Church Discipline

[Salamander]

I don't recall the word floozy in the bible, so I guess it sin't a word the pharisees used.
The woman caught in adultry made no excuses she knew she was guilty, this woman bragged about it, made it public to try and jusfity her sinful lifestyle, used her children, when at their ages, 18 and 20, they already know whats going on.
Some here are still trying to say the Church should not follow scripture and do what God has instructed us to do.
Unbeleiveable for christians.

No, it's believable of the carnal or lost.

 

[donnA]

No, it's believable of the carnal or lost.

my thoughts also

 

[saturneptune]

my thoughts also

I would be glad to compare my local church to yours as far as how each has handled church discipline in the past. That would include any other things that the Lord commands us not to do including gossip. It seems the posts twist the point of the thread. The point is for us to be consistant in all things the Lord has commanded us to obey in light of church discipline. It also includes forgiveness at each step with the desired outcome repentence. It does not include a public spectacle and a mean spirit, or for that matter, your opinion which sins are worse than others.

 

[Spinach]

Agreed.




.

 

[saturneptune]

No, it's believable of the carnal or lost.

I am neither carnal or lost, and my understanding of church discipline is quite in focus, based on the Bible, and not Biblical opinion, or my opinion of the relative degree of which sins are viewed. So what is in your eye, a speck or a beam?

 

[Spinach]

Adultery is the cardinal sin, as everyone knows...

The church is so full of sin, but as long as we look good on the outside, properly dressed, with proper haircuts, and faithfully (physically) married to one individual, we're all set. Too bad inside is dead men's bones.

I am in no way condoning this woman and her sin. I am submiting, however, that there are other, equal sins in play here.

I view the church as a hospital. Bring the wounded. Bring the sick. Jesus wants to touch each and every one! He didn't come for the righteous, afterall. He came for the sinner----to bring them unto repentance.

I'm so thankful for a forgiving Heavenly Father!!!

 

[donnA]

I would be glad to compare my local church to yours as far as how each has handled church discipline in the past. That would include any other things that the Lord commands us not to do including gossip. It seems the posts twist the point of the thread. The point is for us to be consistant in all things the Lord has commanded us to obey in light of church discipline. It also includes forgiveness at each step with the desired outcome repentence. It does not include a public spectacle and a mean spirit, or for that matter, your opinion which sins are worse than others.

I've only been at my church since April, and amember since July. But I've been told, by the deacon teaching the new members class, that they have in his memory(he thought there might be a 3rd but couldn't remember for sure) disciplined 2 people, one of which didn't handle it well and ran away from God, and the other who repented and now has a closer relationship with God and the church who serves faithfully.
Either way the church was obedient to God.

I have no idea what they were disciplined for, not my business. But I do know that others have been spoken to and straightened themselves out without church discipline(step 1 and 2), as this also happens in small group, and usually it never has to go further then that(step 3).

 

[donnA]

The church is so full of sin, but as long as we look good on the outside, properly dressed, with proper haircuts, and faithfully (physically) married to one individual, we're all set. Too bad inside is dead men's bones

This would describe my old church(one fo the reasons we left), but does not describe our new church.

I am in no way condoning this woman and her sin. I am submiting, however, that there are other, equal sins in play here.

Does not means she should not be disciplined. She is answerable for her own sins, and those are the ones shes being told to be responsible for. We have no real idea what the church has done or said to anyone else about their sinful lifestyles. And we wouldn't know about hers had she not advertised it by calling the news paper.

I view the church as a hospital. Bring the wounded. Bring the sick. Jesus wants to touch each and every one! He didn't come for the righteous, afterall. He came for the sinner----to bring them unto repentance.

I'm so thankful for a forgiving Heavenly Father!!!

She doesn't think she has anything to repent of to be forgiven of, makes a big difference. And the church is attempting to obey scripture and help lead this woman to repentance, to a renewed relationship with God. But she refuses, she does not want a relatioship with God, if she did she'd repent, and set things right, either marry the man or get rid of him. Why do you argue against people who seek to follow the word of God, to be obedient to Him?

 

[Spinach]

I've not said that discipline is not applicable. I also have not argued that she is condoned. I am asserting that there are other sins here and I hope they are being dealt with.

If she has left the church, there needs to be no further action.

I agree that she broadcast her own sins.

 

[annsni]

My question is - it takes time to become a member of a church. It is an official relationship. Is just not showing up at church during church discipline "leaving the church"?

 

[Jerome]

Betrayal and stalking is not biblical church discipline.

 

[Revmitchell]

Betrayal and stalking is not biblical church discipline.

So what church did this that is relevant to this thread?

 

[Salamander]

I am neither carnal or lost, and my understanding of church discipline is quite in focus, based on the Bible, and not Biblical opinion, or my opinion of the relative degree of which sins are viewed. So what is in your eye, a speck or a beam?

I believe you might be in danger of Biblically judging me in direct disobedience to Scripture.

I will stand for the church specifically by the Bible: This woman attended this church and then acted in a devilsih manner, PERIOD. She was approached biblically, she responded carnally. The following actions of the church are biblical. If she were not acting as a devil she would simply have left the church accepting whatever they do in their facility as they follow the Lord. She contacted the public media is an effort to decry the Bible process.

I know of no other details which could hold precedence over the church's actions, do you? It seems maybe you would like to hold some higher authority over the church than the Lord. This denies one of the basic doctrines of autonomy.

The specific purpose of discipline is always to bring one to a place of corrected behaviour, one that brings honour and glory to the Lord. This correcting is an act of mercy and grace, else it is rooted in self-righteousness and that is only a filthy rag in the sight of God.

It may be you're carrying on a conversation with some one whom you do not know. I'm sure that is why you've reacted so rashly.

 

[saturneptune]

I believe you might be in danger of Biblically judging me in direct disobedience to Scripture.

You are worried about others maybe Biblically judging you when you just called those who disagree with you "carnal or lost."

I will stand for the church specifically by the Bible: This woman attended this church and then acted in a devilsih manner, PERIOD. She was approached biblically, she responded carnally. The following actions of the church are biblical. If she were not acting as a devil she would simply have left the church accepting whatever they do in their facility as they follow the Lord. She contacted the public media is an effort to decry the Bible process.

No one ever disagreed with you about that point.

I know of no other details which could hold precedence over the church's actions, do you?

No I do not. See answer above.

It seems maybe you would like to hold some higher authority over the church than the Lord. This denies one of the basic doctrines of autonomy.

"It seems maybe" is such a vague statement based on thin air, I do not know why you would even use such a phrase when trying to make a factual point. There is no higher authority than the Lord, and from reading other posts, it is beyond me how you could come to such a conclusion about what I said. I would be on much more solid ground saying the same about you. For example, if I were to call someone who disagreed with me "carnal or lost" one could draw the conclusion I had the mind of God, or thought I did, since I know the eternal destiny of someone. However, I am not going to draw that conclusion about you based on evidence a lot stronger than you used.

The specific purpose of discipline is always to bring one to a place of corrected behaviour, one that brings honour and glory to the Lord. This correcting is an act of mercy and grace, else it is rooted in self-righteousness and that is only a filthy rag in the sight of God.

No kidding, which I have said in every post. By the way, all of our righteouness is as filthy rags in the sight of God, and so are all the sins a church condones while going after others.

It may be you're carrying on a conversation with some one whom you do not know. I'm sure that is why you've reacted so rashly.

There is nothing rash about my post. I would say calling people "carnal or lost" based on no fact, but disagreeing with your opinion is rash. So is accusing someone of placeing some authority other than the Lord over a church.

 

[Salamander]

You are worried about others maybe Biblically judging you when you just called those who disagree with you "carnal or lost."

No worries here. Only if the shoe fits did I call anyone anything, but that shoe might still be uncomfortable.

"It seems maybe" is such a vague statement based on thin air, I do not know why you would even use such a phrase when trying to make a factual point. There is no higher authority than the Lord, and from reading other posts, it is beyond me how you could come to such a conclusion about what I said. I would be on much more solid ground saying the same about you. For example, if I were to call someone who disagreed with me "carnal or lost" one could draw the conclusion I had the mind of God, or thought I did, since I know the eternal destiny of someone. However, I am not going to draw that conclusion about you based on evidence a lot stronger than you used.

You made accusations about whether I had a mote or a beam. I may see through a glass darkly, but this episode of her going to the public media as an outcry tells on her in an absolute way. taking that into consideration I cannot fathom why anyone would disagree with the church going ahead with its actions to restore her.

I have read their letter to her. It is nothing more than the attempt to bring her to restoration. That process includes the negative side of removing her from the church role in Biblical fashion if she rejects their attempts.

Objection to clearly laid out proceedures of church affairs denotes carnality, and even worse, unregenerate character.

No kidding, which I have said in every post. By the way, all of our righteouness is as filthy rags in the sight of God, and so are all the sins a church condones while going after others.

What sins does this particular church condone? you've made accusation, now you are under obligation to provide specifics or retract your statement.

There is nothing rash about my post. I would say calling people "carnal or lost" based on no fact, but disagreeing with your opinion is rash. So is accusing someone of placeing some authority other than the Lord over a church.

My opinion is mere fact of the order of disciplinary actions. Only the ignorant and unlearned disagree with the process of church discipline. Whether they are carnal or lost is up to them to decide. the bible teaches by principle many many times.

This is a fine example when one objects to clear teaching that one is either carnal or lost. So you now have blamed the word of God for teaching by principle.

I find your statements rash.

 

[saturneptune]

No worries here. Only if the shoe fits did I call anyone anything, but that shoe might still be uncomfortable.



You made accusations about whether I had a mote or a beam. I may see through a glass darkly, but this episode of her going to the public media as an outcry tells on her in an absolute way. taking that into consideration I cannot fathom why anyone would disagree with the church going ahead with its actions to restore her.

I have read their letter to her. It is nothing more than the attempt to bring her to restoration. That process includes the negative side of removing her from the church role in Biblical fashion if she rejects their attempts.

Objection to clearly laid out proceedures of church affairs denotes carnality, and even worse, unregenerate character.

What sins does this particular church condone? you've made accusation, now you are under obligation to provide specifics or retract your statement.

My opinion is mere fact of the order of disciplinary actions. Only the ignorant and unlearned disagree with the process of church discipline. Whether they are carnal or lost is up to them to decide. the bible teaches by principle many many times.

This is a fine example when one objects to clear teaching that one is either carnal or lost. So you now have blamed the word of God for teaching by principle.

I find your statements rash.

What "you find" has no bearing on anything. It is merely an opinion. Yes, when you accuse several people of being lost or carnal, it is quite reasonable to wonder how clear your sight is.

You just do not get it. No one laid out objections to the church procedure. You made it a strawman issue.

Your observations about a shoe being uncomfortable to wear, the only analogy I see to a shoe is a foot, which seems to be stuck in your mouth.

Your opinion and fact are not in the same realm. You do not even focus on the issue, but make one up.

 

[Berean]

The Scripture is very plain (Matt, 18) in how to handle this particular incident (sin).
Although the church may have made some hasty decisions and errors of judgment the end results is that they followed procedures as set fort in the Bible.
Discipline in made out of love not punishment. In fact that is what Jesus commanded us to do in The Great Commission (teaching them whatsoever----)
We are commanded not to have fellowship with this person unless they are restored by admitting guilt, seeking forgiveness and repenting. We are not given an option if the forgoing steps are taken we are to receive them back into the fellowship.
We have an incident in my church where a person was charged and convicted of (indecent exposure) soliciting sex from a person of the same gender. Our church carried out the first two (2) steps in which the accused admitted to the charge but refused to go before the church. However the accused did resign from the church.
He can not letter out in good standing, but could be given a letter stating the reason he is leaving the fellowship. I believe that the members should be informed of this as the majority of them are not aware of what has transpired therefore how can they withdraw fellowship? How do you view this?

 

[saturneptune]

The Scripture is very plain (Matt, 18) in how to handle this particular incident (sin).
Although the church may have made some hasty decisions and errors of judgment the end results is that they followed procedures as set fort in the Bible.
Discipline in made out of love not punishment. In fact that is what Jesus commanded us to do in The Great Commission (teaching them whatsoever----)
We are commanded not to have fellowship with this person unless they are restored by admitting guilt, seeking forgiveness and repenting. We are not given an option if the forgoing steps are taken we are to receive them back into the fellowship.
We have an incident in my church where a person was charged and convicted of (indecent exposure) soliciting sex from a person of the same gender. Our church carried out the first two (2) steps in which the accused admitted to the charge but refused to go before the church. However the accused did resign from the church.
He can not letter out in good standing, but could be given a letter stating the reason he is leaving the fellowship. I believe that the members should be informed of this as the majority of them are not aware of what has transpired therefore how can they withdraw fellowship? How do you view this?

It sounds like it was handled in a Christ like manner to me. The issue I have with the self righteous crowd is not the way the church in the article handled the situation, as they have made as a strawman, but the mean spirit in many of the posts, in the mindset of discipline being punitive and not corrective. Also missing is a spirit of forgiveness. The evidence is overwhelming that sins are put on a pedestal of seriousness according to their opinion.

I do have one question though. If he admitted in the first two steps to the charge, did he ask forgiveness and repent? If he did, why is it necessary to carry out the third step?

 

[annsni]

Berean - what I think in the situation that you brought up (legal indecent exposure) is that the congregation NEEDS to be made aware of the offense just as much as the legal right of me to know about sex offenders in my neighborhood. People in church tend to make friends and if they don't understand the issue, they might continue to be ignorant of what happened and put themselves and their families in a position where they themselves can be victims.

In the case of adultery and such, I know that our pastor will just say that the person has left the fellowship due to a biblical sin and they would not repent. No details and his request is that gossip does not occur asking for the details. Trust him as a spiritual authority in the church to do what God commanded him to do.

I'm actually going to go in a few minutes, after I dry my hair, to do the first step in a church discipline issue - although it's going to the parent since I'm dealing with a minor. SIGH I SOOOOO don't want to do this but it's necessary. My husband did bring it up to the pastor too since the offense disqualifies the person from the ministry they are in as given in the ministry covenant we all sign when we work in ministry. It's not going to go well, I know, but it must be done not only for the child's spiritual health but for the health of those who are around this person (the other youth). But MAN, I SO don't want to do it (although the night it happened I wanted to not only do this but wash the child's mouth out with soap).

 

[Salamander]

What "you find" has no bearing on anything. It is merely an opinion. Yes, when you accuse several people of being lost or carnal, it is quite reasonable to wonder how clear your sight is.

If the shoe fits wear it, I don't care how many corns and who has them.

BTW, I hadn't accused anyone of anything, so it must be the Holy Ghost is working on some one's toes. Glad I could help!:thumbsup:

You just do not get it. No one laid out objections to the church procedure. You made it a strawman issue.

:laugh: Then I cannot see why you're so "bent out of shape"

Your observations about a shoe being uncomfortable to wear, the only analogy I see to a shoe is a foot, which seems to be stuck in your mouth.

Your opinion and fact are not in the same realm. You do not even focus on the issue, but make one up.

I simply responded to what was made available on the news website: her actions and the letter sent to this adulteress.

The problem you're having is with my relating the Biblical process and then concocting something totally amiss as if I am out to get somebody who has sinned. You're DEAD wrong! I agreed with Donna and your remarks to me wreak of carnality.

Besides, if I stick my foot in my mouth know this, how else can I trim my toenails except with my back teeth?:love2: