unworthy.sinner

Thank you for for your contribution to the thread. My position is, as in the case of David and Bathsheba, that the adulterous act is conceived in the heart and when full blown leads to a sinful act. As far as I am concerned it would be adultery in the heart if it was a married person, but for an unmarried person it would be fornication in the heart - still a sin, but differing because of the nature of the relationships. Just as in bigamy is something specific to those who are married, whereas an orgy could be applied to both the married and unmarried.

Just a quick update. I did attend service this morning, but did not partake of the bread and the cup. Until such time as I believe my walk before God is more in keeping with His expectations, this will be the likely pattern of involvement in the body.

I think the distinction is being made to make it clear that it is not his own wife - to highlight the fact that adultery is a sinful act carried out against one's own spouse (in addition to God, and the vows made before Him). The fact that it specifically mentions adultery already makes it clear that he himself would also be married. You will also note that this is the only verse in that section dealing with sexual sin that uses the word adultery.

The key word there is adultery. The man would have to be married himself in order to commit adultery.

I was merely looking at those relationships that are in keeping with the order of Creation ie men and women. As marriage is only ever between a man (male) and a woman (female), it is my view that sexual relationships between those of the same sex would never fall under the category of adultery, but would be categorised as fornication or sexual immorality. This is of course aside from the specific Scriptural references that address the issue of homosexual behaviour.

Just a few comments on Moses and David. Israel before the time of Christ's earthly ministry had a distinction between King and Priest. Neither David or Moses held a position in the priesthood. They still held positions of leadership and God mightily used them to achieve His purposes, but also remember that Moses did not enter the promised land and David was told that he was not the one to build the temple.

I would certainly be interested in more views on this. Technically the unmarried has not sinned against their own spouse, as in the case of a married person, so while contributing to unfaithfulness they themselves have not been "unfaithful". Certainly the relationship could be defined as adulterous, and the sin of the married person would be defined as adultery, but as for the unmarried, fornication? Looking at Scriptures like those in Matthew would tend to indicate that it would require the other party to marry (rather than fornicate) for adultery to be committed. Matthew 5:32 NIV But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery.

Are these assumptions correct?

Thank you for those replies received so far - they have given me some additional perspectives to consider. After reading through the responses, I will attempt to separate what I see as being two distinct issues: attendance at services, and partaking of the Lord's supper. At this point in time, I am prepared to start re-attending services at least for this week, but not partaking of the emblems. The reasons for this are as follows, and I would appreciate comments on the Scriptures with regard to partaking of the Lord's supper; 1 Corinthians 11:27-29 NASB Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord. But a man must examine himself, and in so doing he is to eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For he who eats and drinks, eats and drinks judgment to himself if he does not judge the body rightly. It is my understanding that some of the more conservative fellowships ie Orthodox, practice "guarding of the table" to ensure that it is only believers walking in obedience (ie no unrepented gross sin) that share in the bread and the cup. I do not want to be one of the following; Jude 1:12-13 NIV These men are blemishes at your love feasts, eating with you without the slightest qualm - shepherds who feed only themselves. They are clouds without rain, blown along by the wind; autumn trees, without fruit and uprooted - twice dead. They are wild waves of the sea, foaming up their shame; wandering stars, for whom blackest darkness has been reserved forever.

Late last year, I had stopped attending church services as a result of a number of issues in my life - this mainly centred around a number of long term problems that had had been affecting me and my current standing before God. I had lost joy, did not feel loved, had questions over obedience, was questioning whether some of the conceptions I held over theological matters were actually right or not, and have been lonely after 11 years of no real friendships etc. At the present time, I have been considering re-attending services, but have a number of concerns that I would like some feedback on. Reasons not to: Not walking in obedience - There are a number of things happening in my life that I believe to be displeasing to the Lord, according to Scripture Don't want to be a "hypocrite" - Do not want to bring dishonour on the Lord by association Don't want to treat the blood of Christ as a cheap thing Reasons to: I am now in a position where I feel I can offer praise and worship in truth (I won't be mouthing empty words that don't come from the heart) I know that I need the Lord, and do wish to share in the remembrance of His sacrifice for sin as exhorted in Scripture I do know that what He has done has changed my life, even if it has not been a bed of roses, and I have felt unfulfilled. The church that I had previously been attending services at, and which I would envisage re-attending, is a theologically conservative, bible-based one, and have previously disfellowshipped attendees for matters of disobedience.

Eric, do you not remember that the book of Matthew tells us that when we "see our fellow brothers and sisters dwelling in sin" we are to go to them directly and warn them that they are sinning against the laws of God? An example would be the "New wave Gay community" of people who call themselves Christians, because they claim "God made them the way they are, so it is perfectly fine to marry within their sex and have sexual relations within their sex. Would you call these type of "believers" Good Christians or if you felt that God was calling you to find some that may want to be out of that type of lifestyle and help them find their way back to the LORD? While I do realize that " we are not to JUDGE of the secular world because God warns us that HE will deal with these sinners, we are instructed to "help our fellow brothers and sisters by warning them that they are living in sin! Do you not agree? If you need scripture/verse , I can accomodate. Could you please direct me to this verse. The one I recall in Matthew (18) speaks about a brother (or sister) who sins directly against you. There are certainly Scriptures that address the issue of accountability amongst the body, but I'm not sure that it is Matthew's gospel that specifically deals with this.

I notice in a number of discussions reference to resurrection as if it only applies to the saved. As such, I was wondering where this line of thinking comes from, when Scripture makes it clear that there will be a resurrection of both the righteous and the wicked - the only apparent difference being the outcome or abode of the resurrected.