1 Corinthians 5 / Excommunication / Removed From Public Gathering Of God's People?

Status
Not open for further replies.
NicolasD1689

NicolasD1689

Puritan Board Freshman
I am a newer Reformed Baptist Christian. I was challenged to look into Excommunication and what it details in how the local church should relate religiously and civily with those put outside of the assembly for open, unrepentant sin.

1. Should unrepentant Christians excommunicated by a local church be welcomed by the local church to sit under the teaching of God's Word and religious service?

2. Are there any prominent Baptists that held to the view of putting out unrepentant Christians from the public assembly of God's people (including the reading and preaching of God's Word)?

3. Are there any early Church Fathers that held to the view of putting out unrepentant Christians from the public assembly of God's people (including the reading and preaching of God's Word)?

Thank you so much!
 
Hello, I dont know if this will be of help; but here are some books from some Puritans to get you started. These all have sections specifically dealing with excommunication. They can all be found on EEBO-TCP.

A True Account of what was Done by a Church of Christ in Exon – Thomas Mall b. 1629
Aarons Rod Blossoming, or Divine Church Ordinance – George Gillespie, 1613-1648
A Vindication of Four Serious Questions of Grand Importance; Concerning Excommunication – William Prynne, 1600-1669
Of the Power of the Keys, or, Of Binding and Loosing – Henry Hammond, 1605-1660
Of the Constitution, Right, Order, and Government of the Churches of Christ – Thomas Goodwin, 1600-1680
The Divine Right of Church Government and Excommunication – Samuel Rutherford, 1600-1661
The Temple Measured – James Noyes, 1608-1656
The Ordinance of Excommunication Rightly Stated and Vindicated from Several False Opinions – Thomas Bakewell, b. 1618
The True Nature of a Gospel Church and its Government – John Owen, 1616-1683
Certain Questions Concerning 1. Silk, or wool, in the High Priests Ephod. 2. Idol temples, commonly called Churches 3. The form of Prayer, commonly called the Lord's prayer. 4. Excommunication, &c. – Hugh Broughton, 1549-1612

Let me know if you need more as I got about 1200 title results back in a Puritan Search on "excommunication."
 
Last edited:
davejonescue said:
Hello, I dont know if this will be of help; but here are some books from some Puritans to get you started. These all have sections specifically dealing with excommunication. They can all be found on EEBO-TCP.

A True Account of what was Done by a Church of Christ in Exon – Thomas Mall b. 1629
Aarons Rod Blossoming, or Divine Church Ordinance – George Gillespie, 1613-1648
A Vindication of Four Serious Questions of Grand Importance; Concerning Excommunication – William Prynne, 1600-1669
Of the Power of the Keys, or, Of Binding and Loosing – Henry Hammond, 1605-1660
Of the Constitution, Right, Order, and Government of the Churches of Christ – Thomas Goodwin, 1600-1680
The Divine Right of Church Government and Excommunication – Samuel Rutherford, 1600-1661
The Temple Measured – James Noyes, 1608-1656
The Ordinance of Excommunication Rightly Stated and Vindicated from Several False Opinions – Thomas Bakewell, b. 1618
The True Nature of a Gospel Church and its Government – John Owen, 1616-1683
Certain Questions Concerning 1. Silk, or wool, in the High Priests Ephod. 2. Idol temples, commonly called Churches 3. The form of Prayer, commonly called the Lord's prayer. 4. Excommunication, &c. – Hugh Broughton, 1549-1612

Let me know if you need more as I got about 1200 title results back in a Puritan Search on "excommunication."
Click to expand...
Thank you, brother!
 
I can't answer questions 2 and 3, but for question 1, I would say that NORMALLY, an excommunicated person can and should continue to attend and be under the preaching and teaching of the Word as normally the goal would be restoration / reconciliation of such a one under discipline.

HOWEVER, there may be severe circumstances case by case in which the offence of the one excommunicated is so grave that for the safety of the congregation the one excommunicated should be barred from contact.

I personally know of two circumstances in churches close to my own where a total ban on contact was appropriate. In one case, the individual made direct and credible threats against the life and limb of the Elders of the church, and in the second case the individual was guilty (and convicted by law) of gross sexual sin against underage girls. In each case, further contact with the church in question would be problematic.
 
NicolasD1689 said:
3. Are there any early Church Fathers that held to the view of putting out unrepentant Christians from the public assembly of God's people (including the reading and preaching of God's Word)?

Thank you so much!
Click to expand...

Tertullian may have this in mind only for those who have "sinned so grievously" (as it runs in the the English):

In the same place also exhortations are made, rebukes and sacred censures are administered. For with a great gravity is the work of judging carried on among us, as befits those who feel assured that they are in the sight of God; and you have the most notable example of judgment to come when any one has sinned so grievously as to require his severance from us in prayer, in the congregation and in all sacred intercourse. (Apology, 39)
Click to expand...

Here is the Latin:

Ibidem etiam exhortationes, castigationes et censura divina. Nam et iudicatur magno cum pondere, ut apud certos de dei conspectu, summumque futuri iudicii praeiudicium est, si quis ita deliquerit, ut a communicatione orationis et conventus et omnis sancti commercii relegetur. (Apologeticum, 39.4)
Click to expand...

George Gillespie will discuss this passage as evidence of degrees in discipline for all kinds of offenses/scandals in the patristic church as also found in the Jewish church (see Aaron's Rod Blossoming, 545-6). You may wish to read his "CHAP. XVII. Antiquity for the suspension of all scan∣dalous persons from the Sacrament, even such as were admitted to other publik Ordinances" as it will shed light on a number of things discipline related in the patristic church.
 
SeanPatrickCornell said:
I can't answer questions 2 and 3, but for question 1, I would say that NORMALLY, an excommunicated person can and should continue to attend and be under the preaching and teaching of the Word as normally the goal would be restoration / reconciliation of such a one under discipline.

HOWEVER, there may be severe circumstances case by case in which the offence of the one excommunicated is so grave that for the safety of the congregation the one excommunicated should be barred from contact.
I personally know of two circumstances in churches close to my own where a total ban on contact was appropriate. In one case, the individual made direct and credible threats against the life and limb of the Elders of the church, and in the second case the individual was guilty (and convicted by law) of gross sexual sin against underage girls. In each case, further contact with the church in question would be problematic.
Click to expand...
My understanding, as far as the discipline/excommunication passages in Scripture are concerned, is that an excommunicated person should be barred from the assembly of God's people.

I do not see any clear evidence in Scripture that shows a person still meets with the assembly of God's people, unless they have shown signs of repentance.

The weight of the phrases in those passages regarding excommunication seems to indicate removal from the gathering of God's people. 'Remove'; 'Do not associate'; 'Avoid'; 'Reject'; 'Do not receive'.

Are there any exegetical studies of Scripture that indicate those passages indicate the excommunicated members still attended/were encouraged to attend before they showed signs of repentance?

I am still new to diving deeper into the doctrines of Scripture. I could be wrong about my view. I appreciate any help and sharpening!
 
NicolasD1689 said:
My understanding, as far as the discipline/excommunication passages in Scripture are concerned, is that an excommunicated person should be barred from the assembly of God's people.

I do not see any clear evidence in Scripture that shows a person still meets with the assembly of God's people, unless they have shown signs of repentance.

The weight of the phrases in those passages regarding excommunication seems to indicate removal from the gathering of God's people. 'Remove'; 'Do not associate'; 'Avoid'; 'Reject'; 'Do not receive'.

Are there any exegetical studies of Scripture that indicate those passages indicate the excommunicated members still attended/were encouraged to attend before they showed signs of repentance?

I am still new to diving deeper into the doctrines of Scripture. I could be wrong about my view. I appreciate any help and sharpening!
Click to expand...
Good day Nicholas,

If I may make a few observations along with some questions that I think may elucidate the discussion . . .

  1. Do you believe that there are various degrees of discipline, excommunication being the last of them? If so, what are those degrees?
  2. Do you think a person ordinarily would want to continue attending a congregation after they've been publicly declared excommunicated, to be in sin, and shamed before the congregation? Not to mention the confrontation and discomfort they may face in personal interactions before and after services, along with personal appeals and spiritual threatening during sermons?
  3. The passages that mention the verbs you listed are not adequately portrayed outside of their context. For instance, Rom. 16:17 - "Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them." Is this suggesting that a fully constituted congregation in its assemblying is to vacate the building (i.e., in order to avoid) if a divisive man enters therein as a visitor? The context seems to suggest this is not what is being discussed or advised and I imagine you might agree.
  4. In relation to exegetical studies, it may be more profitable to study each of the relevant passages alongside some of the best commentators. Feel free to list certain passages and their relevant exposition towards the conclusion being discussed. I'll engage as I have opportunity, if desired.

Kind regards,
 
NicolasD1689 said:
My understanding, as far as the discipline/excommunication passages in Scripture are concerned, is that an excommunicated person should be barred from the assembly of God's people.

I do not see any clear evidence in Scripture that shows a person still meets with the assembly of God's people, unless they have shown signs of repentance.

The weight of the phrases in those passages regarding excommunication seems to indicate removal from the gathering of God's people. 'Remove'; 'Do not associate'; 'Avoid'; 'Reject'; 'Do not receive'.

Are there any exegetical studies of Scripture that indicate those passages indicate the excommunicated members still attended/were encouraged to attend before they showed signs of repentance?

I am still new to diving deeper into the doctrines of Scripture. I could be wrong about my view. I appreciate any help and sharpening!
Click to expand...

To the very best of my own knowledge, to excommunicate someone is to treat them as if they are no Christian at all (losing their church membership privileges but not their membership per se) and thus bar them from taking communion.

I have never heard of an excommunicated person being outright barred from attending services and sitting under the preaching of the gospel UNLESS their offence was particularly grave, such that their presence would constitute a risk to personal safety.

Wouldn't we WANT someone under discipline to continue to be exhorted by the preaching of the word with the goal being the restoration of their repentance?
 
Alexander Suarez said:
Good day Nicholas,

If I may make a few observations along with some questions that I think may elucidate the discussion . . .

  1. Do you believe that there are various degrees of discipline, excommunication being the last of them? If so, what are those degrees?
  2. Do you think a person ordinarily would want to continue attending a congregation after they've been publicly declared excommunicated, to be in sin, and shamed before the congregation? Not to mention the confrontation and discomfort they may face in personal interactions before and after services, along with personal appeals and spiritual threatening during sermons?
  3. The passages that mention the verbs you listed are not adequately portrayed outside of their context. For instance, Rom. 16:17 - "Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them." Is this suggesting that a fully constituted congregation in its assemblying is to vacate the building (i.e., in order to avoid) if a divisive man enters therein as a visitor? The context seems to suggest this is not what is being discussed or advised and I imagine you might agree.
  4. In relation to exegetical studies, it may be more profitable to study each of the relevant passages alongside some of the best commentators. Feel free to list certain passages and their relevant exposition towards the conclusion being discussed. I'll engage as I have opportunity, if desired.

Kind regards,
Click to expand...
1. I do agree with various degrees of discipline. Matthew 18 sets up the foundation for dealing with members in sin and after being warned and counseling them with God's word, they are to be put out.

2. I totally agree that most people do not want to bear the shame of staying around a church, where they were excommunicated from. That tends to be the norm.

3. In the case of Rom. 16:17, it could mean avoid them civilly and and individually or it could mean how the apostle John put it in 2 John 1:10 ( Do not let them into your house, and do not greet him).

4. Thank you for your wisdom into looking into commentaries on this matter. I hope to continue to dialogue with you on this matter.
 
SeanPatrickCornell said:
To the very best of my own knowledge, to excommunicate someone is to treat them as if they are no Christian at all (losing their church membership privileges but not their membership per se) and thus bar them from taking communion.

I have never heard of an excommunicated person being outright barred from attending services and sitting under the preaching of the gospel UNLESS their offence was particularly grave, such that their presence would constitute a risk to personal safety.

Wouldn't we WANT someone under discipline to continue to be exhorted by the preaching of the word with the goal being the restoration of their repentance?
Click to expand...
I totally agree! We want the someone under discipline to repent and be restored. That is the one of the chief goals of church discipline.

My concern is not what I would like or want. But what Scripture says proper discipline looks like and how the church should carry through with excommunication.

I have not thought about church discipline/excommunication this thoroughly before. My pastor challenged me to look into this matter; hence this Purtian Board Post lol. He says he knows of no prominent theologian that holds to my view. My issue is exegesis of the excommunication texts and the forceful language behind discipline. I can't seem to shake that it means being separated from the assembly of God's people. 1 Corinthians 5:13 - ...Remove the wicked man from among yourselves. Referencing Deutoronomy 13 about killing those who went after false gods.

I am still a fairly young Christian, and am thankful we can discuss these ideas openly for God's glory and our edification. Any help is appreciated!
 
NicolasD1689 said:
Do you have any Scriptural references that could support this view? Any help is great! Thanks for the comment.
Click to expand...
It is a principle throughout Bible. Willful sinners are to live away from God's presence. Adam and Eve exiled from Garden; Israel exiled from the Land which had the Temple (God also abandoned His presence there); sinner exiled from Church/New Jerusalem today.
 
Polanus1561 said:
It is a principle throughout Bible. Willful sinners are to live away from God's presence. Adam and Eve exiled from Garden; Israel exiled from the Land which had the Temple (God also abandoned His presence there); sinner exiled from Church/New Jerusalem today.
Click to expand...
Totally agree with the context. Do you know of any prominent Theologians that would support this view in regards to excommunication?
 
NicolasD1689 said:
Totally agree with the context. Do you know of any prominent Theologians that would support this view in regards to excommunication?
Click to expand...
I don't think there are notable works on excommunication nor biblical-theological works on it. But you don't need it. It is obvious enough. By nature we are all excommunicated from God as Adam was. His covenant community are brought into fellowship with Him but those who show their excommunicated unregenerate nature in sinning are to be kept out.
 
NicolasD1689 said:
I totally agree! We want the someone under discipline to repent and be restored. That is the one of the chief goals of church discipline.

My concern is not what I would like or want. But what Scripture says proper discipline looks like and how the church should carry through with excommunication.

I have not thought about church discipline/excommunication this thoroughly before. My pastor challenged me to look into this matter; hence this Purtian Board Post lol. He says he knows of no prominent theologian that holds to my view. My issue is exegesis of the excommunication texts and the forceful language behind discipline. I can't seem to shake that it means being separated from the assembly of God's people. 1 Corinthians 5:13 - ...Remove the wicked man from among yourselves. Referencing Deutoronomy 13 about killing those who went after false gods.

I am still a fairly young Christian, and am thankful we can discuss these ideas openly for God's glory and our edification. Any help is appreciated!
Click to expand...

I think part of the difficulty in this discussion connecting the NT discipline to that of OT Israel is being able to observe that there was a distinction between an ecclesiastical and civil/political discipline in OT Israel.

Additionally, the connection the apostle Paul makes in 1 Cor. 5 is actually to Exodus 12 (observance of the Passover):

11 And thus shall ye eat it . . . it is the Lord’s passover . . . 15 Seven days shall ye eat unleavened bread; even the first day ye shall put away leaven out of your houses: for whosoever eateth leavened bread from the first day until the seventh day, that soul shall be cut off from Israel . . . 19 Seven days shall there be no leaven found in your houses: for whosoever eateth that which is leavened, even that soul shall be cut off from the congregation of Israel, whether he be a stranger, or born in the land.
Click to expand...

Here as in other places, to "cut off" does not always refer to capital punishment, if it ever does. I can explain further if desired.

Concerning the command in 1 Cor. 5:13 to "put away from among yourselves that wicked person," consider the following:
  1. The persons Paul is addressing . . . I argue, the elders in the churches of Corinth v4-5 "in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, 5 to deliver such an one [etc]"
  2. The kind of action Paul is directing them to do . . . I argue, an authoritative spiritual excommunication. This will inform what delivering, purging, and putting away from among themselves means. It is not a physical removal so much as a spiritual judgment and barring to all confirming seals of the church.
If it helps, consider the following process of excommunication as described by Alexander Henderson in the Church of Scotland at 1641:

After excommunication, he is permitted to come to the preaching of the Word, yet so as it may appear that he cometh as one not having communion with the Church. Neither is he debarred from private counsel, instruction, admonition, and prayer, that in end his spirit may be saved. If after excommunication the Eldership find the signs of repentance, as the good life and behaviour of the excommunicate, declaration of the grief of his heart, and his humble submission to the order of the Church, in all things that may reconcile him to God and his people, they shall with joy of heart make it known to the Congregation by the Minister, that they may also have joy over their brother repenting: or if they have ought to object against the truth of his repentance, they may give notice thereof at the next meeting of the Eldership, where if nothing be alleged against him, after he hath obeyed the injunctions of the Eldership for his further humiliation and the better trial of his repentance, he is either brought before the greater Presbytery, as all other penitents for great crimes, or by relation from his own Eldership, is to give them satisfaction in the signs of his repentance that he may be absolved.

As all public penitents are received, so is the excommunicate absolved in the face of the Congregation, before whom being brought by the Elders at the time appointed, he maketh free confession of his sin and mourneth for it, crieth to God for mercy, seeketh to be reconciled to the Church and promiseth new obedience; with which all being satisfied and willing to receive him into their common and mutual consolation, the Minister who preacheth for that time pronounceth him upon his repentance to be absolved in the Name of Christ from his sin, and free of the censures of the Church, and have right through faith to Christ and all his benefits and ordinances, praising God for his grace and praying that he may be fully accepted to his favour, loosed in Heaven, and hear the voice of joy and gladness.

After the sentence of absolution, the Minister speaketh to him as to a brother exhorting him to watch and pray, or comforting him if he have need,
the Elders embrace him and the whole Congregation keeps communion with him as if he had never offended.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
SeanPatrickCornell said:
To the very best of my own knowledge, to excommunicate someone is to treat them as if they are no Christian at all (losing their church membership privileges but not their membership per se) and thus bar them from taking communion.

I have never heard of an excommunicated person being outright barred from attending services and sitting under the preaching of the gospel UNLESS their offence was particularly grave, such that their presence would constitute a risk to personal safety.

Wouldn't we WANT someone under discipline to continue to be exhorted by the preaching of the word with the goal being the restoration of their repentance?
Click to expand...
Yes, I thought the phrase "not even to eat with such a one" was about the Lord's supper, but not regular meetings.
I've heard of people being in the process of getting disciplined who kept coming to church because all their friends were there, so it happens.
 
I don't disagree. But apostles make the difference between unbelievers, who never claimed Jesus, and unrepentant believers. The unbeliever you can associate with and eat with (to a certain degree), and the unrepentant believer you are to cast out and avoid, and in 2 John a very clear command to not allow false teachers into the house of God and not to greet them.

There are clear cases of unbelievers attending worship. Not so much of excommunicated members until they show a signs of repentance. The culture of the day, the Gospels for one example, indicate what Jews did if someone violated their laws. They faced being thrown out of the synagogues and probably a degree of shunning. Sounds like the same language, when we encounter the discipline/excommunication texts in Scripture.

I do agree, that there is an association difference with members under discipline. I'm just trying to understand the exegesis of the discipline texts to see if it indicates being cast out of the public assembly of God's people or just a general association, which included not sharing a common meal with them.

Thank you for your dialogue!
 
NicolasD1689 said:
I don't disagree. But apostles make the difference between unbelievers, who never claimed Jesus, and unrepentant believers. The unbeliever you can associate with and eat with (to a certain degree), and the unrepentant believer you are to cast out and avoid, and in 2 John a very clear command to not allow false teachers into the house of God and not to greet them.

There are clear cases of unbelievers attending worship. Not so much of excommunicated members until they show a signs of repentance. The culture of the day, the Gospels for one example, indicate what Jews did if someone violated their laws. They faced being thrown out of the synagogues and probably a degree of shunning. Sounds like the same language, when we encounter the discipline/excommunication texts in Scripture.

I do agree, that there is an association difference with members under discipline. I'm just trying to understand the exegesis of the discipline texts to see if it indicates being cast out of the public assembly of God's people or just a general association, which included not sharing a common meal with them.

Thank you for your dialogue!
Click to expand...
Wait a minute, 2 John 10 says not to receive false teachers into your house, not the "house of God."
"If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed:"
I'll add one more remark. When men are excommunicated it is presumed they are unregenerate. But we want them to repent. But how can an unregenerate man repent without hearing the word?
 
I could be wrong, but I would assume this may be of a corporate context in 2 John. This is written to a local body of believers, who may have met inside of one of the believer's houses.

Would it also be safe to say that if individual believers were the context of this passage and they still met at someone's house; then the statement would still carry true...don't let them into your house?

What are your thoughts? Thank you for the helping me to look deeper at the text?
 
NicolasD1689 said:
I could be wrong, but I would assume this may be of a corporate context in 2 John. This is written to a local body of believers, who may have met inside of one of the believer's houses.

Would it also be safe to say that if individual believers were the context of this passage and they still met at someone's house; then the statement would still carry true...don't let them into your house?

What are your thoughts? Thank you for the helping me to look deeper at the text?
Click to expand...
"If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds."

2 John 10-11

I think what John is warning against is showing hospitality, and encouragement/support that is due to a fellow believer/minister of the gospel.
 
Alexander Suarez said:
I think part of the difficulty in this discussion connecting the NT discipline to that of OT Israel is being able to observe that there was a distinction between an ecclesiastical and civil/political discipline in OT Israel.

Additionally, the connection the apostle Paul makes in 1 Cor. 5 is actually to Exodus 12 (observance of the Passover):



Here as in other places, to "cut off" does not always refer to capital punishment, if it ever does. I can explain further if desired.

Concerning the command in 1 Cor. 5:13 to "put away from among yourselves that wicked person," consider the following:
  1. The persons Paul is addressing . . . I argue, the elders in the churches of Corinth v4-5 "in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, 5 to deliver such an one [etc]"
  2. The kind of action Paul is directing them to do . . . I argue, an authoritative spiritual excommunication. This will inform what delivering, purging, and putting away from among themselves means. It is not a physical removal so much as a spiritual judgment and barring to all confirming seals of the church.
If it helps, consider the following process of excommunication as described by Alexander Henderson in the Church of Scotland at 1641:
Click to expand...
I do agree we do have to make a distinction about the differences between the OT and NT. Definitely not advocating for capital punishment inside the church, and I clearly agree excommunication is a spiritual judgment on an unrepentant person.

I also recognize that spiritual judgements do tend to have physical consequences tied with them. In 1 Cor. 5: 9-13, Paul is telling people to not associate or even eat with unrepentant Christians. The Corinthians misunderstood him earlier, when he used the term 'immoral people'. He did not argue that how they chose not to associate with immoral people is what they got wrong. He takes an issue with the group of people they thought he meant, when he said 'immoral people'. So there are physical ramifications that come with spiritual judgements.

I wouldn't disagree that Paul is referencing in 1Cor. 5: 6-8 about the Passover and removing leaven from the dwellings. And anyone who ate leavened would be 'cut off'. The question is what principle carries over to the NT, when Paul refers to removing the leaven from the lump? Is it merely a spiritual judgment or are there physical consequences that accompany that judgment? And if so, how severe? It is hard to make a purely exegetical argument for a specific, black and white answer. That is why I have a hard time understanding how we can go to the text and prove that the unrepentant believer continued to be allowed in the public assembly of God's people. The very same passage in Exodus 12 at the very least denotes a change in proximity. Whether it be the leaven cast out or the person cut off. Paul makes clear that the unrepentant sinner was to be kept more at bay than an unbeliever who never claimed the name of Jesus Christ. So much so that he said they would have had to gone out of the world to not associate with the immoral people of the world, if that is what he had meant when he said 'immoral people'. But he meant immoral Christians, you don't have to go out of the world to avoid them. You can barr them from the assembly, not allow them in your homes, or even to eat with them. (Not sure what your view is about the 'not to eat' command. I take it to mean any general meal. If they were to avoid an unrepentant sinner, then it goes without saying it couldn't mean the Lord's Supper. It should have been clear, those in sin should not participate in the Lord's Supper anyways)


At the very end of 1 Cor. 5:13, Paul may be quoting the language of the Greek Septuigant in Deutonormy 13; 17; & 24 - "thou shalt put away that wicked one among yourselves". Again denoting distance, whether purely spiritual or some physicality to go with it. The question still remains, how does one truly fulfill this and prove it with good exegesis from the texts? There are no clear references to excommunicated believers attending the corporate worship of God's people before they repent (at least none that i know of). So it comes down, at least for me, what is the whole counsel of the Word of God say about this?

There are plenty of references to the cultural understanding of religous excommunication:

* 'Cast out of Synagogue' - (Jn 9:22; Jn 12:42; Jn 16:2

* 'Puts out of the church' - (3 Jn 1:10) referencing Diotrephes not allowing brethren into the church and those desiring to do so...he put out of the church.

Not saying that means the church had to do as the religious world around them did. But the language of 'Cast out', 'reject', 'avoid', 'remove' as commamds to the church seems to indicate otherwise.

I also don't believe that 1 Cor. 5:4 is pertaining to the Corinthian elders, but to the whole assembly. The language is clear from the chapter before and after, that 'you' is referring to all the brethren in the Corinthian church. Plus Paul's command to avoid or not eat with immoral people would sound a little off if it just applied to the elders and not to all the Corinthian Christians. There is also confirmation in 2 Corinthians 2:6 that it was by a majority that this excommunication took place and then Paul calls all of the Corinthian church to love and restore the man. Also, Matthew 18:15-20 summarizes Jesus giving the authority to discipline to the assembly of God's people.

Thank you again, brother for the dialogue! I am trying to better understand this passage and could very well be taking this too far. Still considering how unbelievers fit into corporate worship and at what point our association with them would look the same as that of the unrepentant believer (not to associate or eat).
 
NicolasD1689 said:
Still considering how unbelievers fit into corporate worship and at what point our association with them would look the same as that of the unrepentant believer (not to associate or eat).
Click to expand...
I think the key to unlocking this is found in what we have in fellowship with other Christians.

The admitted unbeliever in the congregation, while welcome to sit under the preaching of the word, is in no way worshipping in spirit and in truth. He is also in no way truly a member of Christ's body. To give him the impression that he is having true Christian fellowship, while being an unbeliever, is a travesty.

The professing believer, who in the due course of time has been called to live as truly becomes a member of Christ's body, (not in unrepentant sin), who is then excommunicated, is not to be received in fellowship. We are to have no fellowship with darkness. The body of Christ, while happy to have him sit under the preaching of the word, should not give him the impression that he is able to live in unrepentant sin while claiming Jesus Christ as his Savior and Lord.

The call to him would not be "Welcome brother! Your sin is no big deal. Come break bread with us!"

Rather, the call should be, "Repent, and believe the gospel. Let all who name the name of the Lord depart from iniquity. Seek the Lord while he may be found."

I hope I'm not talking in circles or repeating what has already been said. I'm good at that.
 
NicolasD1689 said:
Thank you again, brother for the dialogue! I am trying to better understand this passage and could very well be taking this too far. Still considering how unbelievers fit into corporate worship and at what point our association with them would look the same as that of the unrepentant believer (not to associate or eat).
Click to expand...

Good day Nicholas,

I am happy to interact. Here is a brief question upon reading your feedback:

You said that you believed 1 Cor. 5:4 was to be the action of the whole [congregational] assembly (i.e., every member) but then cited 2 Cor. 2:6 that speaks of a censure and punishment being inflicted of many (i.e., not all). Why does the apostle use "many" (τῶν πλειόνων) and not "all" if the action of excommunication was performed by all?
 
MyCrows said:
I think the key to unlocking this is found in what we have in fellowship with other Christians.

The admitted unbeliever in the congregation, while welcome to sit under the preaching of the word, is in no way worshipping in spirit and in truth. He is also in no way truly a member of Christ's body. To give him the impression that he is having true Christian fellowship, while being an unbeliever, is a travesty.

The professing believer, who in the due course of time has been called to live as truly becomes a member of Christ's body, (not in unrepentant sin), who is then excommunicated, is not to be received in fellowship. We are to have no fellowship with darkness. The body of Christ, while happy to have him sit under the preaching of the word, should not give him the impression that he is able to live in unrepentant sin while claiming Jesus Christ as his Savior and Lord.

The call to him would not be "Welcome brother! Your sin is no big deal. Come break bread with us!"

Rather, the call should be, "Repent, and believe the gospel. Let all who name the name of the Lord depart from iniquity. Seek the Lord while he may be found."

I hope I'm not talking in circles or repeating what has already been said. I'm good at that.
Click to expand...
Lol, I think we both have been repeating to some degree. But it is good, and I appreciate the conversation.

I know everyone has their different view on how this passage, as well as other discipline texts should be interpreted, and what that details exactly.

I am just looking for a more exegetical draw from these texts to back up how the church should rightly administer excommunication to an unrepentant believer.
 
Alexander Suarez said:
Good day Nicholas,

I am happy to interact. Here is a brief question upon reading your feedback:

You said that you believed 1 Cor. 5:4 was to be the action of the whole [congregational] assembly (i.e., every member) but then cited 2 Cor. 2:6 that speaks of a censure and punishment being inflicted of many (i.e., not all). Why does the apostle use "many" (τῶν πλειόνων) and not "all" if the action of excommunication was performed by all?
Click to expand...
The majority referenced in that passage would be referring to the assembly and a vote on the matter of church discipline. The context is still the Corinthian Christians as a whole, and there is no indication that it is referring to the elders.

Majority just indicates that a minortiy was not on board with either voting for excommunication or properly applying excommunication to this man.
 
NicolasD1689 said:
The majority referenced in that passage would be referring to the assembly and a vote on the matter of church discipline. The context is still the Corinthian Christians as a whole, and there is no indication that it is referring to the elders.

Majority just indicates that a minortiy was not on board with either voting for excommunication or properly applying excommunication to this man.
Click to expand...

I take it from your answer that you also believe the Corinthian church was one congregation? If so, I recommend the following considerations to you arguing the opposite from a work titled, Jus Divinum Regiminis Ecclesiastici:

IV. The church of Corinth in Græcia comprised in it also more congregations than one, as may be justly concluded from, 1. The multitude of believers. 2. The plenty of ministers. 3. The diversity of tongues and languages. 4. And the plurality of churches at Corinth. Let all these be well compared together.


1. From the multitude of believers. There appears to be a greater number of believers at Corinth than could all at once meet together to partake of all the ordinances of Christ: For, 1. At Paul's first coming to Corinth, and at his first sermon preached in the house of Justus, it is said, "And Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord, and all his house, and many of the Corinthians hearing, believed and were baptized," Acts xviii.1, 7, 8. Here is Crispus and all his house, (which probably was very great, he being the chief ruler of the synagogue,) and many of the Corinthians, believing; an excellent first-fruits; for who can justly say but Paul at his first sermon converted so many as might be sufficient to make up one single congregation? 2.Immediately after this (Paul having shook his raiment against the Jews, who, contrary to his doctrine, opposed themselves and blasphemed; and having said unto them, "Your blood be upon your own heads, I am clean: from henceforth I will go unto the Gentiles,"Acts xviii. 6) the Lord comforts Paul against the obstinacy of the Jews by the success his ministry should have among the Gentiles in the city of Corinth: "Then spake the Lord to Paul in the night by a vision, Be not afraid, but speak, and hold not thy peace: for I am with thee, and no man shall set on thee to hurt thee: for I have much people in this city," Acts xviii. 9, 10. Much people belonging to God, according to his secret predestination, over and besides those that already were actually his by effectual vocation.And much people, in respect of the Jews that opposed and blasphemed, (who were exceeding many,) otherwise it would have been but small comfort to Paul if by much people should be meant no more than could meet at once in one small single congregation.3. Paul himself continued at Corinth "a year and six months teaching the word of God among them," Acts xviii. 11. To what end should Paul the apostle of the Gentiles stay so long in one place,if he had not seen the Lord's blessing upon his ministry, to bring into the faith many more souls than would make up one congregation,having so much work to do far and near? 4. "They that believed at Corinth were baptized," Acts xviii. 8. (Baptism admitted them into that one body of the Church, 1 Cor. xii. 13.) Some were baptized by Paul, (though but few in comparison of the number of believers among them: compare Acts xviii. 8, with 1 Cor. 14-17,) the generality consequently were baptized by other ministers there, and that in other congregations wherein Paul preached not, as well as in such wherein Paul preached; it being unreasonable to deny the being of divers congregations for the word and sacraments to be dispensed in, himself dispensing the sacrament of baptism to so few.


2. From the plenty of ministers and preachers in the church of Corinth, it is evident it was a presbyterial church, and not only a single congregation; for to what end should there be many laborers in a little harvest, many teachers over one single congregation?&c. That there were many preachers at Corinth is plain: For, 1.Paul himself was the master-builder there that laid the foundation of that church, 1 Cor. iii. 10, their spiritual father; "In Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel," 1 Cor. iv. 15. And he stayed with them one year and a half, Acts xviii. II. 2.While the apostle sharply taxeth them as guilty of schism and division for their carnal crying up of their several teachers: some doting upon one, some upon another, some upon a third, &c."Every one of you saith, I am of Paul, and I of Apollos, and I of Cephas, and I of Christ," 1 Cor. i. 12. Doth not this intimate that they had plenty of preachers, and these preachers had their several followers, so prizing some of them as to undervalue the rest? and was this likely to be without several congregations into which they were divided? 3. When the apostle saith, "Though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers," 1Cor. v. 15; though his words be hyperbolical, yet they imply that they had great store of teachers and preachers. 4. We have mention of many prophets in the church of Corinth: "Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge—And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets," 1 Cor. xiv. 20, 31. Here are prophets speaking two or three; and prophets judging of their doctrine, which sure were more than they that were judged;it being unreasonable for the minor part to pass judgment upon the major part. And though these prophets had extraordinary gifts, (as the church of Corinth excelled all other churches in gifts, 1 Cor.i. 7,) and were able to preach in an extraordinary singular way;yet were they the ordinary pastors and ministers of that church of Corinth, as the whole current of this fourteenth chapter evidenceth, wherein so many rules and directions, aptly agreeing to ordinary pastors, are imposed upon them for the well ordering of their ministerial exercises. Now, where there were so many pastors,were there not several congregations for them to feed? Or were they idle, neglecting the exercise and improvement of their talents?


3. From the diversity of tongues and languages, wherein the church did eminently excel. "In every thing ye are enriched by him,in all utterance, and in all knowledge—So that you come behind in no gift," &c., i.e., ye excel in every gift, more being intended than is expressed, 1 Cor. i. 5, 7. Among other gifts some of them excelled in tongues which they spake, the right use of which gift of tongues the apostle doth at large lay down, 1 Cor.xiv. 2, 4-6, 13, 14, 18, 19, 23, 26, 27. "If any speak in an unknown tongue let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course, and let one interpret." So that there were many endued with gifts of tongues in that church. To what end? Not only for a sign to unbelievers, ver. 22, but also for edification of divers congregations, of divers tongues and languages within that church of Corinth.


4. From the plurality of churches mentioned in reference to this church of Corinth. For the apostle regulating their public assemblies and their worship there, saith to the church of Corinth,"Let your women keep silence in the churches." It is not said, in the church, in the singular number; but in the churches, in the plural; and this of the churches in Corinth, for it is said, Let your women, &c., not indefinitely, Let women, &c. So that according to the plain letter of the words, here are churches in the church of Corinth, viz. a plurality of single congregations in this one presbyterial church. And this plurality of churches in the church of Corinth is the more confirmed if we take the church of Cenchrea (which is a harbor or seaport to Corinth) to be comprised within the church of Corinth, as some learned authors do conceive it may.
Click to expand...

Regarding your earlier statement that the context makes it clear that the apostle speaks of every member in the congregation (man, woman, and child), I would agree that the epistle has things for which each member of the church is to interpret and apply according to place and station. However, I would disagree that those who are to judge when gathered together in the name of Christ is every member of every congregation. Notice:

  1. The apostle as an apostle has "judged already . . . For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within?" (1 Cor. 5:3,12)
  2. This judging (mentioned above in 1.) is not an every member sort of judgment but an authoritative spiritual ruling over those that are within.
  3. The apostle Paul refers to those spiritual rulers in the church in chapter 3 as those who are laborers, ministers, planters, waterers, builders of and in the Church. These are not functions given to every member. The work of these spiritual rulers will be "made manifest . . . revealed by fire."
  4. The apostle Paul refers to those spiritual rulers in the church in the previous chapters as ministers and stewards "Let a man so account of us, as of the ministers of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of God. 2 Moreover it is required in stewards, that a man be found faithful [etc.]
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

NicolasD1689
1 Corinthians 5 / Ecommunication
Replies
0
Views
435
NicolasD1689
NicolasD1689
louis_jp
  • Locked
Nature of Excommunication
Replies
7
Views
3K
Tirian
Tirian
Notthemama1984
  • Locked
Excommunication
Replies
9
Views
3K
Notthemama1984
Notthemama1984
Tyrese
  • Locked
1 Tim 5:17
Replies
6
Views
2K
Contra_Mundum
Contra_Mundum
P
  • Locked
Excommunication question
Replies
6
Views
2K
Tim
Tim
Back
Top