Pilgrim said: Secondly, as I also pointed out, the passage does not speak of "excommunication" but rather "ostracism" (aka: shunning) those who were disorderly, busybodies, lazy, etc. Notice also that this idea of ostracism is re-enforced in that Paul says to treat such as "brothers". If excommunication was the intent of the action to be taken, then the excommunicated person could not be looked upon and/or treated as a "brother". For in fact, to excommunicate is to pronounce an individual as an unbeliever due to an attitude of unrepentance in regard to serious sin and/or heretical doctrine.
I was referring to the lesser ban (from communion) which is the intent of passage. Although "shunned" from the sacrament, the sinner is still considered a Christian brother. The greater ban from communion is excommunication. In excommunication, the sinner is considered a heathen and a publican (Matt. 18:15-17). Both shunning and excommunication are examples of the binding key. The elders do not exercise the binding key in an arbitrary fashion. The member or visitor is invited before the elders to give an account of himself (examination) before these bans are pronounced.
Quote
Pilgrim said: Lastly, qualification to partake of the Lord's Table is NOT based upon one holding to a right understanding of a full-orbed systematic theology, but rather that the person have a genuine and valid profession of faith in the Lord Christ, a life consistent with that profession and not be under discipline by the church.
Would a gross and manifest sinner under church discipline be invited to commune if he confesses his past sins to the elders or is penance required first?
