Stevenr wrote:
But to suddenly judge that “Nope, they are lost...”

"If all the fornicators, adulterers, drunkards, extortioners, and covetous persons which bear the Christian name, were to be publicly excommunicated from the Christian Church, how many, and how awful would the examples be! If however the discipline of the visible Church be so lax that such characters are tolerated in it, they should consider that this is no passport to heaven. In the sight of God they are not members of his Church; their citizenship is not in heaven, and therefore they have no right to expect the heavenly inheritance. It is not under names, creeds, or professions, that men shall be saved at the last day; those alone who were holy, who were here conformed to the image of Christ, shall inherit the kingdom of God. Those who expect it in any other way, or on any other account, will be sadly deceived."

Stevenr, please become a realist just for a moment. Ask yourself, is this woman 'holy', and is she 'conformed to the image of Christ'? I say not. What do you say?

Stevenr wrote:
John UK I do have a question for you. In first Corinthians 5, when Paul is dealing with the church member who is in a relationship with his stepmother… is he;
A: Lost, needing Salvation
B: Lost beyond redemption- enemy of God
C: Saved, needing chastisement and, (if he repents) encouragement and restoration to the fellowship?

1 Corinthians 5:12-13 KJV
(12)  For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye **judge them** that are within [the professing church]?
(13)  But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that **wicked person**.

So, is it a pat on the head, saying, "There, there, deary," or do you chuck them out of the camp, knowing that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump?

Dr. Tim wrote:
Being a Republican won’t get anybody into heaven, Jim, but being a Democrat is a pretty sure sign someone is on the way to hell.

John UK wrote:
[Hatmaker said her “greatest regret” was speaking against homosexuality. ...]
Try making that same speech in the lake of fire, deary.

Believing in particular redemption, I do not believe the Lord Jesus Christ died in this woman's place. Rather, she is a nominal Christian, like so many Americans. They will all realise, too late, that they were never born again, never showed any evidence of being indwelt by the Spirit, never bore any fruit unto eternal life.

These sort of people are bold, they make bold speeches, they censure others who genuinely stand with God, they promote sin, they bolster the LGBT cause, they divorce, thinking it to be all right, but contrary to what Jesus taught. "Everybody's doing it, right? Must be okay!" Ah, you need to read and study the Bible, and see what God says about these things.

Stevenr wrote:
Could this lady be saved...

Your problem is that you don't take the Bible seriously enough. You have a get out clause to justify all your sin. You want to be a Christian but you want to sin as well. You use Paul as an example of this, but you take his words wrongly. Paul hated the remnant of sin in his bosom, and he called himself a "wretched man". This woman is not struggling with sin (as is common to all believers), but wholeheartedly embracing sin. She is not looking for God's grace, but is denying scripture, which is the word of God. She even says that she now accepts and promotes what we (and God) calls sin.

Now Steven, I deny that I am on a high horse, and I deny that I am attacking you. I asked you a question, and instead of simply answering it, you accused me of attacking you. This is not good, Steven. If you ask me the same question....

I stand with God on this. Therefore I am totally opposed to same sex marriage, homosexuality, transgenderism, lesbianism, fornication, adultery, satanism, feminism, liberalism, divorce, sex change, and any other perversion you can think of.

Frank wrote:
Thanks brother! Yes feminists will go to any length to undo scripture. A good example of this is Priscilla and Aquila teaching Apollos. How can anyone even guess what Priscilla's role was? They were husband and wife so it would be normal to use both their names if they were both there. Perhaps Priscilla just stood by her husband. Or perhaps she said amen- who knows?
What feminists and unfortunately the men who cater to them do is take something like this and make it the rule.

Frank wrote:
That is exactly what I was thinking.

Frank wrote:
...
The only thing this lady was ashamed about was her criticism of homosexual unions at one time.

And there are plenty like her in the world today. It is almost like a fashion, this evangelical feminism. But despite all their bellowing and accusations, they will find out it was not worthwhile, and that they ought to have gone the biblical route, as you have pointed out many times, Frank. And to whom much is given, much will be expected. If ignorance is no excuse, knowledge will condemn much more harshly.

The trap people fall into is to study the Bible without any desire to obey its teachings; or, if there is some desire, to not regard it as a serious matter. And that is why it is such a serious matter. Many need to take it on board and think much more seriously about what they do, and who they align themselves with.

Stevenr wrote:
Someone forgot the most important verse
1 Corinthians 6:11
And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.

All it is saying is that the worst of sinners, WHEN THEY REPENT AND BELIEVE THE GOSPEL, will be accepted in the beloved, justified and sanctified. And it is a cause of great rejoicing when they do so.

But 'deary', now she is going in the other direction. She is going AWAY FROM THE GOSPEL, and EMBRACING THE SINFUL LIFESTYLE, saying that she ought to have done it years ago.

I really don't see how you can justify what you're saying, Stevenr, unless you hold the same position as 'deary' yourself. Is that it? Do you support same sex marriage? Or divorce?

Frank wrote:
Yes brother, it is called antinomianism; name it claim it. IOW, Christ is their Savior, but not their Lord.
So, they believe they don't need to be born again from above.

The main problem 'deary' has, is that she once stood for what is right, namely, she would tell the homosexual crowd what God thought about their activities. But she has changed her mind about that (repented) and now supports the marriage of two men or two women, alongside supporting divorce, both of which God is totally opposed to.

2 Thessalonians 2:11-12 KJV
(11) And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
(12) That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

It amazes me that some professing Christians will bless and support the ungodly, while never having a kind word of encouragement for God's elect. This speaks volumes as to whose side they are really on. Again, it is evidence, which stacks up day by day, week by week, year by year. And God records every word.

Stevenr wrote:
I mean, think about it John UK... it’s almost like you’re saying that her works decide her salvation?

Please accept it.

1 Timothy 1:9-11 KJV
(9)  Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,
(10)  For whoremongers, for them that **defile themselves with mankind**, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;
(11)  According to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 KJV
(9)  Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor **adulterers**, nor effeminate, nor **abusers of themselves with mankind**,
(10)  Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

Stevenr wrote:
I have no clue if the woman is a child of God...

And you have no clue...?

Those who have been truly saved by God's grace show the evidence of that in the general manner of their life.

3:16 wrote:
...pathetic man

Nay lad. You must needs refer to scriptures which show also the wrath of God against sinners, the eternal punishment he will mete out at the judgment, the fierce anger he has against those who hate his elect people and accuse them of a lack of love. Oh, but then you must accuse God of a lack of love. He could save all sinners if he so wished but he doesn't. Some of them he calls brute beasts fit only for the slaughter. And in the parable of the sower, only a comparative few get actually saved.

Frank wrote:
Well said brother! Yes this woman is deluded. And all of the people that have accepted her Christian testimony are also deluded and share responsibility for the harm she has caused.
2 Corinthians 6:17 “Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you,”
She is definitely controlled by a greater force, but not by our triune God. The door was opened to evangelical feminists and this is one of the results of that.

Leviticus 20:13 If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them.

Ephesians 6:12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.