Thread: 1 Corinthians 5:9-11

9 I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:

10 Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world.

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.

How are these verses interpreted? Is it those who call themselves a Christian? If so, how are we to practically live this out because the whole nation of America would claim to be Christian. Are we not to fellowship or eat with any of them? Is verse 10 only referring to those who openly reject the gospel? What about family? I have family that claim Christianity but are clearly not Christians by their actions. Am I not to eat with them? If not, how do we balance this with honoring father and mother?

Originally Posted by John Lanier

9 I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:

10 Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world.

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.

How are these verses interpreted? Is it those who call themselves a Christian? If so, how are we to practically live this out because the whole nation of America would claim to be Christian. Are we not to fellowship or eat with any of them? Is verse 10 only referring to those who openly reject the gospel? What about family? I have family that claim Christianity but are clearly not Christians by their actions. Am I not to eat with them? If not, how do we balance this with honoring father and mother?

John, I believe that Paul's directive here is contextually specific to the Church at Corinth in the sense that his letter to them had a particular issue that they needed to deal with. That is not to say that it has no application to other churches or subsequent generations, it does.

But in the context of his dealing with the Corinthian situation he reminds them that (1) within their church, and (2) among those who profess faith, they are to exercise the discipline prescribed by the Lord in order to their correction and recovery.

Originally Posted by rbcbob

John, I believe that Paul's directive here is contextually specific to the Church at Corinth in the sense that his letter to them had a particular issue that they needed to deal with. That is not to say that it has no application to other churches or subsequent generations, it does.

But in the context of his dealing with the Corinthian situation he reminds them that (1) within their church, and (2) among those who profess faith, they are to exercise the discipline prescribed by the Lord in order to their correction and recovery.

So people from other churches would not fall into this?

This brings up another question. If a person is disciplined from a like-minded church and we are all part of the "universal church" are we to honor that discipline or are we free to fellowship with them?

This partial shunning applies to brothers and sisters that have experienced some degree of church discipline, specifically the sanction of being excommunicated from the Lord's Table. They are not to be treated as brothers in Christ, although with politeness and respect as one would treat a non-believer.

See also Matthew 18 and I Corinthians 5. Failure to courageously follow Christ's instructions due to pseudo-compassion (as if we could be more compassionate than Christ) has led to many problems in the Church (understatement).

Of course excommunication and this kind of shunning is only church discipline at its highest level. But how can we expect Christ's blessing if His instructions are seen as hard, difficult, embarrassing, or out-of-date?

This is much more important than civil sanctions, which have often been discussed on other threads.

Other denominations and congregations should have arrangements in place so that the discipline and sanctions by other churches are honoured, otherwise Christ's discipline is undermined. I say "Christ's" because He indicated that the powers of Heaven will get behind church discipline and sanctions when it is properly and correctly done. E.g. "Whatsoever you shall loose on earth will be looosed in Heaven, and c."

Well said Richard.

The application of this passage extends well beyond 1st century Corinth and is one of the premier resources in scripture detailing church discipline.

Originally Posted by John Lanier

So people from other churches would not fall into this?

This brings up another question. If a person is disciplined from a like-minded church and we are all part of the "universal church" are we to honor that discipline or are we free to fellowship with them?

Charles Hodge explains,

The Presbyterian doctrine on this subject is, that the Church is one in such a sense that a smaller part is subject to a larger, and the larger to the whole. It has one Lord, one faith, one baptism. The principles of government laid down in the Scriptures bind the whole Church. The terms of admission, and the legitimate grounds of exclusion, are everywhere the same. The same qualifications are everywhere to be demanded for admission to the sacred office, and the same grounds for deposition. Every man who is properly received as a member of a particular church, becomes a member of the Church universal; every one rightfully excluded from a particular church, is excluded from the whole Church; every one rightfully ordained to the ministry in one church, is a minister of the universal Church, and when rightfully deposed in one, he ceases to be a minister in any. Hence, while every particular church has a right to manage its own affairs and administer its own discipline, it cannot be independent and irresponsible in the exercise of that right. As its members are members of the Church universal, and those whom it excommunicates are, according to the Scriptural theory, delivered unto Satan, and cut off from the communion of the saints, the acts of a particular church become the acts of the whole Church, and therefore the whole has the right to see that they are performed according to the law of Christ. Hence, on the one hand, the right of appeal; and, on the other, the right of review and control. [emphasis added]

from What is Presbyterianism?

The NLT 2007 seems clear enough:

9 When I wrote to you before, I told you not to associate with people who indulge in sexual sin.
10 But I wasn’t talking about unbelievers who indulge in sexual sin, or are greedy, or cheat people, or worship idols. You would have to leave this world to avoid people like that.
11 I meant that you are not to associate with anyone who claims to be a believer yet indulges in sexual sin, or is greedy, or worships idols, or is abusive, or is a drunkard, or cheats people. Don’t even eat with such people.

AMR

Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion

The NLT 2007 seems clear enough:

9 When I wrote to you before, I told you not to associate with people who indulge in sexual sin.
10 But I wasn’t talking about unbelievers who indulge in sexual sin, or are greedy, or cheat people, or worship idols. You would have to leave this world to avoid people like that.
11 I meant that you are not to associate with anyone who claims to be a believer yet indulges in sexual sin, or is greedy, or worships idols, or is abusive, or is a drunkard, or cheats people. Don’t even eat with such people.

AMR

This brings me back to my OP. How many Americans don't claim to be believers? My parents claim to be believers but don't live like it. Does that mean I am not to eat with them? I am really looking for some advice here because I struggle with that issue.

-----Added 8/13/2009 at 11:31:17 EST-----

Originally Posted by A.J.

Originally Posted by John Lanier

So people from other churches would not fall into this?

This brings up another question. If a person is disciplined from a like-minded church and we are all part of the "universal church" are we to honor that discipline or are we free to fellowship with them?

Charles Hodge explains,

The Presbyterian doctrine on this subject is, that the Church is one in such a sense that a smaller part is subject to a larger, and the larger to the whole. It has one Lord, one faith, one baptism. The principles of government laid down in the Scriptures bind the whole Church. The terms of admission, and the legitimate grounds of exclusion, are everywhere the same. The same qualifications are everywhere to be demanded for admission to the sacred office, and the same grounds for deposition. Every man who is properly received as a member of a particular church, becomes a member of the Church universal; every one rightfully excluded from a particular church, is excluded from the whole Church; every one rightfully ordained to the ministry in one church, is a minister of the universal Church, and when rightfully deposed in one, he ceases to be a minister in any. Hence, while every particular church has a right to manage its own affairs and administer its own discipline, it cannot be independent and irresponsible in the exercise of that right. As its members are members of the Church universal, and those whom it excommunicates are, according to the Scriptural theory, delivered unto Satan, and cut off from the communion of the saints, the acts of a particular church become the acts of the whole Church, and therefore the whole has the right to see that they are performed according to the law of Christ. Hence, on the one hand, the right of appeal; and, on the other, the right of review and control. [emphasis added]

from What is Presbyterianism?

This is one point in which I think Baptists do a poor job. We are so intent on maintaining our independence from every other church (which there are some good things to this, I admit) that we can think that our particular local church is the only one around and nothing that anyone else does matters to us. Not trying to bash Baptists, if you look at my signature, I am one.

This brings me back to my OP. How many Americans don't claim to be believers? My parents claim to be believers but don't live like it. Does that mean I am not to eat with them? I am really looking for some advice here because I struggle with that issue.

John, the issue of your parents claim relative to your responsibility rests not entirely with their assessment. Are they members of the same church as yourself? If so has discipline been imposed on them?

There are those in Revelation 2:2,9 who claim for themselves that they were apostles and Jews who were not; they lied.

Those in Corinth of whom Paul speaks were being called Ονομαζομενος (passive) brother by this church. They had a credible profession of faith and were counted those on the "inside" (1 Cor 5:12) and subject to discipline.

Originally Posted by John Lanier

This brings me back to my OP. How many Americans don't claim to be believers? My parents claim to be believers but don't live like it. Does that mean I am not to eat with them? I am really looking for some advice here because I struggle with that issue.

Brother, I think the seeming difficulty posed by the text is removed once we understand how far we are separated from the original context in which this epistle of Paul was written. During his time, the apostles were still alive. It was much easier to deternine whether a church or group of churches professed true Christianity. One would only compare this or that church's teachings with the teachings of the apostles. Of course, there were heretical groups (e.g., Gnostics). But the main difference our time has with the time of the apostles was that theirs did not have as many cults and sects (which claimed the label Christian) as we have today.

In his epistle, Paul was addressing members of a church which believed and confessed the only true gospel. Despite the immorality of some of its members, the church in Corinth taught the same gospel preached by Paul (though it must be admitted that the Corinthians' profession was undermined by their sins). In our time, however, many groups all over the world have been established all claiming to be the one true Christianity founded by Christ. There are Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Arminians, fundamentalists and Pentecostals/charismatics. The last few centuries also saw the rise of Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Seventh-Day Adventists, and Oneness Pentecostals.

Since the members of all these sects claim to be believers, how then do we obey Paul's command? I would think that the apostle's words would not apply to a Mormon or a Jehovah's Witness. A Mormon or a Jehovah's Witness may claim to be a believer, but his group has absolutely no evidence of any mark of a true church. Both the Latter-Day Saints and the Watchtower Society preach a false Christ and therefore a false gospel. In fact, these groups are not even Christian at all.

Thankfully, dealing with a Mormon or a Jehovah's witness is totally different from dealing with a professing Presbyterian (or Reformed Baptist in your case) who lives in open rebellion and indulges in the sins mentiond by Paul (1 Cor. 5:11). The professing Presbyterian (or Reformed Baptist) claims to be a believer and is a member of a church which preaches the gospel. In this case, Paul's command will certainly apply.

In my country, 8 out of 10 people are Roman Catholic. That means that a majority of the people I will meet outside my home are professing Christians. If verse 11 applies to these men and women, then verse 10 is rather hard to understand. I would be forced to leave this world to avoid people like them - which is exactly what Paul was not saying. But as it is, most of these Roman Catholics do not know the gospel. Moreover, they are members of a religious institution that has rejected and continues to reject the marks by which a true church is known.

So I think your question is answered if we limit those who claim to be believers to people who are members of churches which continue to uphold the gospel of Christ.

I hope this helps.

Blessings!

-----Added 8/13/2009 at 01:08:37 EST-----

Originally Posted by rbcbob

Those in Corinth of whom Paul speaks were being called Ονομαζομενος (passive) brother by this church. They had a credible profession of faith and were counted those on the "inside" (1 Cor 5:12) and subject to discipline.

Paul was addressing people who were inside Christ's covenant community something which neither a Mormon nor a Jehovah's Witness can claim for himself.

Thanks for your help guys.