Do NOT Fellowship With Believers WHO Sin?

[Yeshua1]

I just don't see anywhere that Scripture says they have to be repenting. If they were truly repenting, there wouldn't be any repeat of the sin.

the attitude determines the response of how to treat them!

if they are confronted with their sin, refuse to repent/confes, admit it sin, stop doing that deed etc, you are to let them be, and let the Lord himself deal with breaking them!

Bible VERY CLEAR, sign of one really been saved by the Lord is to have a repentent/convicted spirit, to seek to return to the Lord and get restored first to him, then to others...

Some like david take a year, some first time caught, others longer, but ALl will eventually come back to make right with God and the bethren...

Pne who claims to know jesus and refuses to deal with sin issues need to be delivered over to God to deal with then...

 

[Yeshua1]

I'm not quite sure I understand what you're asking.

Do as paul directed"hard love", as there was a young man who was now saved and professing being such, but was having sexualual immorality, and refused to repent and forsake that, even after being confronte by elders andchurch!

so id the person has been confronted as detailed in Matthew by Jesus, and still refuses to repent/forsake doing that, let him go!

 

[pk4life]

I once knew of a church (congregation) who corporately decided they would follow this principle; they would withhold fellowship from any believer who lived a consistently worldly lifestyle. Twenty minutes later, none of them would have anything to do with anyone else in the church.

Here's the problem: At what point does either the congregation or the individual withhold fellowship?

There are some occasions when some members who are so out of line that no discussion is required; members simply avoid them as they are uncomfortable being in the subject's company. But those are the minority, aren't they?

On the other hand, I know of congregations that are KJVo groups. They won't have anything to do with Christians who actually carry and use any Bible but a KJV. I find that unsupportable, personally. (My 'personal opinion' and a buck and a half equals coffee at Denny's.) Happily, they are rather few in number as well.

The great majority of us (individuals and congregations) are in the middle. We all sin, and everyone has a 'favorite' sin; the sin they find easiest to commit. Some of us seemingly commit sin more often than others (and I think we all understand how difficult that really is to determine).

Evil acts worthy of discipline are acts that blatantly deny the authority of God, are committed openly and brazenly, and bring the teaching of God through Jesus into disrepute. Additionally, the person so involved admits no guilt, fault or regret in the matter. Of course, a person arrested for embezzlement or child pornography nearly always seems regretful. Perhaps it is merely over being caught, but I suppose it could be a starting place.

Very few of us worship idols in the sense of a carved or sculpted doodad on the mantle. But what about my gun collection? What about the racing car owned by Brother So and so? What about the 'Women's Affirmation Society' that is Sister Such and such's pet project? There's all sorts of things like this; and for every one of them, there's somebody who will denounce each 'item' as an idolatrous interest. So; how to decide?

I think the answer is pretty simple. The Holy Spirit will convict multiple members of the problem. If the Holy Spirit does not move 'all of us' to act, then perhaps we should not proceed with 'discipline' or - in the words of Calpernia from To Kill a Mockingbird, 'churching'.

Finally, the whole point of church discipline is to bring the sinful Christian back into fellowship with the Lord primarily and the congregation secondly. We want a 'wandering' Christian to return to Christ's service and grace. That should be the goal; not just feeling 'righteous' about not being as bad as 'that one'.

The answer to your question is that an individual acting on their own has absolutely no authority to withhold fellowship from another believer.

I don't think Paul was saying to circumvent proper church discipline.

I would like to elaborate on your KJVO comment. In my case, my father is a KJVO Baptist pastor. I have been told I should probably not visit their church again, if I don't attend theirs, because it could cause problems.

My sin? I decided to go to a start-up church in our area, and I didn't know that they were shunning that pastor and his wife! All of their own accord!

I guess it was my fault I didn't know.. because the gossip had gone around and I wasn't in the gossip circles.

 

[agedman]

The answer to your question is that an individual acting on their own has absolutely no authority to withhold fellowship from another believer.

I am not certain that I agree with this statement.

From a practical standpoint here is how a believer on their own rightly withholds fellowship from another believer.

Believer "A" is a member of First Baptist Church of Stinky Hollow.

Believer "B" is a member of Second Baptist Church of Stinky Hollow.

They meet each Monday morning at The Drip for coffee.

One morning "B" slips and tells of an ongoing extra marital relationship in which he is involved.

Over some time "A" has attempted to Scripturally disciple "B" who remains antagonistic claiming that what was lawful in the OT is just as lawful in the NT.

"A" must make a decision.

He breaks the fellowship, tells the wife of "B" what is going on.

I suggest that withholding fellowship from a fellow believer is (again, from a practical viewpoint) authoritative.

Perhaps you meant the statement in a different light that I am not aware.

I will agree that had "A" and "B" been in the same assembly, then no doubt the matter should be brought before the church and dealt with by that group.

 

[righteousdude2]

This has shades of

I think the answer is pretty simple. The Holy Spirit will convict multiple members of the problem. If the Holy Spirit does not move 'all of us' to act, then perhaps we should not proceed with 'discipline' or - in the words of Calpernia from To Kill a Mockingbird, 'churching'.

....Pentecostalism :laugh: Like the Assemblies, when a tongue is spoken, it must have an interpretation and approval by the pastor to be declared valid and of the Holy Ghost!

I agree with you 100%...we must prayerfully discern what the problem is; bring the person or persons before the fellowship for a sort of hearing out, and let the fellowship work out the problem. STILL, that is not being done enough, or at all, any longer, that I know of! When was the last time your church, any church, brought someone before the fellowship to discuss the rumors or suspicions of a wrong doing?

This is what Judith said...unfortunately, like a computer, everyone has a backdoor; we just need to know how to access, or hack it, to get in and make the changes needed. This is being accomplished with mainline denominations around the world. The Lutherans are in a flux over the ordination of gays and marrying same-gender folks! It has led to splinter groups, which I applaud for having the courage to stand up to what they see as a sin. Still, the back door is being used to accommodate every form of person and their slanted views of the Word. It seems to me that Revelation had it right when they warned that anyone ADDIiNG to or TAKING away from what is written in this book will be judged, and their name DELETED from the Lamb's Book of Life. I think this is a form of reverse blasphemy, on behalf of those who believe and refuse to enforce the Word of God as it is written!

It is the only time I see in the word where Eternal Security is said to be removed!

SEE: Rev. 22:19 (NLT) "And if anyone removes any of the words from this book of prophecy, God will remove that person's share in the tree of life and in the holy city that are described in this book." :type:

 

[pk4life]

I am not certain that I agree with this statement.

From a practical standpoint here is how a believer on their own rightly withholds fellowship from another believer.

Believer "A" is a member of First Baptist Church of Stinky Hollow.

Believer "B" is a member of Second Baptist Church of Stinky Hollow.

They meet each Monday morning at The Drip for coffee.

One morning "B" slips and tells of an ongoing extra marital relationship in which he is involved.

Over some time "A" has attempted to Scripturally disciple "B" who remains antagonistic claiming that what was lawful in the OT is just as lawful in the NT.

"A" must make a decision.

He breaks the fellowship, tells the wife of "B" what is going on.

I suggest that withholding fellowship from a fellow believer is (again, from a practical viewpoint) authoritative.

Perhaps you meant the statement in a different light that I am not aware.

I will agree that had "A" and "B" been in the same assembly, then no doubt the matter should be brought before the church and dealt with by that group.

Why are you giving "A" the authority to break proper discipline as described by Jesus himself? Because they are going to different local churches?

"A" has no decision, and has no right to break fellowship if he is too cowardly to first bring others with him to speak to "B", and then bring it up to the church. I don't find in this case the Bible making it optional in anyway to circumvent bringing matters to the church. In fact, it puts "A" in bed with "B" on this sin.

This is a pathway to sin when an individual can just start shunning another of their own accord. You give an example of an affair... but I'm telling you in real life this translates to nothing more than an individual shunning another individual(s) because a woman wore a pair of pants. Seen it happen.

Bring it to "B's" local church, and he should be allowed to sit in on procedures and relay that to his church and anyone else. The dysfunction and corruption of the current churches discipline efforts to keep things "in house, and low profile" doesn't remove responsibility.

If "B's" local church doesn't want to handle it, and the church isn't up to snuff on handling it properly... there is no reason in my mind why it couldn't be brought up to "A's" local church, and handled with or without the presence of "B". After all, now it's not just you, it's a small group of people to support your claims that this person is unresponsive, AND so is their church. Anything else leads to gossip... seen that too.

Apostle Paul was very vocal about this stuff in many churches. He had no problem publicly calling out sin in a loving and gracious... yet very powerful, manner.

 

[salzer mtn]

Every Christian, whether he has committed these sin's is capable of every sin mentioned in these post, because we are flesh. Why do we travel through this world in the flesh stumbling and sliding along ? Christ teaches us that we are not perfect and never will be this side of the grave and it gives us a longing to go be with him and have done with this flesh and also he teaches us, that we are to trust in his righteousness as our righteousness and not trust in ourselves.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Every Christian, whether he has committed these sin's is capable of every sin mentioned in these post, because we are flesh. Why do we travel through this world in the flesh stumbling and sliding along ? Christ teaches us that we are not perfect and never will be this side of the grave and it gives us a longing to go be with him and have done with this flesh and also he teaches us, that we are to trust in his righteousness as our righteousness and not trust in ourselves.

I will drink to that Salz!!:thumbsup:

 

[Yeshua1]

Why are you giving "A" the authority to break proper discipline as described by Jesus himself? Because they are going to different local churches?

"A" has no decision, and has no right to break fellowship if he is too cowardly to first bring others with him to speak to "B", and then bring it up to the church. I don't find in this case the Bible making it optional in anyway to circumvent bringing matters to the church. In fact, it puts "A" in bed with "B" on this sin.

This is a pathway to sin when an individual can just start shunning another of their own accord. You give an example of an affair... but I'm telling you in real life this translates to nothing more than an individual shunning another individual(s) because a woman wore a pair of pants. Seen it happen.

Bring it to "B's" local church, and he should be allowed to sit in on procedures and relay that to his church and anyone else. The dysfunction and corruption of the current churches discipline efforts to keep things "in house, and low profile" doesn't remove responsibility.

If "B's" local church doesn't want to handle it, and the church isn't up to snuff on handling it properly... there is no reason in my mind why it couldn't be brought up to "A's" local church, and handled with or without the presence of "B". After all, now it's not just you, it's a small group of people to support your claims that this person is unresponsive, AND so is their church. Anything else leads to gossip... seen that too.

Apostle Paul was very vocal about this stuff in many churches. He had no problem publicly calling out sin in a loving and gracious... yet very powerful, manner.

We as brothers/sisters in the lord have a commitment to jesus and to each othe, and IF I see a brother stumbling in sin, need to seek him out to confromt him in love, attempt to restore such a one, IF he rebukes that offer, then bring in Pastor/eldes, then local body, then kick them out, in order to have lord deal with them!

 

[saturneptune]

We as brothers/sisters in the lord have a commitment to jesus and to each othe, and IF I see a brother stumbling in sin, need to seek him out to confromt him in love, attempt to restore such a one, IF he rebukes that offer, then bring in Pastor/eldes, then local body, then kick them out, in order to have lord deal with them!

You seem like a mature spiritual person, how do you draw the line between associating and not associating? What tells you this or that person is following the Lord and the other has a pattern of sin in their life? That to me is the ultimate question in this whole issue, since we all sin and fall short of God's glory.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

I just don't see anywhere that Scripture says they have to be repenting. If they were truly repenting, there wouldn't be any repeat of the sin.

Matthew 18, (NASB)
15 "If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother.
16 "But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that BY THE MOUTH OF TWR THREE WITNESSES EVERY FACT MAY BE CONFIRMED.
17 "If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.
18 "Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.
19 "Again I say to you, that if two of you agree on earth about anything that they may ask, it shall be done for them by My Father who is in heaven.
20 "For where two or three have gathered together in My name, I am there in their midst."
21 Then Peter came and said to Him, "Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me and I forgive him? Up to seven times ?"
22 Jesus said to him, "I do not say to you, up to seven times, but up to seventy times seven."​

We forgive every time we are sinned against and forgiveness is sought, whether the sin is against us as an individual, or against the corporate body of the church. The need to continually repent does not mean that the previous act of repentance wasn't sincere. It means we have again fallen into our favorite sin. If Jesus gave this command, then He obviously did not expect that one-time repentance was going to be sufficient for every kind of sin we may commit. Think addictions. Think anger. Think gossip, gluttony, pride. Those sins typically have a stronghold on us that we must continually tear down until, finally, we stop building it up.

 

[Yeshua1]

Matthew 18, (NASB)
15 "If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother.
16 "But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that BY THE MOUTH OF TWR THREE WITNESSES EVERY FACT MAY BE CONFIRMED.
17 "If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.
18 "Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.
19 "Again I say to you, that if two of you agree on earth about anything that they may ask, it shall be done for them by My Father who is in heaven.
20 "For where two or three have gathered together in My name, I am there in their midst."
21 Then Peter came and said to Him, "Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me and I forgive him? Up to seven times ?"
22 Jesus said to him, "I do not say to you, up to seven times, but up to seventy times seven."​

We forgive every time we are sinned against and forgiveness is sought, whether the sin is against us as an individual, or against the corporate body of the church. The need to continually repent does not mean that the previous act of repentance wasn't sincere. It means we have again fallen into our favorite sin. If Jesus gave this command, then He obviously did not expect that one-time repentance was going to be sufficient for every kind of sin we may commit. Think addictions. Think anger. Think gossip, gluttony, pride. Those sins typically have a stronghold on us that we must continually tear down until, finally, we stop building it up.

This passage answeers the question of where to do th line on fellowshipping with another Chrsitian or not, as when that person gets to the point where theywill accept NO rebuke, NO desire to seek restoration, not to repent and forake that sin, then treat them as a "tax collecter", but also, MUST receive them back when they come back to their senses after the Kord deals with them!

 

[pk4life]

We as brothers/sisters in the lord have a commitment to jesus and to each othe, and IF I see a brother stumbling in sin, need to seek him out to confromt him in love, attempt to restore such a one, IF he rebukes that offer, then bring in Pastor/eldes, then local body, then kick them out, in order to have lord deal with them!

I agree with the IF he rebukes that offer, to follow those steps.

That's what the illustration used by agedman was about... someone who remains antagonistic and doesn't heed your words.