Pilgrim wrote: doulos said: I've known lots of folks who are gay or lesbian or feminists--pick an extreme--and most of them were ostracized by some one who was close to them for their beliefs. . . .
I knew a gay man whose father--a minister--had completely turned his back on him. There were no open doors. There was no hope for reconciliation. He had simply ceased to exist. Whose fault? Who knows, but his Dad was not without guilt.
doulos,
The above statements piqued my interest, obviously enough to respond to them. I'm curious how you think Christians should act toward those who are living in gross sin and/or espousing views which are diametrically opposed to biblical Christianity. What comes to mind is Paul's injunctions:
Romans 16:17-18 (ASV) "Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them that are causing the divisions and occasions of stumbling, contrary to the doctrine which ye learned: and turn away from them. For they that are such serve not our Lord Christ, but their own belly; and by their smooth and fair speech they beguile the hearts of the innocent."
2 Thessalonians 3:14-15 (ASV) "And if any man obeyeth not our word by this epistle, note that man, that ye have no company with him, to the end that he may be ashamed. And [yet] count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother."
Now, I grant you that these words of Paul could be construed as being limited to that which takes place within the confines of the Church. But I do think they are applicable to those outside the Church as well. In the Thessalonian passage, Paul says that we are to "have no company with him"; company being the Greek word, sunanamignumi, i.e., to associate with.
Would you be so kind to offer your comments on my question(s) and to share your understanding what is mean to not "associate" with such people?
First regarding your quoted bible comments I have to say that they are restricted to Christians/Church members. For example if a churchmember if found to be homosexual he should be submitted to church discipline. Failing that: yeah its time to expel him. (See the bold in the Thessalonians passage.) The Church as far as I can see has no authority over those who are not members and if it did, they probably wouldn't give a flip.
"I'm curious" he says...once again you are asking my opinion about something so I am prepared to be bludgeoned about the head and shoulders...nah. Here's what I think:
Quote
Jude 1:17-23 (NIV) 17But, dear friends, remember what the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ foretold. 18They said to you, “In the last times there will be scoffers who will follow their own ungodly desires.” 19These are the men who divide you, who follow mere natural instincts and do not have the Spirit. 20But you, dear friends, build yourselves up in your most holy faith and pray in the Holy Spirit. 21Keep yourselves in God’s love as you wait for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ to bring you to eternal life. 22Be merciful to those who doubt; 23snatch others from the fire and save them; to others show mercy, mixed with fear—hating even the clothing stained by corrupted flesh.
I think this applies to the lost. They have little hope of hearing the gospel if they are completely ignored, if Christians refuse to do business with them, if there is no interaction at all.
Rom 10:14 (NIV) 14How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them?
Now, I grant you that these words of Paul could be construed as being limited to that which takes place within the confines of the Church. But I do think they are applicable to those outside the Church as well. In the Thessalonian passage, Paul says that we are to "have no company with him"; company being the Greek word, sunanamignumi, i.e., to associate with.
To this you replied that you felt the text applies ONLY to Christians within the Church. Well, I would have to disagree with your interpretation. Why? Because, first of all, Paul says we are to treat such individuals as "strangers", i.e., as those outside the Church. To do so necessitates that one assume how those outside the church are already treated. For example, when the Lord said, "Love thy neighbor as thyself" (Mk 12:31), it is assumed that one already loves oneself (contrary to what the popular error teaches, i.e., one must first love oneself before you can love another) Thus, such individuals to whom Paul is referring are to be treated as one who is outside the Church. This is what is pronounced at a person's excommunication; i.e., that they can no longer be considered a Christian but rather a pagan, since the person's doctrine and/or life is antithetical to the Christian faith.
Now, this begs the question, Is this practice of treating people to be universal in its application? or does this vary to degree depending upon certain criteria? I would answer that it does vary greatly. For example, there are non-Christians who outwardly live more virtuous lives than some who profess Christ. They may be outwardly ethical, generous, kind, moral, etc. And with such people Christians may find lasting friendships, albeit not to the same depth, by any means, that they share with fellow believers. However, there are others who live very sinful lives and who are even offensive in word and deed. Let me simply use one example to make the point. Homosexual activists are not the type which I could have any association with, even if such a one was one of my own children. You may disagree.
Okay.... enough for now. I'll let you think on this and respond if you are so inclined.
Well lets take these two passages and have a look (your text):
Romans 16:17-18 (ASV)
"Now I beseech you, brethren..." brethren=church memebers. Folks who are Christians. Now the command: "...mark them that are causing the divisions and occasions of stumbling, contrary to the doctrine which ye learned..." Troublemakers, false teachers, people who, by their lives, declare that they don't believe what they've been taught in Sunday School. Keep your eye on them because they up to no good. What are we to do with them? "...and turn away from them." Mark them and turn away from them because they're trouble. I know a few like this each Sunday sharing the gossip new and old and stirring up trouble. Are they saved? Are they not? Who knows. But we can make a good guess by their actions and firm it up by talking with them about their behavior. The problem in the church is that these folks are rarely, if ever, marked and turned away from--they are tolerated.
"For they that are such serve not our Lord Christ, but their own belly; and by their smooth and fair speech they beguile the hearts of the innocent." These are definitely the kind of folks you don't want around new believers or kids.
Christians, supposedly, churchmembers who aren't acting like them. Mark them and turn away from them.
And the second passage:2 Thessalonians 3:14-15 (ASV) "And if any man obeyeth not our word by this epistle, note that man, that ye have no company with him," This is about the same as the above to this point where where it tells us why we are to turn away from or avoid them. "...to the end that he may be ashamed. And [yet] count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother." Most translations use warn or admonish him "as a brother." We are encouraged not to dispose of him like a snotty tissue but admonish him gently as you would a stained handkerchief. Theres hope it(he) might come clean and thereby be of some use again.
At no point is there any reference to unchurched people. Note that I didn't say unsaved--and this is where it gets a bit hazy--just unchurched. It seems that this is a mechanism whereby lost church members are allowed an opportunity to be disciplined by the world so that they might come finally to the Lord. (General Election?) And to allow the church to sift out those who are not saved and probably never will be.
Josh "...the word of God is not bound."--2 Timothy 2:9
So, if I understand what you are saying, you would advocate being "chummy" with, have close associations with, fraternize with, every non-professing Christian around you, even if they are gross idolaters, drug dealers, prostitutes, child molesters, etc.... do you see the problem here?
The texts say we are to "admonish" those in the church as a brother; i.e., to speak to such a one with a genuine concern for their soul. YET..... Paul also says that of such we are to "turn away from them" and to "have no company with them". What do you think that means? Also, I would appreciate it if you would address my previous question concerning excommunication. More specifically, how are believers to treat those who have been excommunicated from their assembly? Do you continue to play golf with the person, continue your Friday night family barbecue gatherings with them, etc.? And since those who are excommunicated are to be seen as non-believers, again, aren't the injunctions in regard to their treatment assuming that the reader is familiar with how an unchurched, unbeliever is looked upon and treated in distinction from those who are faithful members of their congregation?
What I would like you to consider a little deeper is the seriousness of Paul's regulations for the treatment of those individuals he is warning about and how this relates to those who are outside the church.
"I know a gay man whose father--a minister--completely turned his back on him. There were no open doors. There was no hope for reconciliation. He had simply ceased to exist. Whose fault? Who knows, but his dad was not without guilt."
Are you certain that there was no hope for reconciliation if the son would have repented of his homosexuality and lifestyle? I think not, and I belive the minister would have welcomed back a repentant son with open arms.
My point is that the father may have been exercising the greatest love possible for his son. I am also sure that his abandonment of his son might have been the most difficult decision of his life. I'm also sure that the minister was met with scorn for his decision by all of the "tolerant" and PC people around him.
The idea that the minister might have been exercising true love for his son is probably because he believes what the Scripture says about the matter:
"Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolators, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such WERE some of you;" [1 Cor 6:9-11ff]
Just maybe the minister believed that the Word of God is not kidding? And maybe the minister was exercising the only option, aside from prayer, he had left over his son. And maybe this, in hopes the son would not fall so far into his homosexual hell that he would never recover?
Denny
Roms 3:22-24
Denny
Simon Peter answered Him, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life." [John 6:68]
Quoth Pilgrim: So, if I understand what you are saying, you would advocate being "chummy" with, have close associations with, fraternize with, every non-professing Christian around you, even if they are gross idolaters, drug dealers, prostitutes, child molesters, etc.... do you see the problem here?
Chummy is a little nebulous. There is a significant difference between discussing a hockey game in the cafeteria, or treating someone with general human kindness and taking someone to your bosom as a brother. A mature believer shouldn't have concerns about "getting any on them" as if it was grease flying out of a bearing. It’s a heinous sin. If you are courteous and kind to the person who is practicing it I should think that your life in contrast to theirs would be a beneficial thing to them and perhaps even to you. To me there is nothing wrong with keeping open the lines of communication especially if that person WAS a church member at one point. Perhaps it is a more gentle approach than completely turning the person out and ignoring them. That said, I wouldn’t recommend cruising gay bars for converts or hanging out in beer joints witnessing to prostitutes. But those are places lost folks typically hang out—an entirely different proposition.
Quote
The voice of Pilgrim speaks: The texts say we are to "admonish" those in the church as a brother; i.e., to speak to such a one with a genuine concern for their soul. YET..... Paul also says that of such we are to "turn away from them" and to "have no company with them". What do you think that means?
Aye lad, it’s a strange dichotomy, but there’s no sense in bending the words around. Admonish them, have no company with them. Some folks are easier to talk to than others and you know who they are. Use your brains, consult the Holy Spirit, don’t cross the street if you see them coming—consider it a divine appointment. “Hi how are things?” “Fine.” “So, how’s that adultery thing going?” You know, keep it simple. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/giggle.gif" alt="" /> Seriously though, if they were truly your brother caught in sin and cast out from the congregation it may be just that little tap of grace you can show them that pushes them back into the fold.
Quote
Pilgrim said: Also, I would appreciate it if you would address my previous question concerning excommunication.
I think I have. Yeah, they got the boot, but there’s still hope.
Quote
A final word from Pilgrim:
What I would like you to consider a little deeper is the seriousness of Paul's regulations for the treatment of those individuals he is warning about and how this relates to those who are outside the church.
Trust me I’ve considered it. I’ve considered it deeply AND long-ly. The hanging point is that if they’ve had anything on the ball at all while they were in church they should know better therefore there should be a stiffer penalty. See above regarding using your brains.
Josh "...the word of God is not bound."--2 Timothy 2:9
In retrospect and considering that I only had that person's side of the story--not his fathers--you're probably right. It sounded pretty hopeless, though. And this is a whole 'nuther can of worms but he said, when the discussion about being gay and the church came up as it was bound to, that he was attending a gay church and was enjoying the worship very much. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/puke.gif" alt="" /> There was also some bitterness there with regards to the amount of time his father spent at his ministry. There wasn't much of a relationship between father and son because of it. I guess thats where the guilt thing came it.
When I wade back through my memory I see most of it was rationalization on his part. He knew the bible pretty well and knew what he was doing wasn't right but he kept right at it.
Anyway, good point and well taken.
Josh "...the word of God is not bound."--2 Timothy 2:9
doulos said: Quoth Pilgrim: The voice of Pilgrim speaks: See above regarding using your brains.
doulos,
I'm not sure how I should take the above remarks above. They could easily be seen as being rather disrespectful; even rude.
However, let me try and clarify my position one last time. How one treats a brother/sister under discipline is, according to the biblical injunctions under consideration, to be akin to how you would treat someone who is an unbeliever. That is exactly what excommunication pronounces, i.e., the person has demonstrated either by doctrine and/or life that they do not evidence that which is consistent with one who professes Christ. If members of the Church continue to maintain a relationship with one excommunicated in exactly the same manner which they had before the disciplinary action, then the purpose of that discipline is nullified. One of the main objectives of excommunication; to officially send a person "outside the camp" is to impress upon the person the seriousness of the situation and that unless repentance is forthcoming, that person's eternal destiny is in jeopardy. Put another way, fellowship can no longer be tolerated by the people of God for the person is no longer "one of them".
One other passage which I must mention for consideration also is that given by the Lord Christ:
Mark 6:10-11 (ASV) "And he said unto them, Wheresoever ye enter into a house, there abide till ye depart thence. And whatsoever place shall not receive you, and they hear you not, as ye go forth thence, shake off the dust that is under your feet for a testimony unto them."
Without question, this passage is dealing specifically with unbelievers and is more than clear in describing what the Lord Himself wills how His disciples should conduct themselves among those of the world. Christians are to live in the world but never be a part of the world. (cf. 1Jh 2:15, 16)
No disrespect intended on the first two. I got tired of typing "Pilgrim Said:" and decided to use some synonyms. As for the latter it was merely an exhortation to think about how you treat folks--excommunicated or not they still have feelings. They're still humans created by God.
You may call it the last word if you like, but it seems that you are lying down in shoes that are much larger than your own feet. It flys in the face of election--which I'm still ironing out so don't expect much fencing around this point. If a person's eternal destiny as you call it can be dertermined by a decision of a church body then we are all in trouble should we ever encounter a heresy we feel a need to stand up against. More to the point, if a church has that much authority then why not go on and accept the Catholic Pope and saints and the whole rest of the bag. (Not that I think thats a good idea.)
Quote
Pilgrim typed:Put another way, fellowship can no longer be tolerated by the people of God for the person is no longer "one of them".
Exactly, but what you're saying is that when the church rules on this there is no hope for that person. Again, big shoes to fill.
Matt 5:43-48(NIV) 43“You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
Josh "...the word of God is not bound."--2 Timothy 2:9
Exactly, but what you're saying is that when the church rules on this there is no hope for that person. Again, big shoes to fill.
With all due respect, this is not at all what Pilgrim was saying. He said:
Quote
One of the main objectives of excommunication; to officially send a person "outside the camp" is to impress upon the person the seriousness of the situation and that unless repentance is forthcoming, that person's eternal destiny is in jeopardy. Put another way, fellowship can no longer be tolerated by the people of God for the person is no longer "one of them".
The church excommunicates primarily to communicate the seriousness of the person's spiritual jeopardy and to convince him to repent and be restored. It is always done with the hope and even expectation that the person will see the sinful error of his ways and repent.
Last edited by gotribe; Tue May 17, 20053:02 PM.
Trust the past to God's mercy, the present to God's love and the future to God's providence." - St. Augustine Hiraeth
You may call it the last word if you like, but it seems that you are lying down in shoes that are much larger than your own feet. It flys in the face of election--which I'm still ironing out so don't expect much fencing around this point. If a person's eternal destiny as you call it can be dertermined by a decision of a church body then we are all in trouble should we ever encounter a heresy we feel a need to stand up against. More to the point, if a church has that much authority then why not go on and accept the Catholic Pope and saints and the whole rest of the bag. (Not that I think thats a good idea.)
Pilgrim is NOT saying the Church determines who is elect—that was done before the foundation of the world (Eph 1). What he is saying (Pilgrim please correct me if I am wrong here) is that the Church should treat “this sinning one” who on the one hand professes Christ and the other hand acts if he does not possess Christ (by doctrine and/or deed) as a heathen and a publican. In one sense, he is worse than an unbeliever for he has received the oracles of God (in some form, at least in word and possibly by faith) and has disdained them. By his acts he has declared God’s work in him as unholy (if indeed there is even a work done in him)!
Quote
Matthew 18:17 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
This is “love” in the Scriptural sense. NOT to obey the whole counsel of God in this area is an act of hatred towards God and an act of pride by one saying one knows better than God …. The Church does have power to make pronouncements and they are honored by God (Matt 18:18f). Kistemaker remarks;
Quote
Jesus continues: And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as the foreigner and the tax-collector. Not as if Jesus despised or would have nothing to do with foreigners and tax-collectors. …. But just as foreigners and tax-collectors who are still unconverted must be considered as being as yet outside the kingdom of God, so also this impenitent person must now be viewed as being in the same class. Because of his own stubbornness he has lost his right to church membership, and it has now become the church’s painful duty to make this declaration—in order that even this severe measure of exclusion may, with God’s blessing, result in the man’s conversion (I Cor. 5:5; II Thess. 3:14, 15). Note: “even to the church,” indicating the honor the Lord bestowed upon the church (Matt. 16:18 “my church,” cf. Acts 20:28b; Eph. 1:23), and the grievous character of rejecting its admonition.
Lack of discipline is a curse to any church. There must be rules regarding faith and conduct. To be sure the church has no right to regiment the life of its members, so that freedom is thrown out of the window, Pharisaism revived, and the Colossian heresy (Col. 2:20, 21) repeated. But there are, after all, certain broad principles, clearly stated in Scripture, and epitomized in such well-known passages as Matt. 5:43–45; 10:32, 33; 11:28–30; 16:24, 25; 22:37–40; John 13:34; Rom. 10:9; 12:1, 2, 21; 13:14; I Cor. 14:1a, and many, many others; principles which, as it were, summarize the whole of God’s will for man’s life. It is the privilege and the duty of the church to set forth these principles and to demand that its members strive, with the help of God’s Spirit, to apply them to their everyday living and thinking. Gross and continued violations without subsequent repentance cannot be tolerated. It is the duty of the church as a whole and as represented by those who by the Lord have been appointed to rule over it to bind, that is, to forbid violation of these principles, and to loose, that is, to permit whatever is in harmony with them. The right of exclusion or excommunication from the church and, upon repentance, of readmission into the church is implied. It is for this reason that Jesus, speaking now in the plural and referring to the apostles as a group (these men in turn representing the church), repeats what he had previously (16:19) said in the singular, to Peter. He says: 18. I solemnly declare to you, whatever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. The solemn introduction—see on 5:18—indicates that the Lord regarded and still regards discipline, as described in 18:15–18, to be a very important matter. Its neglect means the ultimate destruction of the church as a powerful means of spreading the light of the gospel among its members and among the unsaved. See Rev. 2:5.
So I guess I'm just being dense and argumentative? Sometimes I dial for humorous and get irritating. Insert puzzled shrug here. My apologies.
I don't actually have that much experience with excommunication, but I've thought about it--especially during business meetings.
Quote
gotribe said: The church excommunicates primarily to communicate the seriousness of the person's spiritual jeopardy and to convince him to repent and be restored. It is always done with the hope and even expectation that the person will see the sinful error of his ways and repent.
This helps.
Quote
J_Edwards said: Pilgrim is NOT saying the Church determines who is elect...
Of course not, but it seemed to me he was giving too much credit to the church which has proven untrustworthy in times past. Again, no offense--probably just a stiff-necked Baptist thing.
I guess what the issue is to me, mainly, is that any group of folks could decide that a person needed this done and get it right. I've seen too many churches go awry after justifying their actions with a prayer meeting. That said, I can see that a group acting under prayer, conviction, and having the obvious evidence of a person's sinful activities at hand could do it right.
Josh "...the word of God is not bound."--2 Timothy 2:9
Paul had no doubt that he had delivered Hymenaeus and Alexander unto Satan (1 Tim. 1:20). If an excommunication has been done according to scripture, the congregation should have no doubt that the excommunicant has been delivered unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh that the spirit may be saved (1 Cor. 5:5).
Of course not, but it seemed to me he was giving too much credit to the church which has proven untrustworthy in times past. Again, no offense--probably just a stiff-necked Baptist thing.
A Churches failure does not give us the power to change the scriptural mandate (which Pilgrim was giving you). We don't change our methodology to being unscriptural just because "some" Churches have failed to properly enact Church Discipline. No offense meant, but the problem is that you were speaking from your experience (which did not reflect a proper Church, Christ's love, discipline, etc.) and attempting (innocently) to make your experience more scriptural then Scripture itself. ALL of us need to watch out for this type of interpretative methodology.
Quote
a group acting under prayer, conviction, and having the obvious evidence of a person's sinful activities at hand could do it right.
Such a pessimistic remark? ![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/Smileys/pointhaha.gif)
Doulos.
Thus, such individuals to whom Paul is referring are to be treated as one who is outside the Church. This is what is pronounced at a person's excommunication; i.e., that they can no longer be considered a Christian but rather a pagan, since the person's doctrine and/or life is antithetical to the Christian faith.
![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/pilgrim/pil_sig2.gif)
![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/Smileys/pencil.gif)
