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

[Alexander Suarez]

Good day Nicolas,

If you have the interest and time, these expositional readings of 1 Corinthians may help give you a big picture of the epistle from a different perspective:

Rev. Todd Ruddell Sermons | SermonAudio

www.sermonaudio.com

Kind regards,

 

[RamistThomist]

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)?

The early church fathers' views were almost always extreme, at least with regard for reconciliation. For grave sexual sins, a person was banned from the Eucharist for about ten years at best. Same with folding under persecution. Could they sit under teaching, probably? But when the deacon chanted, "Let all catachumens depart," they would probably have to leave and not even witness the Eucharist.

 

[RamistThomist]

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.

If the unrepentant believer isn't a teacher, then 2 John wouldn't apply in that case. It comes down to this: what is one of the goal's of discipline? Ideally, it should be restoration (barring heinous sins and crimes).

 

[davejonescue]

If the unrepentant believer isn't a teacher, then 2 John wouldn't apply in that case. It comes down to this: what is one of the goal's of discipline? Ideally, it should be restoration (barring heinous sins and crimes).

I would argue that excommunication/discipline, even for heinous sins and crimes should still have a mind for restoration. Consider the prodigal, he didnt slight in just a minuscule slip. He squandered the entire inheritance and found himself eating pigs food. Imagine him wading in the muck of the sty mud, eagerly dipping his hands into the moldy table scraps. Yet, when he came to repentance, the father welcomed him with open arms, and the angels celebrate more over him than a faithful servant. Of course there needs to be cautionary protocol in the case of certain crimes and offenses; but the minute we start considering people to heinous for reconciliation may be the minute our mirrors have become blurred.

 

[NicolasD1689]

If the unrepentant believer isn't a teacher, then 2 John wouldn't apply in that case. It comes down to this: what is one of the goal's of discipline? Ideally, it should be restoration (barring heinous sins and crimes).

Can you define heinous sins and crimes? And exgetically can we prove that barring some under excommunication and not all is appropriate?

I'm just trying to follow whether we should barr unrepentant Christians, where we can go to the text, and what other verbage for the church to act out towards unrepentant sinners looks like.

Thank you for your replies!

 

[RamistThomist]

Can you define heinous sins and crimes?

Pedophilia

And exgetically can we prove that barring some under excommunication and not all is appropriate?

6th commandment issues. Particularly as they relate to restraining orders.

 

[RamistThomist]

I would argue that excommunication/discipline, even for heinous sins and crimes should still have a mind for restoration.

I am all for that, but if one person in the church raped (sodomized, pedophilia) another in the church, and the latter has a legal restraining order against the former, then maybe the rapist, upon repentance and restoration, probably needs to find another church home.

 

[NicolasD1689]

Pedophilia


6th commandment issues. Particularly as they relate to restraining orders.

In our day and age, I can see this working out to some degree. It is hard to grasp the early church applying this. Is there any evidence of the early church doing this, especially in relation to involving the civil magistrate to barr them from the assembly of God? I am more interested to see solely the church's authority to barr someone from the assembly vs. Involving the civil magistrste.

Thank you for your reply brother! Good information to chew.

 

[RamistThomist]

Is there any evidence of the early church doing this, especially in relation to involving the civil magistrate to barr them from the assembly of God?

Ambrose barred Theodosius.

I am more interested to see solely the church's authority to barr someone from the assembly vs. Involving the civil magistrste.

By good and necessary consequence, one could do so under the rubric of "decently and in good order."

 

[NicolasD1689]

Ambrose barred Theodosius.


By good and necessary consequence, one could do so under the rubric of "decently and in good order."

But no evidence in Scripture to substantiate that the church has the authority to physically barr someone?

Thank you for the example of Ambrose!

 

[RamistThomist]

But no evidence in Scripture to substantiate that the church has the authority to physically barr someone?

Thank you for the example of Ambrose!

If you are asking is there a specific bible verse for that scenario, no. But I also believe that factors such as "decently and in good order" (also a bible verse) come into play.

Let's suppose a mentally ill person comes to church disrupting, being violent, loud, etc. Do you need a specific verse that allows you to say, "You cannot be in here right now?"

 

[NicolasD1689]

If you are asking is there a specific bible verse for that scenario, no. But I also believe that factors such as "decently and in good order" (also a bible verse) come into play.

Let's suppose a mentally ill person comes to church disrupting, being violent, loud, etc. Do you need a specific verse that allows you to say, "You cannot be in here right now?"

I don't necessarily disagree. The issue is with excommunication and determining which sins prohibit the unrepentant Christian from joining with the assembly. Is there a standard across the board that should be applied at all times and in every age. Or is this a general wisdom that the church decides is best for "decently and good order"?

 

[TheInquirer]

If they are to be handed over to Satan and the leaven removed from causing evil influence, makes sense that means barred from the gathering. Part of church discipline involves protecting the church.

 

[MyCrows]

If they are to be handed over to Satan and the leaven removed from causing evil influence, makes sense that means barred from the gathering. Part of church discipline involves protecting the church.

We know that this particular reference had a corrupting influence on the congregation. So in cases like that I think it is appropriate.

As long as we're distinguishing from the cases where the congregation is not being "puffed up" but "mourning" over the sin.

Sometimes sin is dealt with more swiftly and properly than other times.