Subject: Hypocrite and refused to be saved same? |
Bible Note: tron- welcome to the Forum! I understand this to mean that we are to not attempt to do what only God can do. We hold to our responsibilities in discipline only to the degree established by Scripture. The church isn’t ours, it is Gods. How do you, I, or anyone else “excommunicate” someone from it? We can’t. If one is not saved, he/she is not a true part of Christ’s church. If he/she is saved, that person is forever a part of Christ’s church. So where does that leave us? We carry out the discipline as prescribed by Scripture. If a person is unwilling to respond appropriately it is a spiritual matter that is beyond our control. In other words, it’s in God’s hands alone. 2 Th 3:6 (NASB) Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from every brother who leads an unruly life and not according to the tradition which you received from us. We may be dealing with semantics here regarding the word “excommunicate”. In the more traditional use of the word I understand it in terms of divorcing the member from the family if you will. In a more literal sense of withholding some degree of membership rights I would be more in agreement with jesusfreak. I understand the gist of what Paul was saying in the following manner. We should first agree that Paul is referring to Christians as he referred to them as “brothers”. Next we agree, I believe, that these brothers have received corrective redirection but have not responded in accordance with the principles of Paul’s teaching and other Scripture. Certainly, in this case, I agree that there would be a degree of “withholding” regarding, perhaps, assistance, roles and responsibilities that these “unruly” Christians might otherwise have access to (as 2Th 3:10 plainly stipulates). I have that same rule in my home. My adult children have been granted the privilege of calling my house their home under the condition they are either working and contributing, or full-time students. Without one of these being true, they are not welcomed to live here long-term (of course other things such as sickness, etc. would be exceptions). They might lose certain privileges but would not cease to be part of the family and in every other point included, loved, and cared for. Idleness is a significant theme here as is in Paul’s writing. So, in my understanding it is more than a simple ignoring them, it is as much an effort to not become like them. Not condoning and not approving of the inappropriate behaviors, nor passively allowing them to continue. I believe most of us would agree that there would be a conceivable situation where the local church would be appropriate in insisting a member not participate in functions and/or even attend. I believe that this would be what Paul speaks too when talking about “turning one over to Satan”. Again, is this discussion a matter of semantics? If so I’m partly to blame. My experience with the term “excommunication” has to do more with a certain legalistic “denomination” who literally, officially divorces members from the church by virtue of a self-imposed authority not attributed by God and Scripture. My attempt here is to not allow that to be considered scriptural on the forum. I hope I have been more specific in explaining my understanding on this matter. God bless, Jeff |