So half the churches are not teaching something that is wrong.

the poster is still using the premise that false just means 'not correct' or 'not right' and not meaning that there is serious, salvation prohibiting error. The not believing the trinity is heresy (modalism and oneness are heresies) and that is grave error. having one of the many views of the end times is not. But if you believe one of the partial preterist positions (a -r post millenial), all pre trib and most post trib people are still 'wrong' to you. It's not something you divide personal fellowship over, but it might prevent one from attending a given local church if the church is all about the pre-trib end times all the time and one is a-millenial. One would either look for an a-millenial church, or one that just didn't teach about the end times much at all.

And as to your last comment, most likely all churches are teaching at least one thing wrong (except mine of course ). To me, that doesn't mean you should give up the search or avoid affiliation with a local body of some sort, it just means you find the best one, the one you believe has the least error and attend there. Or the one where there might be more things you think are wrong but those things are least important. (Eucharist doctrines dont bug me as much as Dispensationalism does)

See? I like this part! The coming together of the saints.

Yes me too we don't have to agree as long as we love.

Awww, I'm so glad we can lovingly agree that we can disagree.

.......especially since this means we wont have to be canned, or frozen....

Thank you for your response you have completly described my husbands belief _ hyper cavalinist.I am not looking to undermine my husband but help him,Let me give some more background I have been married for 20 years and my husband has only been active in church for the last year.He game across a preacher on tv and started studying and attending his church. Now he is not at all willing to hear anything I want to discuss ,If I disagree I just dont have ears to hear.That I am being lead astray by false teachers.Now I do not want my husband to go back to his old ways, But there message is dark and dicouraging, Jesus only came for his elect.

I am only looking for some direction.

Hypercalvinist on TV? Wow, that's news. Anyway.

I would be absolutely sure that he is actually a heretic before taking my advice. You might be misunderstanding him or he might be misunderstanding his own church and this is different. However, once you have ascertained that he is in fact heretical, you need to treat him as such. Heretics are supposed to be confronted and given a chance to repent of their error before anything else is done, this is to be done by someone in authority over him. Unfortunately if his church is heretical this might not happen. Heretics are generally regarded as being unbelievers by the church proper. Therefore you should regard him as one and treat him accordingly. I'm sure there are plenty of good websites with good biblical counsel over what you should do but here is my take on it.

You do not leave him over this issue. You submit to him as much as you can over as much as you can. However, you do not submit to his authority in spiritual matters because he has none. You are to be respectful and kind but you may go to church and sit under whichever local body you feel is correct. Get a ride if he wont give you one.

Of course he could be abusively controlling or emotionally manipulative. In this case you need to make a decision as to how to handle it and then follow through as you feel appropriate.

So, yes both the Methodist and Reformed and Baptists and Lutherans can be right on what it takes for salvation. they can all be right on who Jesus is, on who God is, on the view of the Bible, and still disagree about things that really in the end don

This is your only warning people. Keep it respectful or it gets canned.

I'd rather be flash-frozen if you dont mind, it will leave me fresher and with much less sodium...

Well, it doesn't upset me personally, but I'm pretty sure it would some people. For one thing, it makes the assumption that people ARE worshipping this image (and while I think it's possible, I really don't think we can assume that that's always the case).

This is an interesting side discussion. I have not been involved because I have not hammered out my doctrine on the matter. I have an opinion but as is the case with opinions, they are just a gut reaction and belief with not much to back it up.

See, I could have a picture of Buddha in my home and not worship it, because I dont worship Buddha, but I'm not going to do it because I'm not Buddhist. I would probably go so far as to say to have this in my home would be wrong but, I cant use the idol clause in scripture because i'm not worshipping it. It's not an idol because it's not being worshipped.

I could also say that most likely it's not an accurate likeness of the man, it's a picture commonly accepted as such but, have you ever looked at them? They could be like ten different dudes! So obviously these artists renditions of Buddha are stylised representations and not actual pictures of Buddha.

I personally would not have it because it means nothing to me and because if I did have it I would possibly lead someone who does not know me to believe I was Buddhist. WHich would be lying.

People dont have things in their homes that mean nothing to them, so saying the pic of Jesus means nothing would be untrue. One then would have to decide, biblically, what worship of images entails. I'm not sure the Muslim solution (no pics of anything, not even prophets) is the correct approach.

Sorry for the ramblings, but I'm thinking out on the keyboard and hoping maybe someone will grab something I said and run with it, either here or in another thread.

Paul wrote of his concerns of another coming after him and perverting the church in 2nd Cor 11:4.

2nd Cor 11:4 For if he that comes preaches another Jesus whom we have not preached, or if you receive another Spirit, which you have not received, or another gospel, which you have not accepted, you might well bear with them.

Paul was concerned that if some one comes in and teach another Jesus, Spirit, and gospel that the church would accept this teaching. Has this happened to us?

That is precisely why denominations exist. There was one original body, then it got to be rather large with many local congregations. A dispute arose over the nature of the Holy Spirit, the Catholics (Rome) and the Orthodox (Byzantium) went their separate ways, each believing that they had the correct doctrine. This pattern has continued over time to the point where we have so many denominations its hard to keep up with them (I just found out about something called Swedenborganism???) If one is right, the rest then are wrong.

Most splits were not over things that changed the nature of God, man, Salvation or whatnot to the point that they are heretics, but obviously SOMEONE is wrong here. Unfortunately, you cannot stand in unity locally with people you disagree with on fundamental things such as how and when you baptise people 0r the proper use/understanding of communion. So, we have to wait until Christ comes again and we no longer see through the glass darkly to find out what we need to know. That will be great, actually. And who knows, I'm probably wrong about something...

The fact is that the local church can be a good thing but the Op says it keeps us from deception and from false teaching, the reality is that most churches are teaching deception and false doctrine so rather than keeping us from them as they should the local church is the one introducing these false teachings to us.

This is a false accusation that I don

The fact is that the local church can be a good thing but the Op says it keeps us from deception and from false teaching, the reality is that most churches are teaching deception and false doctrine so rather than keeping us from them as they should the local church is the one introducing these false teachings to us.

One of the roles of the local body is to keep us from deception, in as much as they provide biblical teaching which we then use to discern false teaching. Of course, if the local body itself is deceived then it is pretty hard for that body to fulfil it's role. Therefore we are also supposed to study on our own. When a local congregation is filled with church members who sit and take information in on autopilot, then it's ripe for some false teacher to come in and lead them all down the primrose path to hell. However, if the local body is filled with members who study regularly and hold their leaders accountable for solid teaching and leadership, that is less likely to happen.

As we see in many constructs, the church body is to serve the congregation by providing certain things, but can only do so if the individual provides these things to the body as well. If no one in the congregation knows good doctrine, then how are they to hold the leaders accountable? How then can they teach SS properly? How then can they raise their children (the future of the faith) to be discerners of truth?

Therefore, it's pretty much up to us, the individual Christian to make sure that our local body does not run aground and we can only do that if we are solid ourselves.

The definition of incest has changed over time, based on God's revelation. in the time of Adam and Eve, there was no other option and only cross generational incest was forbidden in Gen 2:24. This would have forbidden Eve from being intimate with her sons, or Adam with his daughters. Obviously brother and sister marriages were not forbidden in the time of Adam and Eve because this is where the children's children would come from. Eve didn't have children with her sons, or it would have been recorded that she was judged just like Noah's family was judged when one of his daughters slept with him.

Then in Leviticus brother-sister marriages (like Adam's kids and also Abraham and Sarah) and marrying two sisters (like Jacob had done) is forbidden. (Lev 18:6-18). in the NT it is revealed that monogamy is the ideal and there are restrictions on the polygamous in church office.

However, issues like these are not things which determine whether a person should or does accept the offer of salvation. The Holy Spirit has to bring a person to the place where they can say what is in my signature before they will sit still and hear what they dont want to hear.

Well then, perhaps we should discuss the benefits of the local church and ignore rabbit trails.

Because even if man is right that pictures of Jesus are idols, not all local bodies have them and there are more than one denominations that actually agree with him on this. There are local bodies that DO hold to man's ideal.

So, you can't use it as an excuse to avoid the ideal of assembling together in a local congregation where we can all use our gifts, all be taught, be accountable and etc, just as FA posted. Instead, it would be a reason for us all to be discerning about WHICH local body one decides to align with. You should not align yourself with a body where you are in serious doctrinal disagreement and then you avoid these sorts of encounters in person.

Im sorry I dont know where, but I remember reading in the bible a verse that ssaid something like "living in sin, or giving the appearance of living in sin is wrong" I remember it stuck out to me because I used to live with my boyfriend and I felt the whole time that it was wrong.

Most people quote the verse to avoid the appearance of evil 1 Thes 5:22. I believe that to be a misapplication of that verse (click here to see why).

However, if one is appearing to sin when they are not doing so, then are they presenting a truthful view of themselves to the world? no, they are not. scripture is pretty clear that we're supposed to present a spotless image to the world, we're supposed to be honest, we're supposed to live upright lives and avoid temptation. All of these things teach us that putting ourselves in a position that makes us look like we are sinning is just not right.

Perhaps the wording is not done well enough to hold up legally? No reason to support bad law in order to get a good result is there? Just a thought as to why that might be, not that I know. I am curious myself now.

Well I guess I worded my post wrong, because I do want to marry him. I love him very much. I'm not picking him over God --- we are going to church together and now are reading in the Bible together. I am trying to make good decisions, and this is a decision that is making me very happy. I felt a lot of frustration and stress with where I was living before. I told the story about my friend first because it is becoming like my story. Thanks again for all of your responses.

When you asked the question, we answered it. NOBODY here said it was fine or that anyone should do it, we told you it was dangerous. If you aren't fornicating now or right when you move in, I can guarantee that if you two live together for more than a few months you will be. Someone actually studied this, I can't remember the amount of hours it takes but there is only a certain amount of time two people can spend alone before this happens and you burn those hours a whole lot faster when you are in the same home.

I will pray for you because...you are not moving in as room mates, you are moving in a pretending to be married when you are not married. Which will also increase the likelihood of fornication, it will just seem normal. There is no good reason for you to do this, there is no benefit you can gain that outweighs the risk to your spiritual life.

And dont try to justify this because you love him. You loved him before you planned to move in, you could continue to do so from the same place. Moving in does not enhance this, it puts the two of you in a place where you are outside of the covenant of marriage, and living as if you were. Even if you remain sexually pure (doubtful), it is lying, hun, pure and simple. Lying to yourself, lying to the world and trying to lie to God. This is of course a sin and no amount of going to church and reading the Bible is going to whitewash that away. And you did choose him over God because when you deliberately choose to do something with a man that is a sin that you would not choose to do if he was not in the picture you are choosing him over God, despite your insistence otherwise.

Drayden,

I do not know for sure if your husband is believing heresy or not, but your OP sounded like it. Calvinism/predestination are not heresy. However some people of our persuasion have taken predestination to an extreme to where it becomes heretical. Hypercalvinism is actually a misnomer as the hypercalvinist places the irresistability of grace in a position where it's importance is exaggerated so as to completely overshadow the rest of scripture. It is a denial of a sincere offer of the gospel to any who would repent, and some go so far as to insist that the gospel should only be preached to the elect (how one determines this is beyond me even if it were correct doctrine). True historical Calvinism does believe that the gospel should be preached to all and that it is a sincere offer to any who would accept it.

A Calvinist believes that without God's intervention man wont chose the gospel. However, any choice he makes against the gospel is voluntary and wanted based on his preferences. The resulting condemnation is also just because he honestly did not want to accept the gospel. Man's inability to choose is not something he rails against, it's not something done over and above his desires. It is his honest, earnest, completely voluntary desire to reject the gospel.

When the Holy Spirit enlightens a man, it is his honest, earnest, completely voluntary desire to accept the gospel. He wont choose anything else because his nature changed to where it makes no sense to him to do otherwise. There is no possibility of man being drug kicking and screaming into heaven or hell, man does what he wants and goes where he has chosen. God changes the 'want to' in a person by changing his nature, opening his ears, circumcising his heart not by changing man's mind for him.

Hypercalvinism takes this too far, to the point that the rejection or acceptance of the gospel is not voluntary at all. Man does not chose. It's not that he chooses that which pleases him, he makes no choice at all. God not only chooses the elect, but saves them without their consent. A Hypercalvinist

1. Denies that the gospel call applies to all who hear, OR

2. Denies that faith is the duty of every sinner, OR

3. Denies that the gospel makes any "offer" of Christ, salvation, or mercy to the non-elect or denies that the offer of divine mercy is free and universal), OR

4. Denies that there is such a thing as "common grace," OR

5. Denies that God has any sort of love for the non-elect.

Based on what you have presented, and the way you have worded things, it is my impression that either you do not understand your husband's beliefs well enough to explain them accurately to us or he has drifted off into hypercalvinism. The difference might seem slight to someone coming from a freewill pov, however, it is there. Before I can counsel you how to respond to his doctrine and his insistence that you follow it, I would have to know which is actually happening. Calvinism isn't everyone's bag, but it isn't heresy. Hypercalvinism is heresy.

Actually I can tell you one thing to do. I would do a complete study, a comparison study if you will, of Calvinism and Arminianism on your own. Ask your husband for materials that you understand that you can study, I'm sure he'd be glad to provide them. Then get your own and study the scriptures using both. If he gets his knickers in a twist, explain to him that you dont understand and and you want to study until you do understand. You wish to understand and agree but cant right now. etc. Once you understand true Calvinism, whether you agree with it or not, and know whether or not he is a heretic, then you have a clear path, I believe.

End the end, if he's a standard Calvinist, I have to agree with Axx, the scriptures are clear, it is the husband's job to lead. But submission does not mean that you agree with everything, it means that you allow him to lead in spite of that. You are not a robot and not expected to just nod your head and follow along like a zombie. You can ask questions, you can disagree. However, once the rubber hits the road, and you have children, it is HIS responsibility to see to their spiritual upbringing and yours to support him.

If your husband has drifted off into heresy however, you do not have to follow. You can pray for him, you can stay with him, you can continue to dialogue, but you are not to follow him into heresy.

Oh, and you said that you were a Baptist... Have you ever heard of a group of Baptists called "the Founders"? They strictly hold to the London Baptist Confession. You might want to look them up.

My husband and I agree on all things spiritual. We follow God and His word and we sit under the fine teaching of our shepherds...together. I hardly think my husband would be trying to teach me anything that disagrees with all the provisions given to keep us on the right path.

In fact, there have been many times I have actually taught my husband a thing or two, and believe me, he asks me what I think. There is no violation in that. We are equal partners in the sight of God. Because we are in right standing with God, we are restored to the position of Adam and Eve before the Fall--in Christ. There is no hierarchy there, but rather, we work shoulder to shoulder in service to our King. That is the true status of Christian marriage in this Church age.

We submit to each other according to scripture, and because my husband loves me sacrificially as Jesus Christ does for the Church, I love him and easily submit to his leadership in all areas. Often, he will submit to my wishes out of love, to please and to gift me. I believe that Jesus does that as well, as our loving Father.

Sounds to me like you and your husband have it worked out rather well. I think your description of your marriage is beautiful! I don't know how you justify changing the "hierarchy" of marriage in this "church age." I don't recall that in scripture. Also...being restored to the position of Adam and Eve "before the fall"...is there scripture for that?? I know I've heard that before but I thought that was a Moonies or JW thing? Can't remember.

What we have in the OP is a different topic altogether from what you and your hubby have. We have a woman who disagree's with her husband. She has chosen to follow the spiritual teachings of someone other than her husband. So while you and your husband have cultivated a trust..this woman 'may be' harming her marriage. (I don't want to assume anything since we don't have much info.) She needs to submit to him (even if he's not rightly following the Word) and lift him up in prayer. That is what the bible teaches.

There is nothing wrong with a husband who seeks counsel from his wife...but ultimately it is the husbands decision.

I know what the OP is about. If my husband decided one day to embrace a serious doctrinal error as truth, I would have to come against it. I wouldn't leave my husband, but I would not submit to error by embracing it as he does. I would pray for his eyes to be opened, and make many pleas with him in conversation to see the truth. I would inform his leaders so that they would take him aside. A good church has a built-in safety mechanism for believers who would go astray.

I suppose in that case...the decision would be mine to get correction for him. Good wife. Worth more than rubies.

Proverbs 31:10

Who can find a virtuous and capable wife?

She is more precious than rubies.

I'm always impressed when a husband conducts himself so that his wife has complete trust in his ability to be a servant leader.

We are supposed to submit to our husbands 'as unto the Lord.' I would not follow Christ if I did not trust Him completely and I follow Him because He died for me and because I know He will never lie to me or feed me false doctrine. If I were married I'd have the same expectation of my husband as a type of Christ. I as a type of the church am not to follow Him into error because when this happens the two of us are presenting a lying message about Christ and the Church.

I'm not speaking of a simple disagreement over whether you clap in church but when actual error is being taught. If a wife allows her husband to drift off into heresy unchallenged is in error herself.

Likewise, astrology is about foretelling the future, finding meaning and direction for your life, and things like that. Looking for God's plan of redemption in what He has made does not fit into this category.

not wanting to pick-nits with you, but isnt looking for God's plan of redemption sort of like trying to find meaning and direction for your life?

I dont know if this is strict astrology or not, but I think it comes too close to the line and I would not feel comfortable at all using this to spread the Gospel. There are just too many other ways that dont lead to so many questions.

No, see, those of us who are already saved dont need to find meaning and direction for our lives. Those who are not saved, are not looking for the gospel in the stars or in sand dollars or matzo crackers (Christ in passover) or whatever we tend to use to speak with the lost. These things are tools, like the Fibonacci numbers and etc., which can be used to teach about Christ if we wish to use them and which just exist if we do not wish to do so. St Patrick used a shamrock to teach about Christ. The book Peace Child is about a missionary using a very barbaric custom to explain the gospel. When discussing things with pagans, I have used some of their own customs and explained how this was a residual memory of the gospel or some other spiritual truth that got perverted by sin.

There is no requirement to do this, if it seems too close to paganism for you then dont use it, find some other way of communicating the gospel. It's not astrology, it's looking at the stars and finding patterns that some have decided can have one meaning over against the meaning others have given them. We're not even talking about a point of doctrine, this is something that really isn't important in the grand scheme of things. Its not in scripture, its not a command or the violation of one.

that is not what this verse was speaking of.

The Word speaks of having unity with Christ.

Being one with Christ.

How can one have unity with Christ when the church is broken up into all these different denominations?

You yourself said the church isn't perfect, why would someone subject themselves to anything concerning our Lord Christ Jesus that isn't perfect?

I have to say that, in most of my discussions with you, you do tend to bring up things that many people ask themselves but dont ask out loud. I gotta give you props for that. Now though, I have to ask if you see something here that might seem incongruous (is that the right word?) if you think about it hard enough.

The denominations have split themselves apart from each other, which you believe is wrong because it's not unity. Yet, you, your own denomination of 'man' are also apart. Yet you claim unity with Christ. Why then is it not possible that at least one of those denominations just might also have unity with Christ? If it is possible for you to have unity with Christ on a singular level, then why cant a denomination have it on a group level? I know you dont have the hubris to believe that only you know the truth and they should all join you. So, if you can have unity in Christ there alone, split from everybody else, so can they, logically, so I have to ask what makes you any different from them? Second, you are not perfect either, so if you are going by this standard, you can have nothing to do with yourself concerning the Lord. Which is sorta impossible, or if you do find a way, I want videotape, it would be entertaining.

Denominations are split because they believe they have removed themselves from at least one form of error (as practised or believed by the others). The fact that the church is divided is evidence of sin and imperfection, but it is not necessarily sin and imperfection to BE divided if it is actually an error that the denomination has split from. You cannot embrace a heretic, and you should not assent to something you believe to be error, to do so is lying. That is something the church should never do.

So, it is necessary that denominations actually exist, the church cant just go along and believe any old thing and claim unity when each one believe something different. That isn't real unity. One day, I look forward to knowing the truth completely and looking around at all my brothers and sisters and knowing that we all know the exact same thing. We will never have to disagree or agree to disagree again.

First I have a question.

Does common law relationship count as marriage in Heaven as it does on earth?

Here in my state, we have people who are living together, and we have some who were married in common law. The state does recognise a difference and I believe God does too. One is not a covenant and one is a covenant.

The state decided that we don't need common law marriage any more and so it was moving to do away with them, if it hasn't already. (I'm not up on it, I have no need to be). I see nothing in scripture that says that two people who are scripturally able to marry cannot be married this way if they do not have to sin first.

The thing is, not all people who are shacking up are married in common law. Not all claim to be married, act married other than sexually, or what have you. Some do. Some have even had ceremonies where vows are taken and such. I do think there is a difference between that and moving some of your stuff in with your boyfriend and messing around.

Didn't you say once you lived in SC? If so, here is the scoop:

As of January 1, 2006 the practices of allowing common law marriages has been removed from state law. The purpose of the bill:" TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 20-1-110 SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT COMMON LAW MARRIAGE IN THE STATE MAY NOT BE RECOGNIZED ON AND AFTER JANUARY 1, 2006, AND TO PROVIDE AN EXCEPTION FOR A COMMON LAW MARRIAGE EXISTING AS OF DECEMBER 31, 2005; AND TO REPEAL SECTION 20-1-360 RELATING TO THE VALIDITY OF A MARRIAGE CONTRACTED WITHOUT THE ISSUANCE OF A LICENSE."

So, old common law marriages are valid, but there is no such thing as a new one. Many states are doing this. The law was to allow for people who could not get married for some reason but who intended to do so. Such as frontier marriages and the like. But, there isn't anywhere here that is so far out that someone can't get to it in 3-4 hours. The license is 25$, which is about what a couple could pay for an evening out. So, you are right speckles, there really isn't a need for common law marriages here.

I do believe that if a couple lived in a common law state and they fulfilled the rules for the state without sinning beforehand they have a legitimate marriage before the Lord and have not sinned at all. I do know of people here in the south who do not recognise the state's right to license marriages and so do not get a marriage license but who take vows in the church. I believe that is odd, but not sinful.

I also believe there is a big difference between these and 'shacking up', there is a commitment and not just a convenience.

That's great. And the remaining parishioners can go about feeling superior to to the "sinners" because they never got caught in their transgressions or they are just plain blind to their own sins.

I will admit that something needs to be done to sway their way of thinking, but sick people will never heal if they get kicked out of the doctor's office.

I do believe we have a biblical instruction for how to take care of sin in the church. There is supposed to be private confrontation and some teaching and exhortation and the like before people are disfellowshipped. They are then also free to come back if they repent. We dont know what was said or done in the SS class, though I would think this would be a matter for someone other than the SS teacher to deal with if it was necessary to remove this woman.

It is also possible that she was one of those people that just attend but are not members. I wouldn't have quickly thrown someone like that out of anything, they need to learn the truth and their lack of commitment to the local body and placing themselves under the authority of a local church says that they need to be taught. I'd be in less of a hurry to remove them unless they were stirring up strife.

How is one who is into astrology, and trying to come to the Lord, see the difference if we accept the foundation on which astrology is created?

Those who are actually into astrology would know the difference.

I have not read in scripture where this has been accepted or referred to.

The Bible tells us they are for signs and for seasons. What we are commanded against is fortune telling and using the stars to cast false prophecies and such. Using the stars in the sky as pictures of the gospel is a totally different and I think reasonable people can tell the difference.

It's a very interesting but, IMO, slightly shaky concept indeed, but nothing scary. We dont need to go around looking for demons under every stone, they show up enough on their own without us looking for them. I'm with Shiloh and Speckles on this. Nobody is using this theory to tell fortunes. They are using the constellations as another way to communicate the gospel.