Understanding destruction of the flesh in Corinthians

here are some thoughts,listen....

http://www.sg-audiotreasures.org/downing/wd_carnal.mp3
http://www.sg-audiotreasures.org/carnal/01am_carnal.mp3
http://www.sg-audiotreasures.org/carnal/02am_carnal.mp3
http://www.graceonlinelibrary.org/s...-carnal-christian-heresy-by-brian-schwertley/

 

Your post was irrelevant. I didn't see any "thoughts."
This is a debate forum. Why not post your thoughts like you said.

 

Paul refers to him as a brother, and therefore he was a saved man who was living a carnal lifestyle, living in sin. The reason the church is called to assemble together is to administer church discipline to this "member" or saved person. Discipline is never given to one who is not a member or the unsaved--only to those who are actual members--brothers and sisters in Christ that make up the "church.," that is the church here at Corinth.
There is no note of the woman being disciplined; a possibility might be that she was unsaved and not a member of the church.

Yes, the purpose of the entire process here was to lead the man to a road of repentance and restoration back to the church, which is what I believe happened. Purge out the leaven. True.
But when repentance has been made receive him back again. (2Cor.7:8-13)

 

Notice I said here are SOME THOUGHTS......the first 3 links provide many solid biblical thoughts in audio form....

He did not ask for my thoughts.....he said thoughts?

Why should I offer my weak thoughts when both these men get right down to the texts,Greek words,etc.

The last link was a written article that contains many thoughts also.

I could have posted many more but I offered these to any who want the truth.

As you do not welcome these teachers and the biblical truth they contain, I am sure you will repeat your error and false ideas once again.
Anyone who listens to these sermons and contrasts them to your posts will see instantly the differences of truth in contrast to half truth, half error that you offer.

Here is my thoughts....Cephas, listen to those sermons then read DHK posts....see the contrast.

 

DHK

.

You want my thoughts..ok.
Paul no where called this man a brother. He addresses the church;

1 Corinthians 1King James Version (KJV)

1 Paul called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ through the will of God, and Sosthenes our brother,

2 Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both their's and our's:

3 Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.

In fact to protect the real church he teaches that this man be removed from them...
1 Corinthians 5King James Version (KJV)

5 It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father's wife.

2 And ye are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he that hath done this deed might be taken away from among you.

.

No...you have it wrong. here is what Paul actually said;
3 For I verily, as absent in body, but present in spirit, have judged already, as though I were present, concerning him that hath so done this deed,

The passage does not mention biblical church discipline as outlined in MT 18..no instead he instructs them about this person......

11 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 idolator, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.

12 For what have I to do to judge them also that are without?

No one wants to read your speculation and story telling. The text is clear.
The text no where says he is a brother...it says he was called a brother. He was not a brother at this point.

 

Iconoclast is quite correct.
Members of a church are those who are subject to church discipline. This was a man who was a member of the church (and therefore 'called a brother'), but who committed a very serious sin which he did not repent of. This therefore called his salvation into question, and therefore also his church membership and 'brotherhood.' The 'destruction of the flesh' does not mean putting him into an acid bath (joke!), but excluding him from the church and its fellowship in the hope that this would bring him to repentance- the destruction of his sinful, carnal attitude and practices.

It rather appears that this worked. This man and the one spoken of in 2 Cor. 2:3-11 are surely one and the same. He has now repented and Paul is telling the Corinthians to take him back into fellowship once more.

 

If he is taken back into membership that is proof that he was a member, believer and brother in the first place. One doesn't take back an unbeliever.
Church discipline is NEVER for unbelievers. If an unbeliever had sinned in such a way, it wouldn't matter to the church. Unbelievers of various backgrounds visit all the time. Do you kick them out because of their sinful background, or do you try to minister them? Or, as you are implying, do you accept the unregenerate into membership and then discipline them out. That is an odd way of doing things.

No, Icon is not right. He is called a brother and so he was.
What does Paul say in the end?

1Co 5:11 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.
--This was the reason for the discipline. He was a brother. He needed discipline. They were no longer to have fellowship with him.

1Co 5:12 For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within?
1Co 5:13 But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.
--The immoral persons outside of the church?? Paul has nothing to do with them except to evangelize them. He doesn't judge them. They are not subject to church discipline. They are unsaved. It is God that ultimately will judge them.
Therefore put away that sinful believing person that is among you. He is a believer living in sin and needs to be disciplined.

 

Brother Cephas,

This brother was indeed a child of God, otherwise why would Paul say"that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus"? Also, the man gave evidence that he was child of God in that he must have later repentant because was taken back into the church. Repentance is an evidence only manifested by a child of grace.

 

Brother DHK,

I agree with you that this particular man was a child of grace, but your post above makes it sound as if you believe all professed Christians who are baptized are indeed children of grace, is that what you believe? Do you believe Simon who in Acts 8:13 we read, "Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done" was a child of grace?

 

Church discipline brings believers to repentance and excludes the unbelievers. Not everyone who is put under church discipline repents.

1 Tim. 1:20. '.....Of whom are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I delivered to Satan that they may learn not to blaspheme.' Compare this with 1 Cor. 5:5.

The exclusion from the church may perhaps have brought Hymenaeus to repentance, but not Alexander.

2 Tim. 4:14-15. Alexander the coppersmith did me much harm. May the Lord reward him according to his works. You must also beware of him, for he has greatly resisted our words.'

 

It has been said that the most miserable person on earth is a believer out of the will of God. God chastens his own (Heb.6). There is no guarantee that he will repent. He may suffer; he may even suffer death. That is up to God.

Discipline is for the members of the church, not for those visiting, not for the unsaved. Check the words of Jesus in Mat.18:15-18, when he speaks of the steps to take in the discipline of a believer.
He says:
Mat 18:15 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.
--The emphasis is on the "brother," those that are saved.

 

So Alexander the coppersmith was a believer, was he?

Of course church discipline is for members of the church. It would make no sense for me to exclude some random fellow from my church if he never sets foot in the place anyway. Laugh

Do you take it as certain that everyone who is a member of your church is saved? Someone makes a credible profession of faith, is baptized and comes into membership. Is he definitely saved? Even when he commits an egregious sin and refuses to repent? You tell me; yes or no? "Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My father in heaven."

Obviously, we do not baptize people and bring them into membership lightly, but mistakes were made, even in N.T. times. 'For certain men have crept in unnoticed........ungodly men, who turn the grace of our God into lewdness and deny the only Lord God and our Lord Jesus Christ' (Jude 4). Were these men saved? Yes or no? If they weren't, you are saying they couldn't be disciplined because discipline is only for believers.

So is this what you're telling me? If a member of my church commits a serious sin, I have to ask myself, is he saved or not? If I think he's saved, I can put him under discipline and exclude him from the church, but if I think he's unsaved, I can do nothing about him because discipline is only for believers.

Do you not think that is just slightly bonkers?

 

I am not sure what kind of church you belong to, but our church is composed of those who are regenerated, baptized and then accepted into membership by vote of the church upon their testimony. Alexander would have never made the cut.
He wouldn't have to disciplined because he wouldn't have been a member. Go back to the context.
Having said that, who is Alexander? One has two choices:
1. 1Ti 1:20 Of whom is Hymenaeus and Alexander; whom I have delivered unto Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme.
--Yes, in this case he may have been a believer, excommunicated from the church just like the immoral brother in 1Cor.5:1-5 was--delivered to Satan for the destruction of the flesh (with the purpose of repentance in mind). These words are similar.

Or,
2.
Act 19:24 For a certain man named Demetrius, a silversmith, which made silver shrines for Diana, brought no small gain unto the craftsmen;
Act 19:25 Whom he called together with the workmen of like occupation, and said, Sirs, ye know that by this craft we have our wealth.

Act 19:32 Now some cried out one thing, some another, for the assembly was in confusion, and most of them did not know why they had come together.
Act 19:33 Some of the crowd prompted Alexander, whom the Jews had put forward. And Alexander, motioning with his hand, wanted to make a defense to the crowd.
Act 19:34 But when they recognized that he was a Jew, for about two hours they all cried out with one voice, "Great is Artemis of the Ephesians!" (ESV)
--It gives no indication of who this "Alexander" is. It is unlikely that he is the one in 1Tim.1:20. But Paul could be referring to this Alexander, an unsaved Jew, who may have stirred up a lot of trouble in Ephesus while he was there at that time. It is possible that he was the coppersmith. I am not sure.

I will guarantee you: There is no one that fits the description of the immoral man of 1Cor.5 or the "Alexander the Coppersmith" in our church. Guaranteed.

No, they weren't saved. No, you don't go through the steps of discipline as outlined in Matthew 18.
The church comes together, the pastor holding the seat of chairman, and explains how these are dangerous false teachers. If they are as dangerous as you say, then all that is needed is a letter sent to them. They don't need to come back again. They are not welcome here. Or, it could be done by the pastor in person. Steps of discipline are not needed for false teachers.

Confess your mistake. Show them out.
2Jn 1:9 Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.
2Jn 1:10 If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed:
2Jn 1:11 For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.
--Apply that to "the house of God" as well.

"If a member of your church..."
--You deal with each person on an individual basis meeting their needs individually. Remember the words of Jesus in Mat.18:15-18. Gain your brother at the very first step and all is well.
Deal with his need. Is it salvation, immorality, etc.
Simply follow the instructions of Christ. It is not so difficult.

 

How do you guarantee it? Because you don't see the problem now, how can you guarantee that you won't have it next week or next month? Is your congregation Campbellite, believing in baptismal regeneration, or do you have some special gift of discernment denied even to the 1st Century church?

Matt. 18 refers to a private wrong. If your brother sins against you (singular)..... The church is not involved until later. 1 Cor 5 is dealing with a sin that demands the immediate action of the Leadership. A person committing a serious sexual sin, or a doctrinal irregularity as in 1 Tim. 1:20 may be saved but erring, or he may be unsaved and showing his true colours. You place him under church discipline, and if he repents, as the Corinthian guy seems to have done, he can be restored. If he doesn't repent as Alexander seems not to have done, he stays excluded from the church.

 

Brother DHK,

You did not answer Brother Marin's question, do you believe all those who are baptized into whatever church you think would constitute an authentic book of Acts type Baptist church is indeed born again?

 

Brother DHK,

Are you going to answer the question brother Martin originally posed to you and then I rephrased and posed to you again in post # 16 above? Here it is, "do you believe all those who are baptized into whatever church you think would constitute an authentic book of Acts type Baptist church is indeed born again?". I hope you have time to answer as I am sure the Canadians aren't busy with Thanksgiving week preparations!

 

I don't have time to read all the posts right now, let alone answer them. It is late Saturday night and tomorrow being Sunday, I have to preach in the morning. I'll give you this short answer hoping you will understand both my position and the scripture and logic behind it.

John said:
1 John 2:19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.
--Those who went out from John's church were no doubt false teachers and unsaved. That doesn't mean they were members. They attended for awhile; tried to do some harm, and then left. These are the ones that all the apostles warn about. And they are not faithful.

The definition of a local church is: An assembly of baptized (immersed) believers who by voluntary association have united themselves to carry out the two ordinances of Christ (baptism and the Lord's Supper), and to obey the Great Commission.

By definition a person who is not saved is not a member. He is a pretender. He is disqualified. His baptism is negated and his membership is null and void. There is no discipline required.
It is that simple.
Church discipline only applies to believers in Christ--only and always.
--I hope that answers your question. Maybe I'll get time to answer some of the others tomorrow afternoon. Right now it's late and I got to go.

 

I can guarantee the church has all regenerated baptized members in it (as I just did to Bro. Joseph), because a church is defined that way--"an assembly of baptized believers who have voluntarily organized themselves together for the purpose of carrying out the two ordinances of Christ and obeying the Great Commission." A wolf is not a sheep no matter how hard he tries. The baptism and membership is rendered null and void if a person is unsaved.

If that person's wrong affects the whole church, then Jesus wrote down the steps or process to go through. That is why it is there. "Take it to the church." It is a command to be followed. That personal wrong may be an a scandalous affair just like the one in 1Cor.5. "Take it to the church." It becomes a matter of church discipline. This process must be followed at all times.
The "you" is just as personal as "my" in "my church". He was speaking to Peter and the apostles.