The first 9 posts in this thread are taken from this thread since they steered off topic. I felt like it would be better and easier to follow if we moved these posts relating to this topic to their own thread here.

In post #5 of the above referenced thread, canadasgenius posted the following:

In post #15, John832, in partial response to the above made the following statement:

In post #17, canadasgenius replied to the above statement from John832 as follows:

From that point forward, canadasgenius and myself continued the discussion about discipline and disfellowship, while canadasgenius and John832 continued the discussion about pacifism.

John832 did make one comment about this topic after I had already made a response, however the remainder and majority of his response was focused on pacifism, which I believe is probably a good thing that he did not try to keep two different topic discussions together in one post. It could have gotten very confusing for anyone to follow. Here is his brief comment from post #18.

As stated earlier, I believe it will be easier for anyone interested in this subject to follow the discussions with each having their own discussion threads. Therefore all the remaining posts concerning discipline and disfellowship have been moved to this thread and pick up as follows with my response to canadasgenius:

*****************************************************************

I would like to point out one thing about Matthew 18:15. If a Christian brother sins publicly then he is sinning against the church, which we are a part of, therefore he sins against us. Surely we would not stand by idly and let a bother fester in his sin. Is that love?

James 5:19, 20 Brethren, if any of you do err from the truth, and one convert him; Let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins.

2 Thessalonians 3:6 also includes "not in accord with the tradition that you received from us." This could very well include a bother in sin.

I certainly believe these are relevant to this discussion.

__________________
In Christ,
brother Sonnie

Jeremiah 6:16 Thus says the LORD: "Stand in the ways and see, And ask for the old paths, where the good way is, And walk in it; Then you will find rest for your souls. But they said, 'We will not walk in it.'

I will sit down one day, and do a study on these matter: individual soul liberty, judging others, when can we judge our brother, etc, as I am not clear on some of these matters. Certainly, if I find that the Bible says so, I would have no problem not fellowshipping with soldiers. Even without a clear instruction (as far as I can see at this time) from the Bible, I can tell you I feel uncomfortable among people in the military who claim to be brothers.

Webshephard, you said "2 Thessalonians 3:6 also includes "not in accord with the tradition that you received from us." This could very well include a bother in sin."

I believe you are taking those few words out of context. The very next verse goes on to define this "tradition that you received from us" :verse 7:"For you yourselves know how you ought to follow our example. We were not idle when we were with you, 8nor did we eat anyone's food without paying for it. On the contrary, we worked night and day, laboring and toiling so that we would not be a burden to any of you." Considering that verse 6-14 is all talking about idleness, I think that portion of verse 6 is also. Also, the word "tradition" or "teaching" depending on the translation is singular, so it seems to be talking about one particular thing. I think the wording is clearest in the KJV: "6Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us."


Regarding James 5:19,20...of course we should warn anyone that is living in sin.

You also said "I would like to point out one thing about Matthew 18:15. If a Christian brother sins publicly then he is sinning against the church, which we are a part of, therefore he sins against us. Surely we would not stand by idly and let a bother fester in his sin. Is that love?"

This doesn't sound quite right to me. It is true that we would not stand by idly (we should warn him of his sin). But isn't sin an act against God and God's law? We are all one, through the Holy Spirit, in Christ, with Christ as the head of the Church, but I don't think this means we can say that such a brother sins against us personally. We are one in Christ, but we are also individuals. Consider that Christ is also a part of the Church, obviously, as are we. So can we say that when he was killed, those men were sinning against us? We are in God, we share of His Spirit, but we are not "one" with Him or with each other in every way. We are one in Christ, but we are also individuals. We will all be judged as individuals. John 21:22 says"Jesus answered, If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you? You must follow me."
Psalm 51:4 says "Against you, you only, have I sinned and done what is evil in your sight, so that you are proved right when you speak and justified when you judge."
Galations 6:5 "for each one should carry his own load."

Do you enforce this at you Church? If anyone is guilty of sinning publicly, do you disassociate with him. Any sin? In most Churches, no one really knows anyone else since the "fellowship" is just empty smalltalk so the issue doesn't come up too often.

On 2 Thessalonians 3:6... I believe I got it right and you may be attempting to limit it's meaning. Consider it in context again...

2Th 3:4 And we have confidence in the Lord touching you, that ye both do and will do the things which we command you.
2Th 3:5 And the Lord direct your hearts into the love of God, and into the patient waiting for Christ.
2Th 3:6 Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.
2Th 3:7 For yourselves know how ye ought to follow us: for we behaved not ourselves disorderly among you;
2Th 3:8 Neither did we eat any man's bread for nought; but wrought with labour and travail night and day, that we might not be chargeable to any of you:
2Th 3:9 Not because we have not power, but to make ourselves an ensample unto you to follow us.
2Th 3:10 For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.
2Th 3:11 For we hear that there are some which walk among you disorderly, working not at all, but are busybodies.
2Th 3:12 Now them that are such we command and exhort by our Lord Jesus Christ, that with quietness they work, and eat their own bread.
2Th 3:13 But ye, brethren, be not weary in well doing.
2Th 3:14 And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed.
2Th 3:15 Yet count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother.


Notice how he starts out by saying that they should "do the things" (plural) "which we command you". This opens up the entire discussion and this could include more than merely those who were being lazy.

The apostles would not have been examples for others to follow in simply their manual labor, but all of their work.

Now notice in verse 14 he wrote, "And if any man obey not our word by this epistle," ... this includes all of the the letter to the Thessalonians. I believe this could be applied to all of the epistles written in the NT.



I believe the rest is really irrelevant because you admit that we should warn a bother in sin. If a brother serving in the military is in sin, we have a responsibility to go to him.



Unfortunately I don't think we do, but we have had some study lessons on this and I pray that our elders will take this more seriously in the future days. However, I believe the first step should not be to automatically disfellowship with those in public sin. Since it is public and known by most if not all of the congregation and has been accepted by the congregation in the past (nothing has been said), such as using tobacco (smoking); instead of us as individuals going to those brothers and/or sisters, I believe it should be the responsibility of the elders to go to those persons. If they do not repent, then the congregation should be made aware of it and if again they do not repent, we should then disfellowship with them.

While I do not believe we are actively practicing this in our congregation today, I do know there are several other congregations who are practicing it.

__________________
In Christ,
brother Sonnie

Jeremiah 6:16 Thus says the LORD: "Stand in the ways and see, And ask for the old paths, where the good way is, And walk in it; Then you will find rest for your souls. But they said, 'We will not walk in it.'

Another passage I just remembered about going to a brother who has sinned....

Gal 6:1 Brothers, if anyone is caught in any transgression, you who are spiritual should restore him in a spirit of gentleness. Keep watch on yourself, lest you too be tempted.

This references brothers in general and no particular sin... just as James does in James 5:19, 20.

__________________
In Christ,
brother Sonnie

Jeremiah 6:16 Thus says the LORD: "Stand in the ways and see, And ask for the old paths, where the good way is, And walk in it; Then you will find rest for your souls. But they said, 'We will not walk in it.'

Brother Sonnie,

You said "Notice how he starts out by saying that they should "do the things" (plural) "which we command you". This opens up the entire discussion and this could include more than merely those who were being lazy. "

It is not clear that this is the opening of the discussion. 2 Th 3:6 is likely the opening of the discussion.:
2Th 3:6 Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.

You also said "The apostles would not have been examples for others to follow in simply their manual labor, but all of their work."

However, the passage seems to specify that Paul is speaking about not being disorderly or lazy:
"and not after the tradition which he received of us.
2Th 3:7 For yourselves know how ye ought to follow us: for we behaved not ourselves disorderly among you;
2Th 3:8 Neither did we eat any man's bread for nought; but wrought with labour and travail night and day, that we might not be chargeable to any of you:
2Th 3:9 Not because we have not power, but to make ourselves an ensample unto you to follow us.
2Th 3:10 For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.

You said:"Now notice in verse 14 he wrote, "And if any man obey not our word by this epistle," ... this includes all of the the letter to the Thessalonians. I believe this could be applied to all of the epistles written in the NT."

"Our word by this epistle" seems to be this particular instruction (against laziness) found in this epistle. Some translations use "word" some use "instruction," in any case, it appears to be singular. I looked up the Greek word used here:

"word, expression, account, rational principle, in John 1:1-18 the Logos that becomes incarnate
Parsing Dative Singular Masculine
Related Words None found.
Context in 2 Thessalonians 3:14 τις οὐχ ὑπακούει τῷ ... ἡμῶν διὰ τῆς ἐπιστολῆς
Strongs # 3056 something said (including the thought); by implication, a topic (subject of discourse), also reasoning (the mental faculty) or motive; by extension, a computation; specially, (with the article in John) the Divine Expression (i.e. Christ) "

It is particularly interesting that you would arbitrarily wish to apply them to every epistle in the New Testament. What authority do you have to do so?

You also said: Gal 6:1 Brothers, if anyone is caught in any transgression, you who are spiritual should restore him in a spirit of gentleness. Keep watch on yourself, lest you too be tempted.

This references brothers in general and no particular sin... just as James does in James 5:19, 20.""

These verses are not saying to disassociate with these brothers, but to restore them gently. We already established that we must warn a brother who is in sin, which is what these verses are saying.

Going back to the passage in 2 Thes, we have to be careful not to make a doctrine from one passage that does not clearly support said doctrine. Language, unfortunately, is not a perfect mathematical form of communication, so there is often some uncertainty in its meaning. In this passage, it seems very much that Paul is refering only to idleness, so lets not try to find something that is not necessarily there. This seems to be the only passage left to support your position of disassociating with anyone living in sin, since the other passages we've seen were either just talking about confronting a brother about his sin or were talking about only specific sins.

I imagine that the few Churches that are enforcing this doctrine arbitrarily pick several sins to police. These may include smoking or drinking for instance. What about gluttony? Junk food, soft drinks, fast food, excessive eating, couch potato lifestyle, etc. Its one thing to be able to eat clean and unclean meat (as the NT teaches) and its another thing altogether to eat poisonous food additives and highly processed junk, or to eat in excess. We are often told, perhaps with good intent to not hurt anybody's feelings, that people come in all shapes and sizes and that fat people are that way because they have bad metabolism. In reality, it is impossible to get fat from thin air! Fat people have to eat excessive calories (and in the vast majority of cases it has to be processed foods that are altered, with chemicals added) to get fat. It doesn't come from thin air. You must consume more calories than you burn...this is not brain surgery. Granted, some people have it easier than others: some crave food less, some have bodies that use food so inefficiently that they never could get fat it they tried. Others have more efficient bodies that store up reserves readily when excessive food is eaten. This is the same as with any other sin: For eg, for some it is difficult not to lie, for others others this is easy but some other sin gives them difficulty. While members are standing around at a Church potluck talking about disciplining their smoker brothers, what on earth are they consuming themselves at that potluck, and how much? If your Church runs a camp, what is in that purple, pink, green, or blue drink your children are given at mealtimes? What are they served in the tuck shop? Is your Church praying for dozens of people with cancer, diabetes, heart disease, and many other usually preventable, lifestyle related ailments? Have any of these people even changed their lifestyle yet? Is half the congregation very noticealby overweight, and the other half just "somewhat out of shape," or are you in one of the few North American communities where it is only 1/4 of the people who are fat? What about the mind altering, stimulant, somewhat harmful drug caffeine. What about television? Radio? Music? What about greed? Are there many members of your Church for whom the money they earn is already more than plenty, but they must have every newest convenience and luxury and on credit at that! 1 Timothy 6:7-10 "but if we have food and clothing we will be content with that..." Most of the time, these sins I've mentioned, and many others, are publically very visable in a Church.

In fact, if a Church is convinced that all sins must be policed in this way by the Church, then the entire Church, especially its leadership, is guilty of being in sin for ignoring this command. Such a Church should warn itself then, and if it doesn't repent after the warning, would all the members have to be disassociated from the Church?

I don't understand why it would necessarily only be the responsibility of the elders and the minister to confront people about their sin. We are all responsible for one another, a Church should not be a one man show where the minister does everything. The leadership has more responsibility, and will be judged by God accordingly, but every man is responsible for everyone.

I believe I'm keeping it in context, however, if you say that "it is not clear", then you admit that it could possibly be the opening of the discussion. However, after further study of this, it may not be that important as the remaining points I made should be proof enough.

I'm not sure how you can limit "but to make ourselves an ensample unto you to follow us." to just this specific situation.

The apostles were examples for us in everything they did...

Phi 3:17 Brothers, join in imitating me, and keep your eyes on those who walk according to the example you have in us.

Let's expound on exactly who Paul is referencing here. Considering "those who walk disorderly", the Greek indicates that these are those who are "out of rank", "irregular", "out of order". Not only did Paul mention those who were disorderly (v6), but those who rejected the tradition (v6), those who were idle (v11), those who were busybodies (v11), and those who were disobedient (v14).

Brother Tom Wacaster during his Denton lecture had this to say about those who would be considered disorderly or out of rank:

Are there any others who might also be identified as "disorderly," or "out of rank"? Indeed there are. Certainly those who would make Jesus solely human must be considered "disorderly" and subject to disciplinary action (1 John 2:18; 4:1-3). Would not those who are liberal, vain talkers, and deceivers be included (Tit. 1:11)? What of those who teach that the resurrection is past already (modern day descendants of Hymenaeus and Philetus, 2 Tim. 2:17-18)?

Others who would be considered among the "disorderly" would be those who fail to uphold the Biblical relationship of masters and slaves (1 Tim. 6:1-3), those who, although not unsound doctrinally, are nevertheless factious (Titus 3:10-11), men such as Diotrephes (3 John 1:9-10), and in some instances whole congregations that are unsound (Rev. 2:1-7). It would also include (but not be limited to) those who fail to assemble with the saints (Heb. 10:25), those who refuse to let their lights shine (Matt. 5:16), those who are stumbling blocks to weaker Christians and those who cause division (Rom. 16:17).

So we can readily see that the principles contained herein find a wide variety of application. The sad fact is, many of those ungodly, perverted, lazy, indifferent members of that first century church find their counterparts in twentieth century man, unrestricted and undisciplined. Vain talkers, deceivers, and liberals are running rampant through the flock of God, devouring the sheep. Men of the Max King persuasion are teaching the resurrection is past already.

Whole congregations that fellowship denominations and participate in their ungodly activities are too often going unchallenged and unmarked. Congregations are plagued with members who do not assemble with the saints. In these and other situations, we wonder, what is being done? Nothing -- a big fat zero! There are those idle busybodies, going about murmuring, sowing discord in local congregations -- again with nothing being done. Beloved, please, please, please, mark it well, that until the commands given by God Almighty are obeyed, these "thorns" in our sides will continue to weaken the church of our Lord. Action is needed. It is past time for talk!



It's not arbitrarily nor by my authority, but by the authority of the Scriptures with which I apply this to every epistle...

2Th 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

By what authority would you limit obedience of God's Word to only this epistle? Surely you agree that we should obey all of God's Word and that any of the epistles written should be obeyed by those receiving them.



As we have learned, Paul is not limiting this command to merely those who are idle, but also those who refuse to obey the epistles of the apostles.

Again... I believe brother Wacaster gets it right...

These guidelines apply to disciplinary action under certain situations. First, we learn who is to be disciplined. It is the one who "obeyeth not our word by this epistle .... "If a man -- any man -- does not submit to the directions given in this epistle (and by implication any other epistle given by inspiration), then certain attitudes should be expressed and actions should be implemented.

Second, we learn what is to be done. We are to "note" such a one. The word here is middle voice. Vine pointed out that "in the middle voice, (this means) to note for oneself, and is so used in 2 Thess. 3:14, (and) is an injunction to take cautionary note of one who refuses obedience to the Apostle's word by the Epistle." A different word is used in Rom. 16:17. There a warning is given against those who cause divisions, and again in Phil. 3:17, the word is used to observe those who walk after the example of the apostle and his fellow workers.

Although the word may be different, similar action is to be taken, as indicated by the rest of this verse in 2 Thessalonians. Upon noting that brother, we are to "have no company with him .... "Similar action was commanded for the fornicating brother in Corinth (1 Cor. 5:9-11). Vine suggested that the word in our text means "not to mingle with him, not to mix it up together," the idea being that association with such a one as that under consideration is forbidden.


I specifically mentioned smoking because it kills others. I've read statistics that over 50,000 people die each year from second hand smoke. That is equivalent to murder.

Some of what you write in this quote above may have merit and I will consider it further, however, it appears you may be contradicting your own beliefs here.

You appear to agree that we should withdraw from the unrepenting fornicators, coveters, idolators, railers, drunkards, and extortioners mentioned in 1Cor 5. Yet above you appear to exclude several that would fall under the definition of these Paul mentioned.

I will be the first to agree with you… many congregations are guilty of these things and it is tough to overcome these things. However, that is no excuse for us not to try and it is no excuse for us to ignore God’s inspired commands. It is obvious however, that we should start with the sins that hurt others, not just the sinner… sins that cause others to stumble. These are the most harmful public sins because that not only affects the sinner, but most of us around them. There is no doubt our congregations need to be cleaned up and we must start somewhere.


I didn't say that only the elders and the minister should be responsible for their sin. I didn't even mention the minister. What I said was that for those sins that have been public for such a long time and have become accepted by the congregation, that I believe those members should be addressed by the elders, not the minister.

Let me clarify this further. It is only my opinion. As you will note, I did not provide Scripture to support my opinion. However, my thought did somewhat spurn from Scripture...

Heb 13:17 Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.

The elders are the ones who will give an account and we are commanded to submit to them. I simply believe it would be easier for an elder to address those members mentioned rather than those in the congregation who have failed to do so for years and years. As you say, the leadership has more responsibility.

I would never suggest that a congregation should be a one man show where the minister does everything. That would be totally unscriptural. The elders are the leaders of the congregation.

Just as you have noticed that I mentioned Matthew 18, James 5 and Galatians 6, I fully believe we all have to help, but the elders should take the lead.

__________________
In Christ,
brother Sonnie

Jeremiah 6:16 Thus says the LORD: "Stand in the ways and see, And ask for the old paths, where the good way is, And walk in it; Then you will find rest for your souls. But they said, 'We will not walk in it.'

I wanted to address the following a little more after giving it more thought...

I am in no way trying to make a doctrine here. There are several passages that relate to one another and are in harmony with one another. It appears more or less that you are attempting to lessen, weaken, take away from, the Word of God.

This passage in question is not the only passage that has been referenced in relation to disfellowshipping the unrepenting sinner.

It in itself references several sins and the fact that we should withdraw.

1Cor. 5 references a host of sins and the fact that we should withdraw.

Rom 16:17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.

How are we to avoid those who may be a part of our congregation that cause divisions or create obstacles contrary to the doctrines that we have been taught? To cause divisions and/or to create stumbling blocks includes many sins that you and I have both mentioned.

__________________
In Christ,
brother Sonnie

Jeremiah 6:16 Thus says the LORD: "Stand in the ways and see, And ask for the old paths, where the good way is, And walk in it; Then you will find rest for your souls. But they said, 'We will not walk in it.'

Brother Sonnie,

Here is the passage in question again:

2Th 3:4 And we have confidence in the Lord touching you, that ye both do and will do the things which we command you.
2Th 3:5 And the Lord direct your hearts into the love of God, and into the patient waiting for Christ.
2Th 3:6 Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that

walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.
2Th 3:7 For yourselves know how ye ought to follow us: for we behaved not ourselves disorderly among you;
2Th 3:8 Neither did we eat any man's bread for nought; but wrought with labour and travail night and day, that we might not be

chargeable to any of you:
2Th 3:9 Not because we have not power, but to make ourselves an ensample unto you to follow us.
2Th 3:10 For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.
2Th 3:11 For we hear that there are some which walk among you disorderly, working not at all, but are busybodies.
2Th 3:12 Now them that are such we command and exhort by our Lord Jesus Christ, that with quietness they work, and eat their own

bread.
2Th 3:13 But ye, brethren, be not weary in well doing.
2Th 3:14 And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed.
2Th 3:15 Yet count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother.


1.)

YOU SAID:

"I'm not sure how you can limit "but to make ourselves an ensample unto you to follow us." to just this specific situation."

MY REPLY:

The Scripture passage above limits it to that. How could that possibly be written in a clearer way. The tradition he refers to

is the tradition of not being idle. It says "anyone that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he recieved of us"

It even goes on to describe that "tradition," so there is no confusion what he is talking about "we behaved not disorderly among

you, neither did we eat any man's bread for nought, but labored day and night etc etc.
2.)

YOU SAID:

"It's not arbitrarily nor by my authority, but by the authority of the Scriptures with which I apply this (ie the word

"tradition")to every epistle...

2Th 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

By what authority would you limit obedience of God's Word to only this epistle? Surely you agree that we should obey all of God's

Word and that any of the epistles written should be obeyed by those receiving them."



MY REPLY:

This whole arguement is built on your previous, unreasonable assumption that "tradition" here applies to every possible tradition

passed on by the apostles. I would not limit obedience of God's word to only this epistle. And surely every epistle must be

obeyed. But "tradition" in 2 th 3:6 does not refer to all the traditions, only the specific one it is very clearly describing! 2

th 2:15 that you now quote may refer to other traditions as well, but that is a different passage and context and has no revelence

here.

3.)

YOU SAID:

"You appear to agree that we should withdraw from the unrepenting fornicators, coveters, idolators, railers, drunkards,

and extortioners mentioned in 1Cor 5. Yet above you appear to exclude several that would fall under the definition of these Paul

mentioned."

MY REPLY:

I don't believe I made a statement that would exclude several that would fall under 1 cor 5. The sins I mentioned, I only brought

up as possible examples of what a Church, which perhaps disfellowships gays or smokers or drinkers, would likely allow in this day

and age. I would be surprised if any North American Church were enforcing any of the things I mentioned. My point was, that if

all sins are to be enforced by the Church in this way, what right would a Church have to pick one or two obvious (by society's

standards even) sins to enforce. I did not say whether or not I think those should be enforced.

You seem to have missed several points... let me repeat:

I'm not sure how you can limit "but to make ourselves an ensample unto you to follow us." to just this specific situation.

The apostles were examples for us in everything they did...

Phi 3:17 Brothers, join in imitating me, and keep your eyes on those who walk according to the example you have in us.

Let's expound on exactly who Paul is referencing here. Considering "those who walk disorderly", the Greek indicates that these are those who are "out of rank", "irregular", "out of order". Not only did Paul mention those who were disorderly (v6), but those who rejected the tradition (v6), those who were idle (v11), those who were busybodies (v11), and those who were disobedient (v14).

Brother Tom Wacaster during his Denton lecture had this to say about those who would be considered disorderly or out of rank:

Are there any others who might also be identified as "disorderly," or "out of rank"? Indeed there are. Certainly those who would make Jesus solely human must be considered "disorderly" and subject to disciplinary action (1 John 2:18; 4:1-3). Would not those who are liberal, vain talkers, and deceivers be included (Tit. 1:11)? What of those who teach that the resurrection is past already (modern day descendants of Hymenaeus and Philetus, 2 Tim. 2:17-18)?

Others who would be considered among the "disorderly" would be those who fail to uphold the Biblical relationship of masters and slaves (1 Tim. 6:1-3), those who, although not unsound doctrinally, are nevertheless factious (Titus 3:10-11), men such as Diotrephes (3 John 1:9-10), and in some instances whole congregations that are unsound (Rev. 2:1-7). It would also include (but not be limited to) those who fail to assemble with the saints (Heb. 10:25), those who refuse to let their lights shine (Matt. 5:16), those who are stumbling blocks to weaker Christians and those who cause division (Rom. 16:17).

So we can readily see that the principles contained herein find a wide variety of application. The sad fact is, many of those ungodly, perverted, lazy, indifferent members of that first century church find their counterparts in twentieth century man, unrestricted and undisciplined. Vain talkers, deceivers, and liberals are running rampant through the flock of God, devouring the sheep. Men of the Max King persuasion are teaching the resurrection is past already.

Whole congregations that fellowship denominations and participate in their ungodly activities are too often going unchallenged and unmarked. Congregations are plagued with members who do not assemble with the saints. In these and other situations, we wonder, what is being done? Nothing -- a big fat zero! There are those idle busybodies, going about murmuring, sowing discord in local congregations -- again with nothing being done. Beloved, please, please, please, mark it well, that until the commands given by God Almighty are obeyed, these "thorns" in our sides will continue to weaken the church of our Lord. Action is needed. It is past time for talk!




If you are arguing then you should stop... I am merely trying to reason with you with Scripture. This reasoning did not start by anything I wrote. It started by you contradicting what brother Jason wrote. Not only have you twisted the facts, but you are twisting my words around as well. Please be specific and quote only what I have written. Thank you!


My statement was: "Now notice in verse 14 he wrote, "And if any man obey not our word by this epistle," ... this includes all of the the letter to the Thessalonians. I believe this could be applied to all of the epistles written in the NT."

And part of your reply to that was: "It is particularly interesting that you would arbitrarily wish to apply them to every epistle in the New Testament. What authority do you have to do so?"

I then replied: "It's not arbitrarily nor by my authority, but by the authority of the Scriptures with which I apply this to every epistle...

2Th 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

By what authority would you limit obedience of God's Word to only this epistle? Surely you agree that we should obey all of God's Word and that any of the epistles written should be obeyed by those receiving them."


It is what the Scriptures say... not I. If you have a hard time dealing with them, then you'll have to take that up with God.


Refresh your memory... here is what you said: "I imagine that the few Churches that are enforcing this doctrine arbitrarily pick several sins to police. These may include smoking or drinking for instance. What about gluttony? Junk food, soft drinks, fast food, excessive eating, couch potato lifestyle, etc. Its one thing to be able to eat clean and unclean meat (as the NT teaches) and its another thing altogether to eat poisonous food additives and highly processed junk, or to eat in excess. We are often told, perhaps with good intent to not hurt anybody's feelings, that people come in all shapes and sizes and that fat people are that way because they have bad metabolism. In reality, it is impossible to get fat from thin air! Fat people have to eat excessive calories (and in the vast majority of cases it has to be processed foods that are altered, with chemicals added) to get fat. It doesn't come from thin air. You must consume more calories than you burn...this is not brain surgery. Granted, some people have it easier than others: some crave food less, some have bodies that use food so inefficiently that they never could get fat it they tried. Others have more efficient bodies that store up reserves readily when excessive food is eaten. This is the same as with any other sin: For eg, for some it is difficult not to lie, for others others this is easy but some other sin gives them difficulty. While members are standing around at a Church potluck talking about disciplining their smoker brothers, what on earth are they consuming themselves at that potluck, and how much? If your Church runs a camp, what is in that purple, pink, green, or blue drink your children are given at mealtimes? What are they served in the tuck shop? Is your Church praying for dozens of people with cancer, diabetes, heart disease, and many other usually preventable, lifestyle related ailments? Have any of these people even changed their lifestyle yet? Is half the congregation very noticealby overweight, and the other half just "somewhat out of shape," or are you in one of the few North American communities where it is only 1/4 of the people who are fat? What about the mind altering, stimulant, somewhat harmful drug caffeine. What about television? Radio? Music? What about greed? Are there many members of your Church for whom the money they earn is already more than plenty, but they must have every newest convenience and luxury and on credit at that! 1 Timothy 6:7-10 "but if we have food and clothing we will be content with that..." Most of the time, these sins I've mentioned, and many others, are publically very visable in a Church.

In fact, if a Church is convinced that all sins must be policed in this way by the Church, then the entire Church, especially its leadership, is guilty of being in sin for ignoring this command. Such a Church should warn itself then, and if it doesn't repent after the warning, would all the members have to be disassociated from the Church?"



With all due respect, it appears you have only partially addressed responses that have been made to you and have twisted a few things around as to possibly confuse other readers. If you would like to continue your membership here, I must ask that you refrain from using such tactics. Again, thank you!

__________________
In Christ,
brother Sonnie

Jeremiah 6:16 Thus says the LORD: "Stand in the ways and see, And ask for the old paths, where the good way is, And walk in it; Then you will find rest for your souls. But they said, 'We will not walk in it.'

I would like to further call your attention to this one passage and various commentary that may be helpful to you:

2Th 3:14 And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed.

It appears in my research that I cannot find even one Biblical scholar who would agree with your assessment of this passage that Paul is, 1) limiting sins that should cause us to disfellowship brethren, or 2) limiting "if any man obey not our word by this epistle", to apply to only a portion of this epistle.

For your study and continued thought:

Burton Coffman: This is a further word on what was meant above by "withdraw yourselves." It is all social intercourse, visitation, companioning with offenders that must be ceased. Christians are simply not to mix with persons living in open rebellion against the teachings of the Lord. The purpose of such an ostracism is that it might produce shame and repentance on the part of the offender and result in his restoration.

James Meadows: A man’s obedience to the things Paul writes is made the test of whether he is to continue in the fellowship of the faithful.

The inspired Scriptures are the standard of our acceptance with God; only those who are obedient to the Scriptures have the right to fellowship with the redeemed. If a Christian ceases to faithfully obey the word of God, the other saints are to withdraw their fellowship with him. They are not to have company with him.

Adam Clarke: If any man obey not—They had disobeyed his word in the first epistle, and the Church still continued to bear with them; now he tells the Church, if they still continue to disregard what is said to them, and particularly his word by this second epistle, they are to mark them as being totally incorrigible, and have no fellowship with them.

Gospel Advocate: 14 And if any man obeyeth not our word by this epistle, — Paul makes obedience to the things he teaches in this Epistle a test of discipleship. He did the same in the first Epistle. (4:3-7.) He did this because he wrote under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and to obey that which was thus taught is to obey God.

note that man, —The first step was to discriminate between those who obeyed and those who did not. The second was to note him as disobedient.

that ye have no company with him, —Refuse him that social companionship that would encourage him in the wrong way. While refusing to regard him as walking as an orderly Christian should, they were yet to admonish him as a brother to return to an orderly walk in the Lord.

to the end that he may be ashamed. —While they were required to keep no company with them, they were not to count him as an enemy, but to entreat and admonish him as a brother. The apostle says: "I wrote unto you not to keep company, if any man that is named a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such a one no, not to eat." (1 Cor. 5:11.) Discipline consists in admonishing, warning, and persuading; in separating them for a time from the fellowship of the church, yet continuing to admonish as a brother before the final exclusion comes. Cutting one off is not discipline; it is the end and failure of discipline. The steps taken to save one is the discipline.

Gill: "in matters of heaven (of God or religion), if a man does not return privately, מכלימין, they "put him to shame" publicly; and publish his sin, and reproach him to his face, and despise and set him at nought until he returns to do well.''


Matthew Henry: 2Th 3:6-15 -
The apostle having commended their obedience for the time past, and mentioned his confidence in their obedience for the time to come, proceeds to give them commands and directions to some who were faulty, correcting some things that were amiss among them. Observe, The best society of Christians may have some faulty persons among them, and some things that ought to be reformed. Perfection is not to be found on this side heaven: but evil manners beget good laws; the disorders that Paul heard of as existing among the Thessalonians occasioned the good laws we find in these verses, which are of constant use to us, and all others whom they may concern. Observe,
I. That which was amiss among the Thessalonians, which is expressed,
1. More generally. There were some who walked disorderly, not after the tradition they received from the apostle, 2Th_3:6. Some of the brethren were guilty of this disorderly walking; they did not live regularly, nor govern themselves according to the rules of Christianity, nor agreeably to their profession of religion; not according to the precepts delivered by the apostle, which they had received, and pretended to pay a regard to. Note, It is required of those who have received the gospel, and who profess a subjection to it, that they live according to the gospel. If they do not, they are to be counted disorderly persons.
2. In particular, there were among them some idle persons and busy-bodies, 2Th_3:11. This the apostle was so credibly informed of that he had sufficient reason to give commands and directions with relation to such persons, how they ought to behave, and how the church should act towards them. (1.) There were some among them who were idle, not working at all, or doing nothing. It does not appear that they were gluttons or drunkards, but idle, and therefore disorderly people. It is not enough for any to say they do no hurt; for it is required of all persons that they do good in the places and relations in which Providence has placed them. It is probable that these persons had a notion (by misunderstanding some passages in the former epistle) concerning the near approach of the coming of Christ, which served them for a pretence to leave off the work of their callings, and live in idleness. Note, It is a great error, or abuse of religion, to make it a cloak for idleness or any other sin. If we were sure that the day of judgment were ever so near, we must, notwithstanding, do the work of the day in its day, that when our Lord comes he may find us doing. The servant who waits for the coming of his Lord aright must be working as his Lord has commanded, that all may be ready when he comes. Or, it may be, these disorderly persons pretended that the liberty wherewith Christ had made them free discharged them from the services and business of their particular callings and employments in the world: whereas they were to abide in the same calling wherein they were called of God, and therein abide with God, 1Co_7:20, 1Co_7:24. Industry in our particular callings as men is a duty required of us by our general calling as Christians. Or perhaps the general charity there was then among Christians to their poor brethren encouraged some to live in idleness, as knowing the church would maintain them: whatever was the cause, they were much to blame. (2.) There were busy-bodies among them: and it should seem, by the connection, that the same persons who were idle were busy-bodies also. This may seem to be a contradiction; but so it is, that most commonly those persons who have no business of their own to do, or who neglect it, busy themselves in other men's matters. If we are idle, the devil and a corrupt heart will soon find us something to do. The mind of man is a busy thing; if it be not employed in doing good, it will be doing evil. Note, Busy-bodies are disorderly walkers, such as are guilty of vain curiosity, and impertinent meddling with things that do not concern them, and troubling themselves and others with other men's matters. The apostle warns Timothy (1Ti_5:13) to beware of such as learn to be idle, wandering about from house to house, and are not only idle, but tatlers also, and busy-bodies, speaking things which they ought not.
II. The good laws which were occasioned by these evil manners, concerning which we may take notice,
1. Whose laws they are: they are commands of the apostles of our Lord, given in the name of their Lord and ours, that is, the commands of our Lord himself. We command you, brethren, in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, 2Th_3:6. Again, We command and exhort you by our Lord Jesus Christ, 2Th_3:12. The apostle uses words of authority and entreaty: and, where disorders are to be rectified or prevented, there is need of both. The authority of Christ should awe our minds to obedience, and his grace and goodness should allure us.
2. What the good laws and rules are. The apostle gives directions to the whole church, commands to those disorderly persons, and an exhortation to those in particular who did well among them.
(1.) His commands and directions to the whole church regard, [1.] Their behaviour towards the disorderly persons who were among them, which is thus expressed (2Th_3:6), to withdraw themselves from such, and afterwards to mark that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed; yet not to count him as an enemy, but to admonish him as a brother. The directions of the apostle are carefully to be observed in our conduct towards disorderly persons. We must be very cautious in church-censures and church-discipline. We must, First, Note that man who is suspected or charged with not obeying the word of God, or walking contrary thereto, that is, we must have sufficient proof of his fault before we proceed further. We must, Secondly, Admonish him in a friendly manner; we must put him in mind of his sin, and of his duty; and this should be done privately (Mat_18:15); then, if he will not hear, we must, Thirdly, Withdraw from him, and not keep company with him, that is, we must avoid familiar converse and society with such, for two reasons, namely, that we may not learn his evil ways; for he who follows vain and idle persons, and keeps company with such, is in danger of becoming like them. Another reason is for the shaming, and so the reforming, of those that offend, that when idle and disorderly persons see how their loose practices are disliked by all wise and good people they may be ashamed of them, and walk more orderly. Love therefore to the persons of our offending brethren, even when we hate their vices, should be the motive of our withdrawing from them; and even those who are under the censures of the church must not be accounted as enemies (2Th_3:15); for, if they be reclaimed and reformed by these censures, they will recover their credit and comfort, and right to church-privileges as brethren. [2.] Their general conduct and behaviour ought to be according to the good example the apostle and those who were with him had given them: Yourselves know how you ought to follow us, 2Th_3:7. Those who planted religion among them had set a good example before them; and the ministers of the gospel should be ensamples to the flock. It is the duty of Christians not only to walk according to the traditions of the apostles, and the doctrines they preached, but also according to the good example they set before them, to be followers of them so far as they were followers of Christ. The particular good example the apostle mentions was their diligence, which was so different from what was found in the disorderly walkers he takes notice of: “We behaved not ourselves disorderly among you (2Th_3:7), we did not spend our time idly, in idle visits, idle talk, idle sports.” They took pains in their ministry, in preaching the gospel, and in getting their own living. Neither did we eat any man's bread for nought, 2Th_3:8. Though he might justly have demanded a maintenance, because those who preach the gospel may of right expect to live by the gospel. This is a just debt that people owe to their ministers, and the apostle had power or authority to have demanded this (2Th_3:9); but he waived his right from affection to them, and for the sake of the gospel, and that he might be an example for them to follow (2Th_3:9), that they might learn how to fill up time, and always be employed in something that would turn to good account.
(2.) He commands and directs those that live idle lives to reform, and set themselves to their business. He had given commandments to this purport, as well as a good example of this, when he was among them: Even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any man would not work neither should he eat, 2Th_3:10. It was a proverbial speech among the Jews, He who does not labour does not deserve to eat. The labourer is worthy of his meat; but what is the loiterer worthy of? It is the will of God that every man should have a calling, and mind his calling, and make a business of it, and that none should live like useless drones in the world. Such persons do what in them lies to defeat the sentence, In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat thy bread. It was not the mere humour of the apostle, who was an active stirring man himself and therefore would have every body else to be so too, but it was the command of our Lord Jesus Christ, that with quietness we work, and eat our own bread, 2Th_3:12. Men ought some way or other to earn their own living, otherwise they do not eat their own bread. Observe, There must be work or labour, in opposition to idleness; and there must be quietness, in opposition to being busy-bodies in other men's matters. We must study to be quiet, and do our own business. This is an excellent but rare composition, to be of an active yet quiet spirit, active in our own business and yet quiet as to other people's.
(3.) He exhorts those that did well not to be weary in well-doing (2Th_3:13); as if he had said, “Go on and prosper. The Lord is with you while you are with him. See that whatever you do, that is good, you persevere therein. Hold on your way, and hold out to the end. You must never give over, nor tire in your work. It will be time enough to rest when you come to heaven, that everlasting rest which remains for the people of God.”


Tom Wacaster: These guidelines apply to disciplinary action under certain situations. First, we learn who is to be disciplined. It is the one who "obeyeth not our word by this epistle .... "If a man -- any man -- does not submit to the directions given in this epistle (and by implication any other epistle given by inspiration), then certain attitudes should be expressed and actions should be implemented.

Second, we learn what is to be done. We are to "note" such a one. The word here is middle voice. Vine pointed out that "in the middle voice, (this means) to note for oneself, and is so used in 2 Thess. 3:14, (and) is an injunction to take cautionary note of one who refuses obedience to the Apostle's word by the Epistle." A different word is used in Rom. 16:17. There a warning is given against those who cause divisions, and again in Phil. 3:17, the word is used to observe those who walk after the example of the apostle and his fellow workers.

Although the word may be different, similar action is to be taken, as indicated by the rest of this verse in 2 Thessalonians. Upon noting that brother, we are to "have no company with him .... "Similar action was commanded for the fornicating brother in Corinth (1 Cor. 5:9-11). Vine suggested that the word in our text means "not to mingle with him, not to mix it up together," the idea being that association with such a one as that under consideration is forbidden.




Jamieson-Fausset-Brown: Verse 14. note that man -- mark him in your own mind as one to be avoided (2Th 3:6).

Note the comments, "mark him" and "one to be avoided"... which would be another way of explaining how we are to disfellowship from a non-repenting brother. We should "avoid" them. This passage harmonizes with what Paul wrote to the Romans, which you failed to address:

Rom 16:17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.

Paul is in harmony and remains consistent in all his epistles. To "avoid" is the same as "have no company with him". Consider the Greek for these definitions if it may help you better understand.


I also encourage you to consider in harmony with what Paul writes, the following passages:

1Jo 1:7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.

Would this not imply that we should not have fellowship with a Christian brother or sister who is not walking in the light? What sins would be included in walking in darkness?

2Jo 1:9 Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.
2Jo 1:10 If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed:
2Jo 1:11 For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.

It is clear that only those who are obedient to God’s Word should have fellowship with other believers. It is clear that we should not have continued fellowship with an unrepenting brother or sister.

__________________
In Christ,
brother Sonnie

Jeremiah 6:16 Thus says the LORD: "Stand in the ways and see, And ask for the old paths, where the good way is, And walk in it; Then you will find rest for your souls. But they said, 'We will not walk in it.'

1.)Dear Sonnie, You say: "If you are arguing then you should stop... I am merely trying to reason with you with Scripture"-

I am not sure what you mean here. Is it because I used the word "arguement" that you say this?

I looked up definitions for argue in one source. It said:

1.)To put forth reasons for or against; debate.
2.)To attempt to prove by reasoning; maintain or contend.
3.)To give evidence of; indicate.
4.)To persuade or influence (another), as by presenting reasons.
5.)To engage in a quarrel; dispute.

In the context I used the word arguement (ie arguement as "a statement of reasoning" rather than arguement as "two people having an arguement") the definition is:

1.)A course of reasoning aimed at demonstrating truth or falsehood.
2.)A fact or statement put forth as proof or evidence; a reason.
3.)A set of statements in which one follows logically as a conclusion from the others.



As you can see, the word argue can simply mean to reason. The word arguement, even more so, usually means a "reasoning process" in the context I used it. The word "argue" can alternatively, arguably, mean to quarrel or squabble or bicker. So "argue" can, in some cases, have a negative connotation, but often it means exactly what you say you are doing (reasoning).

2.)


After refreshing my memory with the refreshing requote, I do feel refreshed, but I still don't see where I "exclude several that would fall under the definition of these Paul." Please point me to the exact place.


3.)

You said:

"You seem to have missed several points... let me repeat:

I'm not sure how you can limit "but to make ourselves an ensample unto you to follow us." to just this specific situation.

The apostles were examples for us in everything they did...

Phi 3:17 Brothers, join in imitating me, and keep your eyes on those who walk according to the example you have in us.


You are right that I forgot to address this "ensample" arguement. This was not intentional, I was going to address it, but forgot to.

So here is my reply:

First lets see where the word ensample is:

2Th 3:7 For yourselves know how ye ought to follow us: for we behaved not ourselves disorderly among you;
2Th 3:8 Neither did we eat any man's bread for nought; but wrought with labour and travail night and day, that we might not be

chargeable to any of you:
2Th 3:9 Not because we have not power, but to make ourselves an ensample unto you to follow us.
2Th 3:10 For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.

It is true, as you say, that the apostles were examples for us in everything they did. However, in this particular passage Paul is very clear on what specifically he is talking about. "Ensample" in this sentence is talking about not behaving disorderly, not eating any man's bread for nought, labour and travail. I am not sure how I can make this clearer to you. This use of the word is not ambiguous here.

4.)You said:

"It's not arbitrarily nor by my authority, but by the authority of the Scriptures with which I apply this to every epistle...

2Th 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

By what authority would you limit obedience of God's Word to only this epistle? Surely you agree that we should obey all of God's Word and that any of the epistles written should be obeyed by those receiving them."



Here, you are using a fine sounding but untrue arguement. 2 th 2:15 "Therefore brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle" has no relevence here. It may well refer to various traditions by word or epistles, but it is in a different passage. Just because the word tradition or epistle or word appears in both passages, it is NOT logical to assume that "And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed" is referring to all the epistles of the apostles. I am not limiting obedience of God's word to only this epistle by what I say!

Dear Sonnie, this "I said, you said, Tom Wacaster said" stuff is giving me a headache. It is hard to keep track of who said what!

lol! I will narrow things down to 3 questions at the very root of things where we disagree:

1.) I say that "to make ourselves an ensample for you to follow" refers to not behaving disorderly, not eating any man's bread for nought, labour and travail, as the passage clearly says.

2.) As described in the above post, we cannot apply 2 th 3:6 to every epistle.


3.) In 2Th 3:6 "Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us," the word tradition refers only to not being disorderly and idle, as Paul VERY clearly expounds.

If you cannot agree on these 3 points, there is not reason for us to keep going around in circles. These three points are at the very root of this topic, so if we can't get past them, we will not get anywhere except to go around in "I said you said" circles.
Take care now!

I was merely trying to help you better understand the truth by giving you several reputable and scholarly views of the Scriptures in question. None the less, I believe it will be easy enough for most people to follow. It's pretty clear these men and myself, and several others here, disagree with your dissertations. I have defended the truth of the matter, therefore we can simply let the readers discern for themselves the truth of the matter.

__________________
In Christ,
brother Sonnie

Jeremiah 6:16 Thus says the LORD: "Stand in the ways and see, And ask for the old paths, where the good way is, And walk in it; Then you will find rest for your souls. But they said, 'We will not walk in it.'

Brother Sonnie and Canadagenius,

I perused this lengthy thread because it is difficult for me to read such long posts; so forgive me for jumping in without a clear knowledge of what has been said.

Our eldership practices disfellowshipping of members, the main one being non-attendance (dilenquent) members.

What is your take on this Biblically?

Blessings,
Pam

__________________
"Have I not commanded you? Be strong and of good courage; do not be afraid, nor dismayed, for the LORD your God is with you wherever you go." Joshua 1:9 NKJV

I am sorry Webshephard, I didn't mean to say you were responsible for this "I said you said" style of discussion. I think I actually started it, probably. But it can get us nowhere if we can't agree even on what the passage is saying.

Lost Sheep returned, I don't claim to know the answer. While the Scripture passages quoted by Webshephard don't support (Webshephard disagrees with me here, I believe) disfellowship for all sins, only for specific ones, there may be other Scripture that does support it. As I said earlier, I don't know the answer. I have merely been pointing out that the reasons given on this thread are not valid.

You might read my last post, where I state 3 statements which I believe Webshepard would not agree with. As he said, judge for yourself.

Better yet, judge from the Bible, not from anyone's interpretation of it. Many scholars say they are "only quoting Scripture, so what they say must be right, it is only from the Bible" but then they twist it with their perverted philosophy to fool even the elect, if that were possible. Unfortunately, it seems that it is possible, so the best bet is to go to the Bible, ignore human philosophy and nonsense, and receive the truth like little children, not like a scholar with a phd or a lawyer who can prove that the sky is green and the grass is blue. It is easy to get lost in all the perverted logic and nonsense and philosophy out there, all in the guise of "Biblical truth."

I don't say this to imply whether or not the scholars quoted on this thread fall in this category.

Apparently I'm not the only one who would disagree with you.

It is acceptable for someone to ask for help in understanding the Scriptures. Phillip helped the Eunuch with his understanding of the Scriptures in Acts 8. Paul reasoned with the Jews out of the Scriptures in Acts 17.

I would consider all that is written on the matter of disfellowshipping. See how all the particular Scriptures harmonize with one another and it's pretty easy to come to a very sound and logical conclusion. It might help if you at least reviewed posts #6 and #10 above, as they go into pretty good detail concerning discipline. I believe it helps to consider different viewpoints from others that are generally known to be knowledgeable of the Scriptures. However, ultimately it is better to trust in God than to place confidence in man.

Those who make it a habit of failing to assemble with the saints are guilty of being disorderly, which Paul addresses in 1 Thessalonians 3. Their forsaking the assembling of the saints might also cause others to stumble by assuming it's okay to do the same, therefore they should be marked and avoided, as Paul addresses in Romans 16:17, in hopes that they will repent.

We should ask, are those who have made it a habit of forsaking the assembling of the saints still walking in the light? No, they have become unfaithful and are walking in darkness. In fact anyone that has been overtaken by the world is walking in darkness. The Hebrew writer tells us in chapter 10 (v. 26) that there remains no more sacrifice for their sins, should they continue in willful sin. I'm not sure how we would escape this not including any habitual sin. Paul tells us in Ephesians 5 that we should not associate with those who walk in darkness, but rather expose them. He also asked the question in 2 Corinthians 6:14, what fellowship has righteousness with darkness? We should not be deceived, bad company ruins good morals (1Cor 15:33).

__________________
In Christ,
brother Sonnie

Jeremiah 6:16 Thus says the LORD: "Stand in the ways and see, And ask for the old paths, where the good way is, And walk in it; Then you will find rest for your souls. But they said, 'We will not walk in it.'

I was reading thru the posts again and realized I did not respond to this:

"1Jo 1:7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.

Would this not imply that we should not have fellowship with a Christian brother or sister who is not walking in the light? What sins would be included in walking in darkness?"

I don't agree, it does not imply that. This is false reasoning.

As for Romans 16:17, I am not too sure what it means:Rom 16:17 "Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them."

I looked at the Greek at:http://www.zhubert.com/bible?source=...ns+16%3A17

The way the KJV and new KJV translate it, using the word "offence," perhaps is misleading. From the Greek and from many other translations, it seems to me that this passage is talking about doctrinal stumbling blocks (ie a wrong doctrine). The following verse seems to confirm this. Will reflect on this some more.

This is by far not the only thing you have failed to address. You've wiggled around quite a bit of the truth.

Why is it false reasoning, just because you say so?

The truth of the matter is that it is very sound reasoning.

I believe kept in context with what John wrote in this epistle and kept in harmony with what Paul taught in 2Cor 6, by implication it would no doubt support that someone walking in the light has no fellowship with someone walking in darkness.

John clearly says that if we walk in the light, we have fellowship one with another. Therefore if one of us starts walking in darkness, what happens? Do we still have fellowship one with another?

__________________
In Christ,
brother Sonnie

Jeremiah 6:16 Thus says the LORD: "Stand in the ways and see, And ask for the old paths, where the good way is, And walk in it; Then you will find rest for your souls. But they said, 'We will not walk in it.'

Well I'm sure you will figure out some way or another to try to discredit what it actually says. This is beginning to be a common pattern with you. Although I'm not sure why you insist on challenging every passage brought forth in an attempt to prove something you are not going to be able to prove.

It refers simply to anything that is contrary to anything they have been taught. Ask yourself if God would only want us to avoid those who taught us things that are wrong or would He not also want us to avoid those who practiced things that are wrong? Remember, Paul asked, what fellowship does light have with darkness? Would God not want us to avoid those who put stumbling blocks in our way? Is teaching false doctrine the only way for someone to put a stumbling block in our way? These persons Paul is referring to are included in the disorderly (1 Thess 3:14) and should be avoided and withdrawn from. It is very simple and common reasoning to understand this.

Greek: skandalon

ASV - occasions of stumbling
ESV - create obstacles
ISV - sinful enticements
KJV - offenses
NASB - dissensions and hindrances
WEB - occasions of stumbling
WNT - leading others into sin

Thayer Definition:
1) the movable stick or trigger of a trap, a trap stick
1a) a trap, snare
1b) any impediment placed in the way and causing one to stumble or fall, (a stumbling block, occasion of stumbling), i.e. a rock which is a cause of stumbling
1c) fig. applied to Jesus Christ, whose person and career were so contrary to the expectations of the Jews concerning the Messiah, that they rejected him and by their obstinacy made shipwreck of their salvation
2) any person or thing by which one is (entrapped) drawn into error or sin


Barnes: And offences - Scandals; or that give occasion for others to fall into sin. These two things are different. The first means parties; the other denotes such a course of life as would lead others into sin. The “Jew” would form parties, on the pretence of superior holiness; the Gentiles, or some hold Gentile convert might deride the scrupulous feelings of the Jew, and might thus lead him into “sin” in regard to what his conscience really forbade; see Rom_14:15. These persons on both sides were to he avoided, and they were to refuse to follow them, and to cultivate the spirit of unity and peace.

__________________
In Christ,
brother Sonnie

Jeremiah 6:16 Thus says the LORD: "Stand in the ways and see, And ask for the old paths, where the good way is, And walk in it; Then you will find rest for your souls. But they said, 'We will not walk in it.'

"Apparently I'm not the only one who would disagree with you. "

Hee hee! I agree with you in theory, that it should not be wrong to seek advice. However, there is such an overwhelming abundance of garbage out there in the literature, that in reality, this is difficult nowadays. Even if I agree with an author on something, more often than not, his arguement is not valid-ie his conclusion is valid, but he bumbles and twists his way to it, and he doesn't know the valid reason for it. Sometimes I start reading from an author and it looks good, and then all of a sudden he adds some speculative nonsense. I think we are living in difficult times, and apostasy is common, especially among the learned scholars.

So when reading from authors in this current environment, one almost has to analyse word for word and check every verse, assumption, etc. One cannot take it for granted that it is true. One little twist, one assumption, one "implication" of one verse, and an author may be off on a false doctrine that is all very nice sounding. This is why I've been trying to find the exact spots where you are in error, so it became a word by word attack of what you said.

"Why is it false reasoning, just because you say so?"

consider to sentence "If I run a lot, my legs get strong"-does it follow, by implication, that my legs should not get strong if I don't run a lot? No, it doesn't. I might get strong from lifting weights.

This is similar to the kind of logic you are using here. What you are saying may or may not be true, but it doesn't follow from that verse. You are adding it, reading it into it.

Perhaps another reader here is familiar with "rules of logic" and false reasoning. I know they have expressions for this type of false logic, but I don't know what they are.

"Is teaching false doctrine the only way for someone to put a stumbling block in our way?"

No, but the passage seems to be talking specifically about a doctrinal stumbling block ie false doctrine, as I expained.

"Ask yourself if God would only want us to avoid those who taught us things that are wrong or would He not also want us to avoid those who practiced things that are wrong?"-It doesn't really matter what I ask myself. We are talking about what is in this verse, not what I might speculate.

I don't totally disagree with you, but when every commentator I can find agrees on a subject... even though they may disagree on other subjects, and their reasoning is logical and in harmony with the Scriptures, I believe we can use that commentary to help us better understand what the Scripture is saying. Now if 20 said it was this way and 20 said it was the other, I might not use either for help in my understanding.


I'm afraid that analogy won't work. Think about what we are discussing and the passage in question. If God says we have fellowship with one another as long as we walk in the light, then one of us quits walking in the light, we can't start lifting weights to get back in the light.

Nice try, but that ain't gonna fly.

I think you are missing sound reasoning. However, and again, I'm not totally disagreeing with you. It does refer to doctrinal stumbling blocks, which can be anything contrary to what we have been taught. That would not eliminate anything I've written.

__________________
In Christ,
brother Sonnie

Jeremiah 6:16 Thus says the LORD: "Stand in the ways and see, And ask for the old paths, where the good way is, And walk in it; Then you will find rest for your souls. But they said, 'We will not walk in it.'