Is excommunication for today, and is there grace in it?

[Former Member Amorphous]

If excommunication is for today, how should it be handled? Does excommunication show hierarchical power? And is there grace in it?

Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican. Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
Matthew 18:15‭-‬18 KJV
http://bible.com/1/mat.18.15-18.KJV

But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.
1 Corinthians 5:11 KJV
http://bible.com/1/1co.5.11.KJV

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[Yeshua1]

If excommunication is for today, how should it be handled? Does excommunication show hierarchical power? And is there grace in it?

Yes, but it needs to be done in the manner set forth for us by Jesus himself, and to be done by the local assembly, and once the person repents and forsakes their errors, are to be welcomed back into the flock once again...

done on order to allow God to work directly upn that person, as He seems to allow the Devil to have now access to that person in some fashion, to try to turm him back to God!



Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[Internet Theologian]

If excommunication is for today, how should it be handled? Does excommunication show hierarchical power? And is there grace in it?



Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Thanks for the post. I ask, can you explain what you mean when you ask 'And is there grace in it?' What do you mean by this, specifically the 'grace' part?

 

[HankD]

I didn't post the O/P so this is my opinion.

Yes there is grace in it.

Why? Because God gives the opportunity for the erring child of God to return to the blessed fellowship of the church.

No grace would be if he/she was banned from the church until he/she went home to be with the LORD.

HankD

 

[Yeshua1]

I didn't post the O/P so this is my opinion.

Yes there is grace in it.

Why? Because God gives the opportunity for the erring child of God to return to the blessed fellowship of the church.

No grace would be if he/she was banned from the church until he/she went home to be with the LORD.

HankD

This refers to a saved person acting as if he is not saved, so we need to withdraw fellowship from him, in order to have God deal directly with his own rebelling child!

 

[Former Member Amorphous]

Thanks for the post. I ask, can you explain what you mean when you ask 'And is there grace in it?' What do you mean by this, specifically the 'grace' part?

It sounds like a self righteous act of power hungry church leaders throwing people out because they sin differently then them.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[Internet Theologian]

It sounds like a self righteous act of power hungry church leaders throwing people out because they sin differently then them.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

The objective of church discipline is not to remove but to restore erring members.

Obviously all persons sin, but there is a difference between living in sin that brings reproach upon the church, to which others are aware (note 1 Corinthians 5 as an example) and a daily personal walk of repentance and cleansing; 1 John 1:1ff.

Surely none involved in 1 Cor. 5 disciplinary action were being self-righteous, but were called to follow the mandate of removal since there was no repentance. There must also have been sorrow involved on the part of the removed person at a latter time; note 2 Corinthians 2, and he was to be forgiven.

Galatians 6 also shows us that those who are spiritual are to restore others, so we have that in churches, some who actually are 'holier than thou' and are examples to the flock. These are and should be appointed as leaders within a church, to help guard others and assist others in their spiritual walk.

Also, there are those who are worthy of double honor, who labor in the Word and doctrine; 1 Timothy 5:17. I would not broad brush the church as being a bunch of self-righteous power hungry individuals seeking to throw others out of church, but it would be perhaps easier to do so without considering the other Scriptures.

 

[SovereignGrace]

The objective of church discipline is not to remove but to restore erring members.

Obviously all persons sin, but there is a difference between living in sin that brings reproach upon the church, to which others are aware (note 1 Corinthians 5 as an example) and a daily personal walk of repentance and cleansing; 1 John 1:1ff.

Surely none involved in 1 Cor. 5 disciplinary action were being self-righteous, but were called to follow the mandate of removal since there was no repentance. There must also have been sorrow involved on the part of the removed person at a latter time; note 2 Corinthians 2, and he was to be forgiven.

Galatians 6 also shows us that those who are spiritual are to restore others, so we have that in churches, some who actually are 'holier than thou' and are examples to the flock. These are and should be appointed as leaders within a church, to help guard others and assist others in their spiritual walk.

Also, there are those who are worthy of double honor, who labor in the Word and doctrine; 1 Timothy 5:17. I would not broad brush the church as being a bunch of self-righteous power hungry individuals seeking to throw others out of church, but it would be perhaps easier to do so without considering the other Scriptures.

Yes, restoration is always the intent. Yet, when the offender offers no remorse, no repentance, no willingness to listen to what the church offers, excommunication is the only option...used as a last resort as well. Look at how Jesus spoke in Matthew 18. Three times a church is to seek reconciliation, but if the offender doesn't want it, too, you have to excommunicate that individual.

 

[Internet Theologian]

Yes, restoration is always the intent. Yet, when the offender offers no remorse, no repentance, no willingness to listen to what the church offers, excommunication is the only option...used as a last resort as well. Look at how Jesus spoke in Matthew 18. Three times a church is to seek reconciliation, but if the offender doesn't want it, too, you have to excommunicate that individual.

I'd say the person in 2 Corinthians 2 would find that the church extended grace to him by following God's disciplinary action and I believe it was the man in 1 Cor. 5 iirc. Note Hebrews 12:8ff.

 

[SovereignGrace]

If excommunication is for today, how should it be handled? Does excommunication show hierarchical power? And is there grace in it?



Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

What would your church do with a member who was living a life of debauchery? If they would not heed to the church's advice?

 

[Revmitchell]

It sounds like a self righteous act of power hungry church leaders throwing people out because they sin differently then them.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Why does it sound like that to you?

 

[Iconoclast]

Biblical Church discipline is a mark of a true church.

 

[annsni]

We have had to recently practice it twice. It was not taken lightly and it was not a step that was taken quickly but months after the sin was found out. It was only when it was clear that the people were not repentant of their sin but instead embracing it and excusing it that the discipline occurred. It breaks my heart and I really do pray that these individuals would someday turn back to God and walk away from the damaging sin that they so closely are holding.

 

[SovereignGrace]

We have had to recently practice it twice. It was not taken lightly and it was not a step that was taken quickly but months after the sin was found out. It was only when it was clear that the people were not repentant of their sin but instead embracing it and excusing it that the discipline occurred. It breaks my heart and I really do pray that these individuals would someday turn back to God and walk away from the damaging sin that they so closely are holding.

Bu...bu....but you'd be showing more grace to them if you left them alone and did not excommunicate them. SMH.

 

[annsni]

Bu...bu....but you'd be showing more grace to them if you left them alone and did not excommunicate them. SMH.

I know. But there is that pesky 1 Corinthians 5 that seems to get in the way....

 

[Former Member Amorphous]

Why does it sound like that to you?

So the pastors and elders that won't give up their porn addiction are right to toss out the person who isn't giving up alcoholism?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[annsni]

So the pastors and elders that won't give up their porn addiction are right to toss out the person who isn't giving up alcoholism?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

And how do you know that the pastors and elders have a porn addiction?

 

[Former Member Amorphous]

And how do you know that the pastors and elders have a porn addiction?

How do you know they don't, or don't have other sin? Even the scriptures admit that they which say they don't sin are liars.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[annsni]

How do you know they don't, or don't have other sin? Even the scriptures admit that they which say they don't sin are liars.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Yes, we all sin. However, what sin is exposed? I know for an absolute fact that my pastor does not have a porn addiction. He won't even look at Victoria's Secret commercials and his is completely open with his wife (me) with all of his electronic transmissions.

But we are not speaking of "hidden" sins. If it were to come out that a pastor has a porn addiction, I would expect our church leadership (the deacons and elders) to ask that pastor to step down for a time. If no one is aware of the sin, how could anyone act on it? But it's not just the pastors but we've asked individuals to step out of a leadership position for a time until they have dealt with their sin. It is called "being a part of the body". When there is an infection in the body, we need to address it, open it, clean out the infection and help that body part to be restored to full health.

In the particular cases that we recently had, it was a BLATANTLY obvious sin - the member thumbing their nose at God and the leadership of the church who had been working to help these individuals leave their sin behind and follow God's Word. But they refused. So there was nothing else to be done but to practice the excommunication and to announce it to the congregation. The sin to start was a more private sin and only very few of us knew it but once the parties refused to turn away and tried to continue to be a part of the life of the church, it had to be stopped. Sin is dangerous. Read 1 Corinthians 5 and tell me that excommunication is wrong. A gangrenous limb needs to be removed from the body in order to protect the rest of the body.

 

[Internet Theologian]

So the pastors and elders that won't give up their porn addiction are right to toss out the person who isn't giving up alcoholism?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Have you confronted those pastors and elders you know are involved in porn? Or are you just hypothesizing?