# Mathew 18



## JB0704

This chapter seems to be the basis for Christian discipline.  I don't really understand where folks get that....and was hoping we could have a decent discussion on the subject.  

For one, I think the parable of the lost sheep (10-14) is about helping those in need, and a picture of how individuals have worth to God.

Second, the following verses, 15-20, seem relevant to conflict resolution.  Additionally, the parable of the unmerciful servant seems to reinforce the concept of grace that we are to show each other.

Is there something more applicable that I am missing? I don't think this chapter is a liscence to "judge."  Particularly given that those that "sin against us" are eventually to be treated as tax collectors and sinners.....which later in the NT we are instructed to not worry over "heathens."



> *Mathew 18:1 *At that time the disciples came to Jesus and asked, "Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?" *2* He called a little child and had him stand among them. *3* And he said: "I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. *4 *Therefore, whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. *5* "And whoever welcomes a little child like this in my name welcomes me.* 6* But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea. *7* "Woe to the world because of the things that cause people to sin! Such things must come, but woe to the man through whom they come! *8* If your hand or your foot causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life maimed or crippled than to have two hands or two feet and be thrown into eternal fire. *9* And if your eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into the fire of he11*10* "See that you do not look down on one of these little ones. For I tell you that their angels in heaven always see the face of my Father in heaven. *12* "What do you think? If a man owns a hundred sheep, and one of them wanders away, will he not leave the ninety-nine on the hills and go to look for the one that wandered off ? *13 *And if he finds it, I tell you the truth, he is happier about that one sheep than about the ninety-nine that did not wander off. *14* In the same way your Father in heaven is not willing that any of these little ones should be lost.
> 
> *15 *"If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. *16* But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that 'every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.' *17* If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector. *18* "I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. *19* "Again, I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything you ask for, it will be done for you by my Father in heaven. *20* For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them."
> 
> *21* Then Peter came to Jesus and asked, "Lord, how many times shall I forgive my brother when he sins against me? Up to seven times?" *22* Jesus answered, "I tell you, not seven times, but seventy-seven times. *23* "Therefore, the kingdom of heaven is like a king who wanted to settle accounts with his servants. *24* As he began the settlement, a man who owed him ten thousand talents was brought to him. *25* Since he was not able to pay, the master ordered that he and his wife and his children and all that he had be sold to repay the debt. *26* "The servant fell on his knees before him. 'Be patient with me,' he begged, 'and I will pay back everything.' *27* The servant's master took pity on him, canceled the debt and let him go. *28* "But when that servant went out, he found one of his fellow servants who owed him a hundred denarii. He grabbed him and began to choke him. 'Pay back what you owe me!' he demanded. *29* "His fellow servant fell to his knees and begged him, 'Be patient with me, and I will pay you back.' *30* "But he refused. Instead, he went off and had the man thrown into prison until he could pay the debt. *31* When the other servants saw what had happened, they were greatly distressed and went and told their master everything that had happened. *32* "Then the master called the servant in. 'You wicked servant,' he said, 'I canceled all that debt of yours because you begged me to. *33* Shouldn't you have had mercy on your fellow servant just as I had on you?' *34* In anger his master turned him over to the jailers to be tortured, until he should pay back all he owed. *35* "This is how my heavenly Father will treat each of you unless you forgive your brother from your heart."


----------



## Huntinfool

> I don't think this chapter is a liscence to "judge." Particularly given that those that "sin against us" are eventually to be treated as tax collectors and sinners.....which later in the NT we are instructed to not worry over "heathens."




JB, you're right.


Thought you might never hear that from me?



Well, you're right...and you're wrong (I suspect).  Just addressing the discipline section, here are my thoughts.

MANY churches treat church discipline (using this passage) as 'excommunication' and complete breaking of relationship, shunning and general dis-owning.  I believe that to be an unbiblical approach to interpreting that passage.

JB, you're right.  Jesus DID spend lots of time with those who were the most hated (i.e. tax collectors and 'sinners') and the entirety of the NT essentially calls us to model our lives after his.

So, what do we do with this passage if Jesus, himself, was kind to tax collectors?  Well...we do exactly what he would have done.  What we don't do, is kick them out of the church and refuse to ever have contact with them again.  That is the unbiblical interpretation IMO.

What we DO is no longer allow them into the 'inner circle'.  If they are confronted (lovingly) with their sin and refuse, not once but three times, to repent and restore relationships, then we treat them as Jesus would have treated them.

He spent lots of time with sinners.  But he did not, in any way, allow them into his inner circle with the apostles.  He loved them.  He taught them what was pleasing in the sight of God and he worked for their salvation.  But he did not allow them to be part of his closest network.

The context of that passage confirms that this, indeed, is discipline.  If they are caught in sin, they are confronted privately.  Then they are confronted with another.  If they refuse to turn, then they are brought before the entire body.  If they still refuse...then it does not follow that Jesus would instruct us to 'just drop it and love them'.  That does not fit with the context of the passage.

"treat them as you would a pagan or tax collector" clearly has negative connotation in how he phrases it and in context with the rest of the passage.  That, I think, is the part where you are wrong.  You're right in that he does instruct us to continue loving them and seeking their restoration.  But there are also many instances where the apostles go on to teach that we are to essentially break fellowship with or 'put out' those who are teaching false doctrine and the like.

Had Jesus meant 'just drop it and love them', the apostles would have taught the very same thing...but they didn't.

It is not a license to judge.  It is a license to confront unrepentant sin in the church with the goal of repentance and restoration.  As a last resort, we remove them from fellowship until restoration occurs.  It is an act that is both for the good of the one disciplined and for the protection of the body.


----------



## JB0704

Glad you chimed in HF.  I really hope we can go through this without gettin' frustrated.  Hopefully everybody else chimes in also.....

WE may need to take this one piece at a time......


			
				Huntinfool said:
			
		

> The context of that passage confirms that this, indeed, is discipline. If they are caught in sin, they are confronted privately. Then they are confronted with another. If they refuse to turn, then they are brought before the entire body. If they still refuse...then it does not follow that Jesus would instruct us to 'just drop it and love them'. That does not fit with the context of the passage.




Let's start with the confronting sin portion.  The context of the chapter seems to be when there is a personal slight....not against God, but the individual.  

If that is correct, then a person's personal sin is still not within the realm of "Biblical conflict resolution" because there is no conflict.


----------



## Huntinfool

> If that is correct, then a person's personal sin is still not within the realm of "Biblical conflict resolution" because there is no conflict.



I'm not sure I understand what this phrase means.


But, in any case....can we agree that there is no such thing as a sin that is not against God?

By its very definition, sin is against God.


----------



## Huntinfool

Let me ask this...


In your interpretaion, what is the purpose of the obviously increasing levels of intensity in that passage?

Increase to Def Con 5.....then 'just love them anyway'? (not sarcastic here....I know sometimes it's hard to tell).


----------



## JB0704

Huntinfool said:


> But, in any case....can we agree that there is no such thing as a sin that is not against God?



Hmmmm......never actually thought about that.  I will say we agree, but allow a qualifier that I might change my mind upon later reflection.

I don't know that the context of the chapter reveals that an actual "sin" has occurred, or a personal offense has been taken.  Becuase other people are called into the situation for resolution, I think it is a personal deal, and not a spiritual deal.

I am thinking it is referring to a situation such as Huntinfool is upset with RJ because RJ shot the Kansas deer that Huntinfool rattled up.  There is a personal "slight" happenning there with no sin.


----------



## Huntinfool

There would be 100% breaking of fellowship never to be restored should that happen.  

If RJ shoots my deer, we're finished.  No second chances on that one.


----------



## JB0704

Huntinfool said:


> Let me ask this...
> 
> 
> In your interpretaion, what is the purpose of the obviously increasing levels of intensity in that passage?
> 
> Increase to Def Con 5.....then 'just love them anyway'? (not sarcastic here....I know sometimes it's hard to tell).



To me, it seems to change gears a lot.  Could you clarify increasing intensity?  I want to make sure I understand what you are saying.


----------



## Huntinfool

Let me ask this:

What is your biblical interpretation of what should occur in this situation.  Not, what would you do, but how does the Bible tell you to handle this situation?

A man in the church who is married is discovered to be sleeping with the wife of a fellow church member.


----------



## Huntinfool

> To me, it seems to change gears a lot. Could you clarify increasing intensity? I want to make sure I understand what you are saying.



1)  Confront them...alone.
2)  Confront them with another.
3)  Confront them with the entire church.
4)  Treat them as a tax collector.

1,2 and 3 are clearly increasing in intensity.  We obviously disagree on what #4 is.


----------



## JB0704

Huntinfool said:


> Increase to Def Con 5.....then 'just love them anyway'?



Before we get to that, we have to understand why it is going to defcon 5.

Is it because 2 people don't agree?  Or is it because on eis very upset with the other (deer example, and your reaction, are perfect for what I think the context is).

I am very open to being wrong ont his subject, btw.



			
				Huntinfool said:
			
		

> (not sarcastic here....I know sometimes it's hard to tell).



On this thread, let's try and give each other the benefit of the doubt so we can keep progress happenning


----------



## JB0704

Huntinfool said:


> 1)  Confront them...alone.
> 2)  Confront them with another.
> 3)  Confront them with the entire church.
> 4)  Treat them as a tax collector.



Why is the confrontation happenning?

Is it because HF is ma at RJ?  Or is it because one of y'all is "sinning?"

Again, I see this as Biblical conflict resolution, not behavior correction.  I am open to any and all context on this....I would rather "get it right" than "be right."



Huntinfool said:


> 1,2 and 3 are clearly increasing in intensity.  We obviously disagree on what #4 is.



Let's come back to that.......


----------



## Huntinfool

So, sticking with the conflict resolution theme then...

1st confront alone, then confront with somebody, then confront with the whole church.

What do you do when step three doesn't resolve the conflict (if that's actually what this is about)?

Step #4 is the key.  If there is no resolution when you bring the conflict before the entire church....how do you resolve according to your interpretation?


----------



## JB0704

Huntinfool said:


> So, sticking with the conflict resolution theme then...
> 
> 1st confront alone, then confront with somebody, then confront with the whole church.
> 
> What do you do when step three doesn't resolve the conflict (if that's actually what this is about)?
> 
> Step #4 is the key.  If there is no resolution when you bring the conflict before the entire church....how do you resolve according to your interpretation?



I don't know.  It seems there is a drive for concensus (the 2 or mroe stuff).  I guess we have to determine what the "tax collector treatment" is.  

It goes on to discussing forgiveness.  And it seems the mandate there is uncondidtional type thing.  So, if we are talking personal offenses, I would think that we go through the motions, and in the end, forgive them.


----------



## Huntinfool

JB, forgiveness and reconciliation are two very different things.  

I think this is a very good piece from John Piper:



> Forgiveness of an unrepentant person doesn't look the same as forgiveness of a repentant person.
> 
> In fact I am not sure that in the Bible the term forgiveness is ever applied to an unrepentant person. Jesus said in Luke 17:3–4, "Be on your guard! If your brother sins, rebuke him; and if he repents, forgive him. And if he sins against you seven times a day, and returns to you seven times, saying, 'I repent,' forgive him." So there's a sense in which full forgiveness is only possible in response to repentance.
> 
> But even when a person does not repent (cf. Matthew 18:17), we are commanded to love our enemy and pray for those who persecute us and do good to those who hate us (Luke 6:27).
> 
> The difference is that when a person who wronged us does not repent with contrition and confession and conversion (turning from sin to righteousness), he cuts off the full work of forgiveness. We can still lay down our ill will; we can hand over our anger to God; we can seek to do him good; but we cannot carry through reconciliation or intimacy.



The last bit is important to the discussion we're having.  "Reconciliation and intimacy" cannot be restored until the one who has wronged seeks forgiveness and repents.

If, as he says, you cannot restore intimacy until that happens, then it follows that you cannot be in fellowship with them in the body (which is one of if not the most intimate place in Christian life) until it happens.

We are called to forgive or God will not forgive us.  We are called to love our enemies and those who hate us.  But we are also called very clearly to protect the integrity of and intimacy within the church.


----------



## JB0704

Good thoughts.....I'm about to bail for the day and respond properly later on.

Enjoying the discussion


----------



## StriperAddict

Huntinfool said:


> 1) Confront them...alone.
> 2) Confront them with another.
> 3) Confront them with the entire church.
> 4) Treat them as a tax collector.
> 
> 1,2 and 3 are clearly increasing in intensity. We obviously disagree on what #4 is.


 
And the real heartbreaker is a "#5" (from 1Cor5)... to deliver one to satan to destroy the body. I spoke on that in the other thread.  Gosh, if dicipline ever has to go that far... I just can't imagine.


----------



## JB0704

I think the big hurdle we have to cross is determining if the chapter applies to individual wrongs, or an individual's sin.

I would argue that some fella with a porn problem (avoiding "gay" in this thread intentionally) has not sinned against me.  How can I then apply Mathew 18 to him?   Is there a precedence for that?



Huntinfool said:


> JB, forgiveness and reconciliation are two very different things.



I agree.  But, we would have to define reconcilliation as well.  Using Mathew 18, Jesus goes out and gets the "lost sheep."  He doesn't say "come back when your good and ready to apologize." 



Huntinfool said:


> The last bit is important to the discussion we're having.  "Reconciliation and intimacy" cannot be restored until the one who has wronged seeks forgiveness and repents.



Again, who decides what intimacy is? Is it carrying on a deep relationship, or is it setting up chairs before the service? We have to set ourselves up as judge, jury, and executioner in order to carry out a sentence on somebody for "sin."  I think the Biblical bar for such a position is incredibly high.



Huntinfool said:


> We are called to forgive or God will not forgive us.  We are called to love our enemies and those who hate us.  But we are also called very clearly to protect the integrity of and intimacy within the church.



Now we are getting to the "tax collector" treatment.  I would like to dissect this as much as possible.....but this would run some rabbits I don't think we can run at this point in the thread.


----------



## Huntinfool

If you wrong someone, have you sinned?


----------



## JB0704

Huntinfool said:


> If you wrong someone, have you sinned?



See our previous example.   I don't believe a "sin" occurred when RJ killed your deer.  Even if you(pl) are correct, the "sinned against a brother" does not seem to imply a universal sense of the word.  See my porn example.  I don't understand why we are not looking into the meaning of the phrase "sins against you."  In order for your interpretation to work, it must be applied universally.  I am looking at it in it's current form.

What I am seeing is that there seems to be a distinction made in Mathew 18 where a brother "sins against you," where often in the Bible "sin" is "against God."

Then, combine that with the lost sheep analogy, and I think we can see a different perspective on what is actually being said there.

Could you also address the rest of my post?


----------



## Huntinfool

I was kidding about RJ.  Killing a deer wouldn't be a 'wrong'.  As you said, a sin did not occur...so there is nothing to apply to that situation.  Were I to confront him on it, he should tell me to go jump in a lake.

The passage clearly indicates that both parties are part of the church.  But, if we cannot agree that all sin is sin against God, then I think really we've gone as far as we can.  If I do something to hurt you, I've sinned against both you and God.  I don't see any way around that.  

You cannot sin against a person without sinning against God.  Think on the very nature of what 'sin' is.  That is why, ultimately, the last step in the process is to take the matter in front of the spiritual authorities in your life (i.e. elders and leaders of the church).  

If this was only a matter between two people, then others would not be brought into it.  But they are and in increasing number.  If this were not a spiritual issue involving God, then the church would not be brought into the matter.


----------



## Huntinfool

> We have to set ourselves up as judge, jury, and executioner in order to carry out a sentence on somebody for "sin."



I think this is where your thinking is faulty JB.  It is not a sentence.  It is a consequence and it should only be done as the last effort to cause restoration.

It is not punishment. We are not making final judgement on anything in discipline.  But sometimes taking something away from someone is the only way to fully get their attention and cause them to turn from the error of their ways.  You're a parent...I know that you know the truth of that statement.

The ultimate goal of breaking fellowship with someone is not punishment.  That is not our place.  The ultimate goal of breaking fellowship (after you've gone through ALL of the other steps)....is to rejoice when the lost sheep is found and the relationship is restored.


----------



## JB0704

Huntinfool said:


> The passage clearly indicates that both parties are part of the church.  But, if we cannot agree that all sin is sin against God, then I think really we've gone as far as we can.  If I do something to hurt you, I've sinned against both you and God.  I don't see any way around that.



Ok.  For the sake of argument, let's say you are correct.  I really don't want to run that rabbit any further.

Now, why would the distinction be made?  Why are you(pl) applying it to "all" sin.  Let's revisit the porn example.  Why would a person's personal struggle be applicable in this setting?



Huntinfool said:


> If this was only a matter between two people, then others would not be brought into it.



See, I completely disagree.  There is a concept of unity in the NT, and I see this as the framework for conflict resolution......even if the "wrong" is a sin.  Why would you think it is not a matter between two people?  I am using the Bible as it stands as my basis here.  Could you give me scripture for your application (again...no sarcasm, genuinely wanting to understand your perspective)?



Huntinfool said:


> But they are and in increasing number.  If this were not a spiritual issue involving God, then the church would not be brought into the matter.



Again....unity.  Christian conflict resolution.


----------



## JB0704

Huntinfool said:


> I think this is where your thinking is faulty JB.  It is not a sentence.  It is a consequence and it should only be done as the last effort to cause restoration.



Symantics.

But, the question stands.  Why is the distinction made with "sinned against you?"



Huntinfool said:


> It is not punishment. We are not making final judgement on anything in discipline.  But sometimes taking something away from someone is the only way to fully get their attention and cause them to turn from the error of their ways.  You're a parent...I know that you know the truth of that statement.



I agree with the concept you are saying.  I just am trying to understand the application to a person with a porn problem.



Huntinfool said:


> The ultimate goal of breaking fellowship with someone is not punishment.  That is not our place.  The ultimate goal of breaking fellowship (after you've gone through ALL of the other steps)....is to rejoice when the lost sheep is found and the relationship is restored.



But......Jesus went and found the lost sheep.   He didn't run it off and say "come back when your ready to be a good sheep."

It would seem contradictory otherwise.


----------



## JB0704

The distinction between the two examples seem to be made with the forgiveness parable following the levels of addressing conflict.

I see it as "here's how you handle it," then "here's what you do when it doesn't work."

And that is where we will discuss the "tax collector treatment."  Which I think is applicable, but we are not quite there with the discussion.


----------



## Huntinfool

> Symantics.



It's not symantics.  You see punishment.  I don't.  That's an important distinction.



> But, the question stands. Why is the distinction made with "sinned against you?"



Because it's a biblical model for conflict resolution between brothers.



> I agree with the concept you are saying. I just am trying to understand the application to a person with a porn problem.



I see what you're saying.  But let's assume that man with a porn problem has a wife who is also a member of the church.  Then we have a 'conflict' between a brother and a sister in the body, correct?  He is wronging her every time he goes on the internet.  He is breaking his vow that he made before God every time he looks at porn.

If he refuses to acknowledge the wrong he's doing to his wife and to God every time he looks at porn, then we have a conflict that needs to go through these steps....do we not?


----------



## Huntinfool

> And that is where we will discuss the "tax collector treatment." Which I think is applicable, but we are not quite there with the discussion.



I think I've already addressed it honestly.  Love them and engage them for their salvation, yes.  Allow them into your closest circles, no.  Exactly what Jesus did.


----------



## JB0704

Huntinfool said:


> Because it's a biblical model for conflict resolution between brothers.



We can agree on that.




Huntinfool said:


> I see what you're saying.  But let's assume that man with a porn problem has a wife who is also a member of the church.  Then we have a 'conflict' between a brother and a sister in the body, correct?  He is wronging her every time he goes on the internet.  He is breaking his vow that he made before God every time he looks at porn.



Correct.  And she is to apply the biblical model within their relationship.  It does not involve the body until she takes it to them.



Huntinfool said:


> If he refuses to acknowledge the wrong he's doing to his wife and to God every time he looks at porn, then we have a conflict that needs to go through these steps....do we not?



Yes.  And it still applies to what I am saying.  It is not the body's business until the "wronged" party makes it such.


----------



## JB0704

Huntinfool said:


> I think I've already addressed it honestly.  Love them and engage them for their salvation, yes.  Allow them into your closest circles, no.  Exactly what Jesus did.



I agree.  But it's how we apply the "inner circle" concept is where I think we will disagree.

And then, we have to consider why Jesus went after the "lost sheep," and did not wait for it to return so that it could learn a lesson.

There is a whole lot of stuff regarding this concept.


----------



## Huntinfool

"lost sheep" does not apply to tax collectors and pagans.  They are not part of the flock.  They cannot leave the flock if they were never part of it.

This passage is about disagreements between brothers and sisters in Christ.  That is why Jesus makes the distinction between how fellow believers are treated and how 'others' are treated (regardless of whether you say they are treated with hate or love...they are treated differently).

He uses 'pagans and tax collectors' to illustrate examples of those who are not part of the body....they are not part of the flock.


----------



## JB0704

Ok.  I have a good bit mroe to say on that, but would rather focus on the other stuff for now.

You used an example of a eprson with a pron problem and their wife.  I think it becomes the body's business when the offended party makes it their business.  Until then....it is between "them and God."  I think this chapter pretty much reinforces that concept.  Which is why I think it is a model of conflict resolution, not church discipline for "sin."

In addition......how do you make apply it to a single person with a porn problem?


----------



## Huntinfool

You wanted to know my biblical basis for interpreting the passage the way I do...



_            It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that is not tolerated even among pagans, for a man has his father's wife. And you are arrogant! Ought you not rather to mourn? Let him who has done this be removed from among you.	For though absent in body, I am present in spirit; and as if present, I have already pronounced judgment on the one who did such a thing. When you are assembled in the name of the Lord Jesus and my spirit is present, with the power of our Lord Jesus, you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord.
	Your boasting is not good. Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump? Cleanse out the old leaven that you may be a new lump, as you really are unleavened. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed.

(1 Corinthians 5:1-7 ESV)_




I've highlighted in red the pieces that I want to point out.  "is" and "has" indicate current, ongoing and unrepentent immorality by someone in the church in Corinth.

Because it's unrepentent (and BTW not being dealt with properly by the church as indicated by the fact that they are boasting about it instead of mourning), Paul reacts harshly.  His immediate response is what?  

"Let him who has done this be removed from among you."  


Then he goes on to say that, even though he is not there physically, he stands in judgment of this man.  So yes, in a sense, sin within the church IS a license to judge other believers.  If you want to make the argument that it should be reserved for the spiritual leaders of the body, I'm cool with that.

But the important thing is WHY he responds this way.  It's not to punish the man.  It is so that his spirit may be saved!  In fact, the primary reason is to protect the church.  "a little leaven leavens the whole lump."

But then, JB...as if that's not convincing enough....Paul writes this to them.  I don't know how you read this and then interpret Matthew 18 any other way than I have.





	I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people—not at all meaning the sexually immoral of this world, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler—not even to eat with such a one. For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? God judges those outside. “Purge the evil person from among you.” 
(1 Corinthians 5:9-13 ESV)





Break fellowship at a certain point?  Yes.  Judge those inside the church for the specific purpose of protecting the church?  Absolutely. 

I don't see any way you can read this and Matthew 18 and come away with something different.

As with all things, it's a matter of how and with what spirit you apply it.  If somebody is just looking for a good fight and hoping to kick somebody out, then I would argue that perhaps that person is the one who might need to be confronted in love, huh?


----------



## Huntinfool

Just another snipit from Piper because I believe he handles the subject so well in his writings.

A real life example of why this process is important in the life of the church....and why a single member addicted to porn may fall under it.



> When I spoke to Daryl on the phone to plead with him to repent and return to his wife and his church and his Savior the last text I used was Titus 2:14, "[Christ] gave Himself for us, that He might . . . purify for Himself a people for His own possession, zealous for good deeds." In other words Christ died to cleanse the leaven of sin out of our lives and out of the church. And I said, "Daryl, to choose impurity week after week, without repentance, is to choose against the purpose of the cross and to thrust a sword into Jesus' side with every new act of immorality. He did not just die to pardon your sin, he died to empower you against sin. And those who do not embrace the power of the cross to fight their sin will not have the pardon of the cross to forgive their sin."


----------



## JB0704

Huntinfool said:


> You wanted to know my biblical basis for interpreting the passage the way I do...
> 
> 
> 
> _            It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that is not tolerated even among pagans, for a man has his father's wife. And you are arrogant! Ought you not rather to mourn? Let him who has done this be removed from among you.	For though absent in body, I am present in spirit; and as if present, I have already pronounced judgment on the one who did such a thing. When you are assembled in the name of the Lord Jesus and my spirit is present, with the power of our Lord Jesus, you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord.
> Your boasting is not good. Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump? Cleanse out the old leaven that you may be a new lump, as you really are unleavened. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed.
> 
> (1 Corinthians 5:1-7 ESV)_
> 
> 
> I've highlighted in red the pieces that I want to point out.  "is" and "has" indicate current, ongoing and unrepentent immorality by someone in the church in Corinth.
> 
> Because it's unrepentent (and BTW not being dealt with properly by the church as indicated by the fact that they are boasting about it instead of mourning), Paul reacts harshly.  His immediate response is what?
> 
> "Let him who has done this be removed from among you."



I agree with most of what you say here.  Where I think we disagree is the relation to Mathew 18....which I view as conflict resolution.  The scripture above is about church discipline.  No doubt.  I tend to believe what you quoted above is the best justification for dealing with immorality within the church, and not Mathew 18.

Now, let's consider what was being done, and done about it.

It was an "open / boastful" sin.  Does that apply to the guy who struggles (very important word there) with porn?  Does that open the door for us to judge those who already judge themselves?  

What if the person understands that porn is wrong....but still fails at his attempts to abstain?  Does he "need" my judgement?

And then.....what of the person who does not know porn is immoral?  A new believer or a seeker.......do we apply the same?

Several different applications to consider.  Just so you know.....I don't have the answer to any of them.  I am trying to glean from you on this thread.  So please don't view any question I ask as "loaded."



Huntinfool said:


> Then he goes on to say that, even though he is not there physically, he stands in judgment of this man.  So yes, in a sense, sin within the church IS a license to judge other believers.  If you want to make the argument that it should be reserved for the spiritual leaders of the body, I'm cool with that.



Not trying to be obtuse here, but can you elaborate on what sense this is a liscense to judge?  I think being judged by the elders is the only liscense one can determine from this passage.

Also, Paul "passing judgement" is what it is....a declaration of "sin."  



Huntinfool said:


> But the important thing is WHY he responds this way.  It's not to punish the man.  It is so that his spirit may be saved!  In fact, the primary reason is to protect the church.  "a little leaven leavens the whole lump."



Agreed.



Huntinfool said:


> But then, JB...as if that's not convincing enough....Paul writes this to them.  I don't know how you read this and then interpret Matthew 18 any other way than I have.
> 
> I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people—not at all meaning the sexually immoral of this world, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler—not even to eat with such a one. For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? God judges those outside. “Purge the evil person from among you.”
> (1 Corinthians 5:9-13 ESV)



Again, I agree with your thoughts on this passage, but not the connection to Mathew.

But, let's say you are correct.  Wouldn't the lost sheep analogy then apply?  The person "purged" would need to be gotten back.  Looked after in love.  As you stated earlier....part of the flock.

That's why I see the two references as totally seperate in application.  Mathew 18 would almost be contradictory within itself if the "steps to reconcilliation" were in reference to church discipline.  I view Paul's later writings as more applicable to the church when it comes to matters of sin within the body.





Huntinfool said:


> Break fellowship at a certain point?  Yes.  Judge those inside the church for the specific purpose of protecting the church?  Absolutely.



Now we are getting somewhere.  I agree with you....but I also know that the bar is set incredibly high for those who want to judge somebody.  I would think one must be at least an elder....or a person in "spiritual authority" to be a judge.  Such judgement only applies to those specifically submitting to that authority (congregants or small group folks who are not leaders).  Then, the person being the judge must also be extremely careful that they are "qualified" (plank in the eye sort of thing).




Huntinfool said:


> I don't see any way you can read this and Matthew 18 and come away with something different.



Because Mathew 18 is a completely different context.  I am not saying "don't judge."  I am just syaing that it seems there are several parameters that must be met.....and often, those who wish to judge do not meet those parameters.

Paul listed a whole bunch of sins in that chapter you referenced.  Yet, "judgement" is often reserved for the "big ones."  What that tells me is that the "judges" are not qualified to judge because they do not give an equal application of the scripture.




Huntinfool said:


> As with all things, it's a matter of how and with what spirit you apply it.  If somebody is just looking for a good fight and hoping to kick somebody out, then I would argue that perhaps that person is the one who might need to be confronted in love, huh?



Agreed.....as long as the one confronting meets the qualifications to do so.


----------



## Huntinfool

> It was an "open / boastful" sin. Does that apply to the guy who struggles (very important word there) with porn? Does that open the door for us to judge those who already judge themselves?
> 
> What if the person understands that porn is wrong....but still fails at his attempts to abstain? Does he "need" my judgement?
> 
> And then.....what of the person who does not know porn is immoral? A new believer or a seeker.......do we apply the same?



If he 'struggles' with it, then it's not unrepentent.  Open and un-repentent.  That's all I'm addressing here.  We are all sinners.  If we kicked everyone who sinned out of the church, there would be no one left.



> Not trying to be obtuse here, but can you elaborate on what sense this is a liscense to judge? I think being judged by the elders is the only liscense one can determine from this passage.



...because he says this:

_"Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? God judges those outside."_

Not "I judge", "you judge".  All inside the church are given the same license.



> Wouldn't the lost sheep analogy then apply? The person "purged" would need to be gotten back. Looked after in love. As you stated earlier....part of the flock.



ONLY after repentence....or you would be directly in conflict with Paul's instruction not to associate.  



> Now we are getting somewhere. I agree with you....but I also know that the bar is set incredibly high for those who want to judge somebody. I would think one must be at least an elder....or a person in "spiritual authority" to be a judge. Such judgement only applies to those specifically submitting to that authority (congregants or small group folks who are not leaders). Then, the person being the judge must also be extremely careful that they are "qualified" (plank in the eye sort of thing).



Again...there is no qualification here for who is allowed to judge.

_"Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge?"_



> Agreed.....as long as the one confronting meets the qualifications to do so.



So tell me, biblically, what are those qualifications.  I just showed you mine....show me yours.

I agree with you that Matthew 18 is specifically addressing how to deal with conflict among brothers.

However, what you're not getting is that once you've been through that process and they have proven themselves unrepentent, then they have proven themselves to be "anyone who bears the name of brother (who) is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler".

At that point....we have to go with how Paul told us to deal with them and THAT is why "treat them as you would a tax collector or pagan" is not meant as "just love them".


----------



## JB0704

Huntinfool said:


> Just another snipit from Piper because I believe he handles the subject so well in his writings.
> 
> A real life example of why this process is important in the life of the church....and why a single member addicted to porn may fall under it.



That is a good quote, and I agree with it, but it is still a "sin against a brother" which can be handled like Mathew 18 describes.

The later scripture you reference is where I see authority to judge given.

Then, we take it down to the individual level....me.  I am not an elder.  Never will be an elder (apparently many churches disqualify me for my "scarlet D") Doesn't that disqualify me from judging if I am correct that judgement is reserved for church leadership?


----------



## JB0704

Whew.....I'm gonna have to break out some crosswalk.com for this.......

FWIW, I am really enjoying this discussion.


----------



## Huntinfool

Just to clarify, I didn't say that elders were the only ones qualified....I've heard people make that argument.  But I don't buy it.  They use the Cor passage and say that Paul was speaking as judge in authority because he was over that church.  But that doesn't follow from what he wrote.


----------



## JB0704

Biblical Qualfications to judge:

1. The person in judgement must be part of "the body." (1 Cor. 5)

2. The person doing the judging really needs to do some serious self-examining.....



> Mathew 71 "Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2 For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. 3 "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4 How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye. 6 "Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces.



I believe this is a lot more applicable than many of you do.  Verses 1-6 seem to imply that we need to "purge" the sin in our life before we can even claim to see the sin in another's.  Verse six seems to reiforce point #1 above.

3. Be a person in spiritual authority, look at it from the congregants perspective, is anybody but elders given a claim to leadership in the Bible.....



> Hebrews 13:17 Obey your leaders and submit to their authority. They keep watch over you as men who must give an account. Obey them so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no advantage to you.





> 1 Peter 5:2 Be shepherds of God's flock that is under your care, serving as overseers--not because you must, but because you are willing, as God wants you to be; not greedy for money, but eager to serve; 3 not lording it over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock. 4 And when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the crown of glory that will never fade away. 5 Young men, in the same way be submissive to those who are older. All of you, clothe yourselves with humility toward one another, because, "God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble."



I believe verse 5 specifically reinforces point #2.

Then, we have a examples of elders specifically acting in the role of judges (yes, I used a lot of google for this......but this is a long held opinion of mine)



> Acts 15:1 Some men came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the brothers: "Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved." 2 This brought Paul and Barnabas into sharp dispute and debate with them. So Paul and Barnabas were appointed, along with some other believers, to go up to Jerusalem to see the apostles and elders about this question



And, they seemed to be the determiners.....



> Acts 16:4 As they traveled from town to town, they delivered the decisions reached by the apostles and elders in Jerusalem for the people to obey



I don't really see "judgement authority" given to the congregants in there.

To reinforce your perspective, "purge" seems to be a blanket command to the church in Corinth.  But, from what I can tell, the authority in a church is almost always reserved for the elders.  So the congregants would need to submit to elder authority.  If the elders were acting unbiblically....well....they are no longer qualified to "judge" (see point #2).


----------



## JB0704

Also, I didn't want this thread to become a "judging" thread.  I really only wanted to address Mathew 18's application to church discipline.


----------



## Huntinfool

Definitely we agree that the act of removing someone should be done by the elders.  They are the leaders.

My point is more in reference to the suggestion that only elders are allowed to judge (in the sense of 'assess') the behavior of believers in the church.


----------



## Huntinfool

> Also, I didn't want this thread to become a "judging" thread. I really only wanted to address Mathew 18's application to church discipline.



This is my answer on that...



> once you've been through that process and they have proven themselves unrepentent, then they have proven themselves to be "anyone who bears the name of brother (who) is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler".
> 
> At that point....we have to go with how Paul told us to deal with them and THAT is why "treat them as you would a tax collector or pagan" is not meant as "just love them".



Matthew 18 is not, in itself, church discipline.  It does, however, reveal one who should be the subject of church discipline.

Once you get to step 4, you move on to discipline.  You have been confronted in your sin and been found to be unrepentent.  At that point, you fully fit the description of what Paul described.


----------



## JB0704

Huntinfool said:


> Definitely we agree that the act of removing someone should be done by the elders.  They are the leaders.



Cool.  I think we are getting somewhere......



Huntinfool said:


> My point is more in reference to the suggestion that only elders are allowed to judge (in the sense of 'assess') the behavior of believers in the church.



Ok.  But, outside of the blanket "purge" statement in Corinthians.....where is authority given to anybody but the elders?


----------



## Huntinfool

I don't think it's specifically given to anyone anywhere.  Paul simply indicates that "you are to judge" those in the church.  If he meant only elders, he would have said so IMO.

In practice, I think it would look like someone offends, Matthew 18 is followed, get to step 4, turn it over to the elders and let them proceed from there.  They would likely be the ones to "do" step 4 and then proceed to discipline after that if necessary.


----------



## JB0704

Huntinfool said:


> I don't think it's specifically given to anyone anywhere.  Paul simply indicates that "you are to judge" those in the church.  If he meant only elders, he would have said so IMO.



Disregarding the lack of evidence of congregational authority in spiritual matters, the qualifications #1 and #2 I listed would still ahve to be met.



Huntinfool said:


> In practice, I think it would look like someone offends, Matthew 18 is followed, get to step 4, turn it over to the elders and let them proceed from there.  They would likely be the ones to "do" step 4 and then proceed to discipline after that if necessary.



Maybe so........

.......then do we need to go into "tax collector treatment?"


----------



## JB0704

HF, what I am getting at is that I see a church discpline reference as more 1 Corinthians 5 than Mathew 18.

As in a person saying "we will have to break out some Mathew 18" instead saying "we will have to break out 1 Cor 5."

I understand that there is a Biblical path to judgement.  Who is to judge, and who is not is very debateable.....but the concept is there....I agree on that.


----------



## Huntinfool

> the qualifications #1 and #2 I listed would still ahve to be met.



Yep.


Go ahead and tell me what tax collector treatment is.  I've already pretty clearly laid out my case on that.

Do as Jesus did.  Love, don't consider them the bride of Christ.  Paul confirmed it in the passage from 1 Cor.  Not a whole lot else I can say.


----------



## Huntinfool

> what I am getting at is that I see a church discpline reference as more 1 Corinthians 5 than Mathew 18.



I think we agree on that.  I what we disagree on is whether Matthew 18 ultimately ends in 1 Cor 5 if it runs through to completion.  

In that sense, Matthew 18 can be a part of the discipline process.  It can simply be the best possible way to resolve conflict.

But, very often we go into the Matthew 18 process to resolve a conflict knowing very clearly that the offender is un-repentent.  We pray that they break in the process of steps 1-3....but if/when they don't, then (for me and most other Christians) Matthew 18 becomes the first part in the process of discipline.  It leads to 1 Cor 5.


When someone is wholesale un-repentent in an offense...if you read 1 Cor 5....you cannot, then, read "treat as tax collector" and see "just drop it and love them" IMO.  They contradict each other.  If they are wholesale un-repentent in sin, then they fully meet Paul's description.  He does not instruct us to "just drop it and love them".  He further clarifies what Jesus personally instructed him to do.

Paul only instructs under the authority he's been given by Jesus.  He is only re-teaching what he's been taught.  His words cannot conflict with Jesus'.


----------



## JB0704

Before we go down that rabbit trail (tax collector), do we need to consider the lost sheep and what it means for those who are "purged?"  Are the two treatments exclusive?

...the rabbit trail.....

For me, I think the tax collector is basically outside the body....and judgement (1 Corinthians 5).  This means that folks who do not willingly submit, or are no longer submitted, to the authority of the elders are not elligable for "judgement."  This goes for folks inside the church passing judgement outside the church (very applicable to my political positions, btw).

The "lost sheep" would then also be outside the judgement (1 Cor 5), and outside the body (Mathew 7).  But, if the analogy holds, those inside the body have to go and "find them " (Mathew 7).  To me, this can only be accomplished in love.  What then do we mean by "purge" (1 Cor 5)?  We have to find a way to help them....clearly mandated by the lost sheep.  We also have to give them the "tax collector treatment" which elliminates them from judgement (1 Cor 5).

So "let's just love them anyway" is not a blanket "approval" of sin, it is more of a mandate to action for the "body" to find a way to help the "lost sheep."  They are outside of judgement.  They are also unable to rejoin the body......

.....doesn't this place the burden on the congregation to find a way to help those in need?


----------



## JB0704

So we are clear, I do recognize the "purging" as the ultimate response to unrepentant sin within the body.

Where I am totally confused is the treatement beyond that....thus why I think it is a rabbit trail.

Looking forward to y'alls thoughts on it.


----------



## gtparts

> (Originally Posted by Huntinfool)
> 
> "JB, forgiveness and reconciliation are two very different things."
> 
> 
> (Posted by JB)
> 
> I agree. But, we would have to define reconcilliation as well. Using Mathew 18, Jesus goes out and gets the "lost sheep." He doesn't say "come back when your good and ready to apologize."



JB, I would point out that the shepherd/sheep relationship from Matthew 18 is far different than the sheep/sheep relationship described in passages covering how one church member relates to another church member when there is conflict.

I believe that conflict is always the result of sin or perceived sin. It is the result of one party being wronged or feeling that he or she has been wronged. God is never happy about animosity between believers and restoration is always His goal, as ours should be also.


----------



## gordon 2

_Quote:Mathew 18:1 At that time the disciples came to Jesus and asked, "Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?" 2 He called a little child and had him stand among them. 3 And he said: "I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. 4 Therefore, whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. 5 "And whoever welcomes a little child like this in my name welcomes me. 6 But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea. 7 "Woe to the world because of the things that cause people to sin! Such things must come, but woe to the man through whom they come! 8 If your hand or your foot causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life maimed or crippled than to have two hands or two feet and be thrown into eternal fire. 9 And if your eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into the fire of he1110 "See that you do not look down on one of these little ones. For I tell you that their angels in heaven always see the face of my Father in heaven. 12 "What do you think? If a man owns a hundred sheep, and one of them wanders away, will he not leave the ninety-nine on the hills and go to look for the one that wandered off ? 13 And if he finds it, I tell you the truth, he is happier about that one sheep than about the ninety-nine that did not wander off. 14 In the same way your Father in heaven is not willing that any of these little ones should be lost. 

15 "If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. 16 But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that 'every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.' 17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector. 18 "I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. 19 "Again, I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything you ask for, it will be done for you by my Father in heaven. 20 For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them." 

21 Then Peter came to Jesus and asked, "Lord, how many times shall I forgive my brother when he sins against me? Up to seven times?" 22 Jesus answered, "I tell you, not seven times, but seventy-seven times. 23 "Therefore, the kingdom of heaven is like a king who wanted to settle accounts with his servants. 24 As he began the settlement, a man who owed him ten thousand talents was brought to him. 25 Since he was not able to pay, the master ordered that he and his wife and his children and all that he had be sold to repay the debt. 26 "The servant fell on his knees before him. 'Be patient with me,' he begged, 'and I will pay back everything.' 27 The servant's master took pity on him, canceled the debt and let him go. 28 "But when that servant went out, he found one of his fellow servants who owed him a hundred denarii. He grabbed him and began to choke him. 'Pay back what you owe me!' he demanded. 29 "His fellow servant fell to his knees and begged him, 'Be patient with me, and I will pay you back.' 30 "But he refused. Instead, he went off and had the man thrown into prison until he could pay the debt. 31 When the other servants saw what had happened, they were greatly distressed and went and told their master everything that had happened. 32 "Then the master called the servant in. 'You wicked servant,' he said, 'I canceled all that debt of yours because you begged me to. 33 Shouldn't you have had mercy on your fellow servant just as I had on you?' 34 In anger his master turned him over to the jailers to be tortured, until he should pay back all he owed. 35 "This is how my heavenly Father will treat each of you unless you forgive your brother from your heart."] End Quote_----------------------------------------------------------



I think that 1 to 14 is about the greatest in the Kingdom, who they are, why they are --and to what length God will go to never abandon these even if they get tangled up in great troubles--because God is not willing that these [ "I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.  Therefore, whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven" ]..... that these little ones,--- should be lost! 


I will state this again...God is NOT willing that the greatest in the Kingdom or those who are like the children he describes should be Lost!!!!!!!!!!!! Deciples hear this!!!!! Nada, nom, no way, never, it won't happen..they will not be lost if --even if --God has to leave 99 for this one! They will NOT be lost! Amen.
These little ones are folk who have complete trust in God as little children have ( or should have) unquestioned trust in their parents. It is about the relationship of one to the other, God to the saint and the saint to God. This relationship far surpasses our relationship, a saint's relationship to his church or synagogue. So these passages are not about dealings within the church per say.

Now this is consistent with God's relationship with Isreal for example and the prophet Jonah and I know it as the way God deals with the saints.

15-20 is about how to deal( how the saint and God) deals with individuals or institutions who sin against the saints  as individuals and the body of saints or but especially the greatest in the Kingdom.  It is about how the greatest in the Kingdom should deal with spiritual problems as individuals, when someone has sinned against them or how they should proceed with problem solving within the context of the Kingdom and how God will help them.

21 to the end it is about how to carry your cross as a saint (***** the saint that " For I tell you that their angels in heaven always see the face of my Father in heaven"or the greatest in the Kingdom,)  the manner to do it ,the behaviour to have, what needs guarding against etc...   or to suffer one's cross according  to grace.

So this is not about the church per say,( Paul is the go to guy conscerning churches, Jesus was addressing saints, apostles, deciples, believers, those called to the Kingdom etc.)  and althought the church is mentioned, it is about the greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven-or those who have entered it. Jesus was addressing the apostles and said the greatest were those who had complete trust in God and in him as the savior( as per the example of trust Jesus was demonstrating with the child.) It is about what relationship God has with the greatest in heaven,  who's "angles in heaven always see the face of my father". It is about how these individual should deal with sin and those who sin against them, and how the Father will leave the 99 to return them to the fold if they wonder off ---as it is just that kind of a relationship the greatest in heaven have with God ie. like little children stand next to an adult when asked to without hesitation or fear, or questionings.

The church here is just an instrument in the ministry of a saint, as are his or her friends in the faith. The subject here is the saint, or the greatest in the Kingdom and how they should proceed, and behave, and how God will never abandon them and how those who sin against them will fair according to the justice of our Lord. It is not about the machinations within churches concerning who is right and who is wronged. It is about the greatest in the Kingdom of heaven or those within--who rise far above the church but who are most likely seen as greeters at the door and kitchen cooks down the hall and sometimes even imbicile pests--just like the prophets were.

So in my estimation to equate this bit of passage as instruction on how to protect the church's integrity it would be better an eye plucked out --or a second look.


----------



## rjcruiser

JB0704 said:


> I am thinking it is referring to a situation such as Huntinfool is upset with RJ because RJ shot the Kansas deer that Huntinfool rattled up.  There is a personal "slight" happenning there with no sin.





Huntinfool said:


> If RJ shoots my deer, we're finished.  No second chances on that one.



JB...it wasn't a deer.  It was a Turkey.  And HF isn't going back this year if that tells you anything.  



I've missed this thread over the past couple of days...I haven't read all the posts...so it might be redundant...but here is my thoughts on the passage.

Like others have mentioned, the relationship between Christians should be peaceful.  Living in the South, I think we've all seen what happens when Christians turn on each other.  Another church is created...and in the words of Big7, a schism occurs.  How damaging is that to the world?

So, Christ gives us a roadmap on how to bring about reconciliation.  If one can't see their wrong, they are to be ultimately treated as an unbeliever.

Reconciliation can only be obtained through forgiveness.  And like others have said, we must view our own sin seriously before we can be reconciled with God.  That is where I think the last section really hits home.  How foolish are we when we hold grudges?  How minute does that wrongdoing that our wife did or our friend did when compared to the sins we've done against Christ?  How many sins have we done that no one else knows about?  Christ has forgiven us of all of them if we're saved.  

How could anyone hold a grudge when they view the magnitude of our own sin and the magnitude of mercy that Christ has given to us?


----------



## JB0704

gordon 2 said:


> So in my estimation to equate this bit of passage as instruction on how to protect the church's integrity it would be better an eye plucked out --or a second look.



Thanks for that post, G2.  I have always thought the Corinthians passage was the more accurate passage for "church discipline," and the Mathew passage was conflict resolution.

I think what HF is saying is that the discipline described in Corinthians would be accurately carried out in the manner of Mathew.  

From what you are saying, would you be in agreement with that?

As I stated a few posts back, I honestly struggle with what to do if a person is "purged" from the body....because it seems the instructions are quite clear to "love them" unless the lost sheep is not applicable here....then the concept of them being "outside judgement" would also be applicable.


----------



## JB0704

gtparts said:


> JB, I would point out that the shepherd/sheep relationship from Matthew 18 is far different than the sheep/sheep relationship described in passages covering how one church member relates to another church member when there is conflict.
> 
> I believe that conflict is always the result of sin or perceived sin. It is the result of one party being wronged or feeling that he or she has been wronged. God is never happy about animosity between believers and restoration is always His goal, as ours should be also.



Thanks for your thoughts.  Let's consider that the two parts of that chapter are seperate.....do you then view the reconcilliation portion of the chapter as a "blue-print" for discipline?

I had always viewed it as reconcilliation, but what HF is saying makes a good bit of sense to me.  

And, if the "lost sheep" is not applicable to the church body, does the church have any responsibility to the one who gets "purged" as described in Corinthians?


----------



## JB0704

rjcruiser said:


> JB...it wasn't a deer.  It was a Turkey.  And HF isn't going back this year if that tells you anything.



I didn't know he wasn't going this year.  Sorry to hear that......you should take him before the elders to get all "Mathew 18" on him for his bitterness  I followed you guys' LFTT thread last year, and was rooting for y'all.  Hope this year goes better as far as deer are concerned.



rjcruiser said:


> So, Christ gives us a roadmap on how to bring about reconciliation.  If one can't see their wrong, they are to be ultimately treated as an unbeliever.



I agree.....but, you know, I have never once seen this practiced in reference to conflict.




rjcruiser said:


> Reconciliation can only be obtained through forgiveness.  And like others have said, we must view our own sin seriously before we can be reconciled with God.  That is where I think the last section really hits home.  How foolish are we when we hold grudges?  How minute does that wrongdoing that our wife did or our friend did when compared to the sins we've done against Christ?  How many sins have we done that no one else knows about?  Christ has forgiven us of all of them if we're saved.
> 
> How could anyone hold a grudge when they view the magnitude of our own sin and the magnitude of mercy that Christ has given to us?



Good thoughts.  And I agree.  I am the worst at holding grudges.  Particularly against churches.


----------



## StriperAddict

JB0704 said:


> And, if the "lost sheep" is not applicable to the church body, does the church have any responsibility to the one who gets "purged" as described in Corinthians?



Certainly to pray and weep... that the one purged from church would repent and return to fellowship.
Outside of that, social contact might look like identification with the sin I suppose, but we're talking on an extreme case.
Purging isn't the order of the day if a believer (especially a new Christian) has a sin struggle and is open with his leaders about it, and seeking the Lord to help. In some cases, some may have such a worldly habit pattern that when they come to Christ, much of that doesn't go 'poof' and up n get blown away.  It doesn't mean he/she is not saved, but it means the body, esp the leaders, ought to take special attention to this one needing help and give some encouragement in the faith.  The ministry of Celebrate Recovery is based on that, providing a place of safety and accountability over habits & hang ups.  BTW, we all got em' (hang-ups, and flesh habits  that is), it's just a shame some assemblies turn a blind shoulder to such needs in the body of Christ.


----------



## JB0704

StriperAddict said:


> Certainly to pray and weep... that the one purged from church would repent and return to fellowship.
> Outside of that, social contact might look like identification with the sin I suppose, but we're talking on an extreme case.



I don't want this to turn into another "gay thread," but an example I have to the contrary is my gay friends who "struggle" against it.  Nobody really identifies me as gay because I associate with those who are.  Neither my friend nor I are part of a local church anymore, so there really is nothing to "purge" from.

And, I am not qualified to judge anybody.



StriperAddict said:


> Purging isn't the order of the day if a believer (especially a new Christian) has a sin struggle and is open with his leaders about it, and seeking the Lord to help. In some cases, some may have such a worldly habit pattern that when they come to Christ, much of that doesn't go 'poof' and up n get blown away.



I absolutely agree.  See above example.  I have also dealt with people with drug and alcohol addictions that are quite difficult to break.  If the church had "purged them," how would they ever "help them."  It seems that such action would be a last resort, and as long as a person is trying, then there is hope.



StriperAddict said:


> It doesn't mean he/she is not saved, but it means the body, esp the leaders, ought to take special attention to this one needing help and give some encouragement in the faith.  The ministry of Celebrate Recovery is based on that, providing a place of safety and accountability over habits & hang ups.  BTW, we all got em' (hang-ups, and flesh habits  that is), it's just a shame some assemblies turn a blind shoulder to such needs in the body of Christ.



I understand what you are saying.  I used to go to a church that had a CR ministry.  They did good work.  

But, some "sins" are "cooler" than others.  Everybody (generalizing) wants to help the alcoholics and pornography strugglers.  Nobody (generalizing again)wants to help the gays and "un-cool" middle aged divorcees.  These are the quickest to get cast aside because they don't make anybody feel better about themselves when they are helped.

I volunteered in a ministry for a long time, and led it for a short while, because the "mega-church" I attended refused to invest any time or effort into it because the people there were not real "cool."  They were middle aged, and single, typically divorced.   Trying to live a Christian life in a world which is not agreeable to such a position.  Most of these folks were very lonely, and struggled with an entire range of things.  They would talk your ears off if you gave them a chance.  Most of them just wanted friends.  At that age, after a divorce, a person's entire social structure is demolished.  Everybody they know was friends with the married couple they used to be. Loyalties get split, and the divorcee is often left alone.  I feel very sad for lonely people.   They often compensate for this in very unhealthy ways.

The church staff didn't have time for new friends.  So they were going to shut this ministry down.  These people just weren't cool.  But they had plenty of time for celebrate recovery to help the alcoholics and the porn strugglers.


----------



## rjcruiser

JB0704 said:


> I agree.....but, you know, I have never once seen this practiced in reference to conflict.



Really?

What is un-repentant sin...isn't that conflict with others and ultimately conflict with God?


----------



## JB0704

rjcruiser said:


> Really?
> 
> What is un-repentant sin...isn't that conflict with others and ultimately conflict with God?



I would say it is conflict with God.  Your sin is not my conflict.

But, what I was getting at is that I have never seen two christians have a "conflict" and settle it like in Mathew 18.  In fact, I have seen church staffs refuse to settle internal conflict this way.  They just fire people.


----------



## rjcruiser

JB0704 said:


> I would say it is conflict with God.  Your sin is not my conflict.
> 
> But, what I was getting at is that I have never seen two christians have a "conflict" and settle it like in Mathew 18.  In fact, I have seen church staffs refuse to settle internal conflict this way.  They just fire people.



I've seen it both.

I've seen elders/pastors get fired and I've seen elders/pastors get disciplined out of the church.  Usually, when the either occurs, a new church is formed.  Sadly, too many church attenders are followers of a person, not followers of Christ and therefore, have no Biblical perspective on how these things should be handled.


----------



## JB0704

rjcruiser said:


> Sadly, too many church attenders are followers of a person, not followers of Christ and therefore, have no Biblical perspective on how these things should be handled.



Absolutely agree.  The modern church seems centered around the "head pastor" and not a community of believers.

Nobody seems to care much about the "rules" as long as they are entertained sufficiently once a week.  It's a joke.


----------



## Huntinfool

There you go with that big old wide brush again.


----------



## JB0704

Huntinfool said:


> There you go with that big old wide brush again.



HF, I would like to hear (read) your thoughts on the "tax collector" treatment post.  It is an area of confusion for me.

Does the "lost sheep" apply to those "purged?"  If so, and if they are outside judgement (tax collector treatment), what is a person supposed to do?

As to the wide brush.......is your church structure oriented around a head pastor?  I have visited several churches this year, and have only come across two which are truly "elder led."  The rest are a cult of personality.


----------



## StriperAddict

JB0704 said:


> The church staff didn't have time for new friends. So they were going to shut this ministry down. These people just weren't cool. But they had plenty of time for celebrate recovery to help the alcoholics and the porn strugglers.


 
Our CR helps the divorced get back into fellowship. Frankly, any 'hang-up' qualifies, small , med., large.  It is a shame that in the main church... folks can't come in and be real with the general population. I think that is part of what you are saying.  It's one of the main reaasons folks draw away. Any maturity going on in the body ought not shun those weaker in the faith, who struggle with, lonliness, depression, etc., well, you name it!


----------



## Huntinfool

> As to the wide brush.......is your church structure oriented around a head pastor? I have visited several churches this year, and have only come across two which are truly "elder led." The rest are a cult of personality.



Five elders who lead as a 'unit'.  They meet every Monday night over dinner and there is not a single decision that is made outside of full consensus among them.  

We have a head pastor and he is the only one who is paid staff.  But our elders lead the church together and, having known each of them for over a decade now, I can honestly say that each of them qualifies as "overseer" based on scripture.  

If more churches took the biblical qualifications seriously, I think there would be a whole bunch of elders AND head pastors that should be 'disqualified' to lead a church.  If that were done, a lot of the issues that you point out would go away.


----------



## JB0704

Huntinfool said:


> Five elders who lead as a 'unit'.  They meet evrey Monday night over dinner and there is not a single decision that is made outside of full consensus among them.
> 
> We have a head pastor and he is the only one who is paid staff.  But our elders lead the church together.



Sounds like y'all got it right, and your concept of biblical leadership structures and mine are very similar.


----------



## Huntinfool

> Does the "lost sheep" apply to those "purged?" If so, and if they are outside judgement (tax collector treatment), what is a person supposed to do?



I don't know which particular post that is, but I'll respond to this.

When you break fellowship with someone, the goal should be restoration of the same.  It is not punishment, it is an attempt to get them to reconcile.

You continue to love them.  But you cannot allow them to continue to be part of the body until they are broken over the issue, are repentent and seek restoration.  A little leaven leavens the whole loaf.

So, I believe that what Jesus is referring to is the 'breaking of fellowship' when he says 'treat them like a tax collector'.  I don't think this is an either/or proposition.  You don't have to either break fellowship or love them.  It is possible to do both.  It is also possible to forgive and still not have an ongoing relationship with someone.

When Jesus said that the shepherd left the 99 to look for the 1, I don't believe what he's saying is that he finds the 1 and then forcably picks it up and carries it back to the 99.  He looks for it, but the sheep has a say in whether or not it returns to the flock, doesn't it?

In my mind, and after study, I see "purging" (as your quote calls it) as an act of seeking the 1.  The door should continually remain open and if the 1 demonstrates that he's ready to return to the flock, then he should be brought back in (within reason and I can elaborate with some personal examples if needed on that).

But if someone leaves or is sent away.....they have to do something.  I don't believe the passage calls us to put a rope around his neck and drag him back in.  That would be totaly counter productive and would equate to the church intentionally adding leaven to the loaf.


----------



## JB0704

Ok.  I was referencing post #49.

Where I am a bit lost on this is what we "read" into what's there.  For instance, the "sheep" having a say in the matter.....I think more appropriate example fo returning voluntarily to fellowship would be the prodigal son.   In that example, the father is more than happy to recieve him into fellowship post-repentance.  Also, Jesus had a level of fellowship with tax collectors.......I am not saying "intimacy," but he did break bread with "that crowd."  So, where would the line be?

So, what then is the "body's" responsibility to the "lost sheep?"  Or, what would you define as "breaking of fellowship?"

In either situation, I cannot see how a total shunning would fit the instructions.


----------



## Huntinfool

The line would be outside the doors of the church I suppose.  Jesus is the shepherd, I am not.  I am 1 of the 99 that stayed at home while he worked on the 1.

I'm not saying there is a shunning that takes place and no one is allowed to talk to the person.  Of course there will be people who have relationships with that person....but outside the context of the body of Christ in that church family.  Through them and through the work of the HS, the hope would be that repentence occurs


----------



## JB0704

Huntinfool said:


> The line would be outside the doors of the church I suppose.



The church isn't a building.

Trying to get specific here....where is the line of acceptable fellowship with that individual?  This is why I am confused, because it seems quite vague as to what this "purge" actually means.

Let's say Bob has a porn problem.  The church body escalates everything according to Mathew 18.  Bob refuses to give up the porn, so finally, he is given the "tax collector treatment."

Bob's best friend Bill also goes to that church (is part of the body), and submits to the authority of the elders.  What is Bill's responsibility in the situation?

Does he "purge" Bob from fellowship?  Or, does he have Bob over for dinner, to try and maintain a relationship so he can assist in any way possible?

And.......once we established what we think is correct, how do we know we are right (what is our Biblical reference.....because I believe this one is gray)?

BTW, thanks for participating in this thread.  I have learned a good bit.


----------



## Huntinfool

> The church isn't a building.



it was metaphorical.

Bob, if he struggles with porn and is trying desperately to find a way to get out of that addiction....is not subject to discipline IMO.  I do believe that he subject to Matthew 18-like principles.  The Bible clearly tells us that we should love each other enough to point out errors in each others lives.  But, if he's already aware of the sin and wants out, he will likely welcome being confronted by a brother who loves him and will welcome accountability and help out of that pit.   If he is not "struggling" with it and lives openly with it without remorse, then Bill has a decision make for himself and the church procedes according to scripture.

Obviously Bob will not be part of that body.  Bill can minister to him in any way God leads him to.  Jesus was addressing how the church was to handle these situations (as was Paul).

If it's me, I will offer myself to Bob as a friend.  I believe I can handle it with the help of the HS.  But I would no more expose a brand new believer to Bob than I would my own children to someone who believes that God approves of homosexuality (just to throw that dig in there!).  They are not prepared or ready to defend their faith nor to try to lead Bob back to Christ.

That is one of the primary reasons why the body needs to be protected.  There are varying levels of maturity there and solid, biblical doctrine and theology need to hold preiminance there.  Allowing leaven to remain has the potential to poison.  Individual believers may be lead to remain in relationaship....but he cannot be part of the body.  The body is Christ's bride and it needs to be as unblemished as possible in a fallen world (regardless of what your thoughts are on the church currently).


----------



## JB0704

Huntinfool said:


> (just to throw that dig in there!).



Was that dig at me?


----------



## JB0704

Huntinfool said:


> That is one of the primary reasons why the body needs to be protected.  There are varying levels of maturity there and solid, biblical doctrine and theology need to hold preiminance there.  Allowing leaven to remain has the potential to poison.  Individual believers may be lead to remain in relationaship....but he cannot be part of the body.



I understand what you are saying now.



Huntinfool said:


> The body is Christ's bride and it needs to be as unblemished as possible in a fallen world (regardless of what your thoughts are on the church currently).





You seem very protective of the church.  I wonder if you and I had a conversation on that if we also conclude we held many of the same beliefs.  

You just want to make sure their is not open sin being condoned within the congregation.  I just want to make sure the church is running within "the rules."

If we have to "love the church and all it's warts," shouldn't we also love each other.....with all our "warts."

And, to clarify, that does not mean you have to condone sin.


----------



## Huntinfool

> Was that dig at me?



Nah, just at the 'universally accepted sin'.


----------



## Huntinfool

> If we have to "love the church and all it's warts," shouldn't we also love each other.....with all our "warts."



...as long as the warts are grieved by their sin.




> You seem very protective of the church.



I am.

The church was very protective of me and my family when I needed them most.  I will forever be grateful for that.


----------



## JB0704

Huntinfool said:


> ...as long as the warts are grieved by their sin.



Is the church grieved by it's own sin?  Or is it protected by people who insist we have to love it anway?

Do you at least see the double standard?



Huntinfool said:


> The church was very protective of me and my family when I needed them most.  I will forever be grateful for that.



I have the exact opposite experience.  

And, I think "accepted" is a matter of perspective.  Failure to condemn a person does not mean their sin is "accepted."


----------



## Huntinfool

> Is the church grieved by it's own sin?



I honestly have no idea what that means.

People sin.  Just like the church isn't a building....it doesn't sin.




> Failure to condemn a person does not mean their sin is "accepted."



We never condemn a person.  But failure to condemn their open and unrepentent sin is tantamount to acceptance of it.  If you are of the belief that believers aren't to point out sin simply because they, themselves are sinners, there's not a whole lot I'll probably do to convince you otherwise.

I simply believe that the single most unloving thing I can do is know that you are living counter to God's will for your life and do nothing.


----------



## JB0704

Huntinfool said:


> I honestly have no idea what that means.
> 
> People sin.  Just like the church isn't a building....it doesn't sin.



A church organizes itself around a "head pastor," and diminishes the role of the elders to "advisory board," leaving the church to be lead by a single man.  Unbiblical, at least.  Lot's of folks sit in "churches" on Sunday following some dude's "vision" completely disregarding the fact that there is absolutely nothing in the Bible to support such a structure.

Then, when that structure leads to people being hurt, or funds being misallocated, everybody sits idly by and says "We just trust that God is leading the leaders."  Refusing to do anything about the "wrong" that is happening in their name.....

....I would say the "church body" at that point is complicit in the wrongs.  I equate that to "sin."



Huntinfool said:


> We never condemn a person.  But failure to condemn their open and unrepentent sin is tantamount to acceptance of it.  If you are of the belief that believers aren't to point out sin simply because they, themselves are sinners, there's not a whole lot I'll probably do to convince you otherwise.
> 
> I simply believe that the single most unloving thing I can do is know that you are living counter to God's will for your life and do nothing.



I follow what you are saying.

Here's where I am at with this......I believe the Bible says certain things about certain actions.  When these actions are discussed amongst those who know and trust me, I relate what I believe is said about those actions in a loving manner.  I can do this because I have established trust.

I would never, ever, go up to a man who has no reason to trust my thoughts or opinions and proclaim him to be a sinner.  I got my own junk in my life, and I am no better than anybody else.  The effectiveness of our proclamations really depend on the manner and application, HF.  

And, like I have said before, if there is not a relationship with the church worth salvaging, then losing that relationship has zero effect.  What that tells me is that the church should really focus on the relational aspect before it can assume a leadership role in anybody's life.  If a pastor or elders have never taken the time to get to know a congregant, care for the congregant, love the congregant, why would the congregant care what they think of their "sin."

And that is reason #1,647 that I am absolutely opposed to "mega-churches."  It is absolutely impossible in a large church for a pastor and elders to have a meaningful relationship with the congregants.  When you lose that, you lose a major part of the intended church experience.


----------



## Huntinfool

> A church organizes itself around a "head pastor,"



Everything seems to come back to this statement.  I don't get it.




> I would never, ever, go up to a man who has no reason to trust my thoughts or opinions and proclaim him to be a sinner. I got my own junk in my life, and I am no better than anybody else. The effectiveness of our proclamations really depend on the manner and application, HF.
> 
> And, like I have said before, if there is not a relationship with the church worth salvaging, then losing that relationship has zero effect. What that tells me is that the church should really focus on the relational aspect before it can assume a leadership role in anybody's life. If a pastor or elders have never taken the time to get to know a congregant, care for the congregant, love the congregant, why would the congregant care what they think of their "sin."



I don't think I've said anything that would lead you to believe that I think differently, have I?  If you're not already in relationship with someone, then taking a relationship away has no effect.  

I don't like the guys who stand on street corners condemning strangers through a bullhorn anymore than you do.



> It is absolutely impossible in a large church for a pastor and elders to have a meaningful relationship with the congregants.



I don't believe it's the pastor's or the elders' responsibility to have a meaningful relationship with every single person in the congregation.  That's just as impossible in a church of 200 as it is in one of 20,000.  

Brothers and sisters in Christ are in relationship with each other in the church.  They hold each other accountable and encourage one another.  The Pastor and elders lead....but they cannot hold every single person's hand. 

On the one hand, you lament that churches organize around a pastor, and then on the other you require that the pastor personally be responsible for a relationship with every single congregant?


----------



## JB0704

Huntinfool said:


> Everything seems to come back to this statement.  I don't get it.



It was to set up a hypothetical response to your claim about "churches" not sinning.  It is also a very common unbiblical practice (if the "head pastor" is the final authority) which folks just don't care about.  I don't see anybody taking a "firm stand" against unbiblical leadership structures.



Huntinfool said:


> I don't think I've said anything that would lead you to believe that I think differently, have I?  If you're not already in relationship with someone, then taking a relationship away has no effect..



No.  But it has a lot to do with whether or not Mathew 18 has any effect.  If we want to be "biblical," then there is some work involved.  Many churches do not want anything to do with that work....they just want to "judge sin," and delgate the relationship aspect to congregants (small group leaders, etc.).  That judgement is absolutely worthless unless the person being judged has a meaningful connection.  Meaningful connections take time and effort.  



Huntinfool said:


> I don't believe it's the pastor's or the elders' responsibility to have a meaningful relationship with every single person in the congregation.  That's just as impossible in a church of 200 as it is in one of 20,000.



But, you just said a meaningful relationship was necessary for any of this to have any effect?  We also agree that "discipline" is ultimately the role of the elders.......

How does that work if there is no relationship?




Huntinfool said:


> On the one hand, you lament that churches organize around a pastor, and then on the other you require that the pastor personally be responsible for a relationship with every single congregant?



No.  The elders.  "Personally responsible" is a broad brush here.  If they want a congregant to care about their thoughts and opinions, then they need to reciprocate the trust given.

I have no problem with a "head pastor" as in teacher.  I do have a problem with him having the final say.

HF, I appreciate all the input you have given.  We clearly approach church from different angles, but I like hearing what you got to say.


----------



## Huntinfool

> We clearly approach church from different angles



If I'm honest (and I don't mean this as a shot), it just seems to me that when I read your posts about the church, what I hear is "what's in it for me?".  

What, exactly, is it that keeps you out of the local church?  Is it just that you say you can't find one that is elder led?


----------



## JB0704

Huntinfool said:


> If I'm honest (and I don't mean this as a shot), it just seems to me that when I read your posts about the church, what I hear is "what's in it for me?".



HF, if you knew me, you would understand how far off that statement was.  I used to be a single dad, work a full time job, coach little league, and give over 20+ hours of volunteer time to the local church every week.  I am one of those folks who loves to work / serve.  I never wanted any "leadership" role (even though I found myself in a few that I did not seek or want), but dang if I don't get a kick out of doing the "little things."

I can't prove that to you, but you can either take my word for it or think I'm not telling the truth.



Huntinfool said:


> What, exactly, is it that keeps you out of the local church?  Is it just that you say you can't find one that is elder led?



Start another thread on it, or I can, I would rather keep this one focused on Mathew 18.  But, I will be mroe than happy to discuss it with you.


----------



## Huntinfool

> It was to set up a hypothetical response to your claim about "churches" not sinning. It is also a very common unbiblical practice (if the "head pastor" is the final authority) which folks just don't care about. I don't see anybody taking a "firm stand" against unbiblical leadership structures.



You see me stand against it every day.  You see RJ do the same.  You see lots of others in here who have said the very same thing...the biblical model for church leadership is a plurality of elders.  There are LOTS of christians out there who will tell you the very same thing.

This is what I'm getting at.  You seem to have taken your own personal experience in a few bad situations and apply it universally to churches and to those in them as if what you've experienced is not just the norm but almost universal.  

There are bad ones.  But there are many that are getting it right.


----------



## JB0704

HF, let's start another thread on it.  I think we kept this one on target for a good while, and I think we had some decent discussion as well.  If we are going to discuss my opinions of the church, I would rather make another thread.


----------



## reformedpastor

So, what is the final word and thoughts on Matt 18? One item that stuck out to me as I scanned the thread is a mis-understanding of private and public sins. An example was used of adultery. This is not a private sin! The moment it involved another person, family, etc, it became a public sin and should be addressed publicly. At this point not embarrassing the guilty isn't the goal, they knew it was wrong,  its protecting Christ name and strengthening His flock from future occasions of this sin. The Apostle Paul does this in 1 Cor 5. 

It's irresponsible to treat public sins privately and private sins publicly. Both will have ill consequences. Church discipline is a means of grace. When a case moves to excommunication it is not the original sin that has become the contention, it is the person's refusal to repent and submit to God's word.


----------



## JB0704

reformedpastor said:


> So, what is the final word and thoughts on Matt 18? One item that stuck out to me as I scanned the thread is a mis-understanding of private and public sins. An example was used of adultery. This is not a private sin! The moment it involved another person, family, etc, it became a public sin and should be addressed publicly. At this point not embarrassing the guilty isn't the goal, they knew it was wrong,  its protecting Christ name and strengthening His flock from future occasions of this sin. The Apostle Paul does this in 1 Cor 5.
> 
> It's irresponsible to treat public sins privately and private sins publicly. Both will have ill consequences. Church discipline is a means of grace. When a case moves to excommunication it is not the original sin that has become the contention, it is the person's refusal to repent and submit to God's word.



Can you give an example of a private sin?  I don't want to respond before I understand your parameters as to which makes one private and which makes one public.  A case can almost always be made for the existence of a victim.


----------



## reformedpastor

*Excellent question*



JB0704 said:


> Can you give an example of a private sin?  I don't want to respond before I understand your parameters as to which makes one private and which makes one public.  A case can almost always be made for the existence of a victim.



This is an excellent question and you right. The Lord Jesus uses an example of a private sin in Matt 18 "if your brother offends or sins against you" handle it between the two of you if at all possible. However even this private matter becomes more and more public as it remains unresolved. 

A simple cut and dry case for private sin is dealing with an individual viewing pornography. This would remain private as this man or woman was graciously handled, counseled. For example: I had a situation where I was gealing with an adult addressing various sins and in the process found out that many other folks knew about this persons sins and some where not even christians. In one meeting this person called each one to ask forgiveness and reestablish a good christian testimony. The sin went only as far as it was known and no further. 

As for the adultery case, this sin involves the spouse of the other automatically. A broken marriage covenant. A one flesh relationship that has been violated, this is a serious sin, the 7th commandment is given to protect the family. Even as old english law reflected biblical principles it punished these sins as crimes particularly from the cheating wife's perspective because she could become pregnant with the other mans child and pass it off as her husbands. Thus creating a scandal on an inheritance level. This sin is very destructive. Forgivable, praise God but destructive nonetheless. 

Sins, of a public nature would include with qualification things that are known within the community like public drunkenness (reputation of drunkenness or an episode that resulted from being drunk like a fight ) , reputation of shady business practices, as well as dealing with someone coming out of the closet, saying at a gathering they were homosexual while being a member of a evangelical church. 

Not easy! But there is a reason the church has a terrible reputation among the community. Plus, this is what pastor's should be ready and prepared to do, its just as important and part of their ministry as preaching on Sunday. 

Rough but I hope it helps.


----------



## Huntinfool

> As for the adultery case, this sin involves the spouse of the other automatically. A broken marriage covenant.



So, then, I suppose you don't consider pornography a broken marriage covenant?

Based on your definition, what are we to consider lust (especially in a married man) given Jesus' words about it?  Private or public?


----------



## reformedpastor

In our day and time pastors have to deal with facebook and other public forums. What should be the response when sins are promoted and bragged about on a public site like fb? I have known of situations where one thing was said at a meeting and another was posted for hundreds to read and I am not talking about teenagers. The average age of a fb users is 38. 

The church must minister in the day and time God placed her. 

Any thoughts?


----------



## reformedpastor

Huntinfool said:


> So, then, I suppose you don't consider pornography a broken marriage covenant?
> 
> Based on your definition, what are we to consider lust (especially in a married man) given Jesus' words about it?  Private or public?



Not in the same way adultery is. No, I see viewing pornography as a violation of it but not a breaking of it.  Certainly lust which can lead to....but not on the same level. All sins are heinous but some sins are more heinous that others. King David did sin when we watched Bathsheba bath, which was bad enough but he sinned even more by taking her to himself.


----------



## reformedpastor

Huntinfool said:


> So, then, I suppose you don't consider pornography a broken marriage covenant?
> 
> Based on your definition, what are we to consider lust (especially in a married man) given Jesus' words about it?  Private or public?



Sorry, I just noticed your last question, can you clarify it for me? Not sure I get what your asking.


----------



## reformedpastor

If we define viewing pornography as breaking the marriage covenant we will create a situation that will allow one spouse the right to divorce in that situation. I don't see a warrant or this is scripture. 

Now this sin will have an affect on the marriage, and rightly so. And it can lead to other sins more terrible if not repented of and mortified through Christ. 

Sin is ugly and destructive isn't it? That why the church most take it seriously.


----------



## Huntinfool

rf, we will simply disagree on both of those issues.


----------



## Huntinfool

> If we define viewing pornography as breaking the marriage covenant we will create a situation that will allow one spouse the right to divorce in that situation. I don't see a warrant or this is scripture.



Well, that explains our differences.  I don't believe there is a biblical reason or allowance for divorce...for any reason.  There's a really good thread about permanence from a while ago.

So, it does not create a problem for me biblically speaking.  As I see it, a covenant cannot be violated.  It's either in tact or it is not.  Pornography does not allow divorce any more than physically sleeping with another woman.

Do you distinguish between pornography and online "hookups" that go on all the time?  Does it make a difference that you actually know the person you're online with?  

You see all the potential hangups you run into if you seperate the two, right?


----------



## JB0704

I personally think a married man / woman viewing pornography as a breech of the marital covenant, 'cause of what is involved with such action.

But, I also think that marital issues, however they manifest, are personal until they choose to make it public.  I guess that complicates things a bit.

Are there other "sins" which could be considered private?  For instance, a single man struggling with homosexuality?  "Struggling" being the key word.


----------



## JB0704

Huntinfool said:


> Well, that explains our differences.  I don't believe there is a biblical reason or allowance for divorce...for any reason.  There's a really good thread about permanence from a while ago.



.....and you were wrong in it as well


----------



## Huntinfool

> .....and you were wrong in it as well



Oh pipe down you!


----------



## reformedpastor

Huntinfool said:


> Well, that explains our differences.  I don't believe there is a biblical reason or allowance for divorce...for any reason.  There's a really good thread about permanence from a while ago.
> 
> So, it does not create a problem for me biblically speaking.  As I see it, a covenant cannot be violated.  It's either in tact or it is not.  Pornography does not allow divorce any more than physically sleeping with another woman.
> 
> Do you distinguish between pornography and online "hookups" that go on all the time?  Does it make a difference that you actually know the person you're online with?
> 
> You see all the potential hangups you run into if you seperate the two, right?




I understand, but Christ does give right to divorce. As much as He hates it, He does. 

Sin(s) of thought are not as grievous as sin(s) of deed. 

As far as your other comments maybe you can create another discusion on that topic this maybe considered hijacking this one!?!?! 

We can carry on there.


----------



## JB0704

reformedpastor said:


> As far as your other comments maybe you can create another discusion on that topic this maybe considered hijacking this one!?!?!



..eh, it's my thread.....I'm ok with it going that direction.  Check out the rabbit trails my osas thread went.

I'm just glad folks are talking again.


----------



## Huntinfool

> I understand, but Christ does give right to divorce. As much as He hates it, He does.



No...I don't believe he does.  You'll just have to go read the thread.


----------



## JB0704

Huntinfool said:


> No...I don't believe he does.  You'll just have to go read the thread.



You may want to post a link, I don't think he participated in that one.


----------



## reformedpastor

JB0704 said:


> I personally think a married man / woman viewing pornography as a breech of the marital covenant, 'cause of what is involved with such action.
> 
> But, I also think that marital issues, however they manifest, are personal until they choose to make it public.  I guess that complicates things a bit.
> 
> Are there other "sins" which could be considered private?  For instance, a single man struggling with homosexuality?  "Struggling" being the key word.




Sin can certainly be slippery. Not trying to be trite here at all. But it often comes with entanglements. 

Sins among a married couple are private until they involve others. This can happen by gossip. If one or the other or both have involved others it should be cleared up. 

A man may struggle with homosexuality, this doesn't make him a homosexual. This is private. Once it involves others then the circumstances change. The circle of involvement remains as small as possible only widening as needed to take care to protect Christ name and church.


----------



## Huntinfool

http://forum.gon.com/showthread.php?t=637697&highlight=permanence+view

I think this was the thread.


----------



## reformedpastor

*Question*



Huntinfool said:


> No...I don't believe he does.  You'll just have to go read the thread.




Since you don't see Christ granting divorce wouldn't you consider it ok for a couple when divorced, as we understand it,  to sleep together on occasion? They don't live together, they have separate lives, but every now and then get together?


----------



## reformedpastor

Huntinfool said:


> http://forum.gon.com/showthread.php?t=637697&highlight=permanence+view
> 
> I think this was the thread.



Thanks, I'll look at it.


----------



## Huntinfool

> Since you don't see Christ granting divorce wouldn't you consider it ok for a couple when divorced, as we understand it, to sleep together on occasion? They don't live together, they have separate lives, but every now and then get together?



I have no idea what that means.


If they are divorced, then they are divorced.  They are not married at that point.  Jesus said we should not divorce.  But he knew that some would anyway because it was legal...just like it is today.


----------



## JB0704

reformedpastor said:


> The circle of involvement remains as small as possible only widening as needed to take care to protect Christ name and church.



I agree.

My issue with judgement is the uneven application.  For instance, I know many "great men of God" who have no problem violating game laws.  When a game law is violated, every citizen of the state becomes a victim.  Yet, there are church-based huntin' clubs out there which think nothing of it.

But, toss a gay man in that same church and he gets dragged before the elders.

I think it goes back to determining who is qualified to judge.  We touched on it earlier in the thread.  But, we may be getting into "splinter / plank" discussion here.  But, can we legitimately judge one believer's sin and look the other way for anothers?

If I take my orange vest off in the deer stand, I have just created millions of victims in the state of georgia.  I don't think anybody has ever been publicly judged within a church for such a matter even though it is constant, unrepentant sin.  It seems we like to find easy targets, such as gay folks, and overlook those "sins" that everybody commits, such as game law violations and gossip.

This is why I cringe at the concept of public judgement.


----------



## JB0704

Huntinfool said:


> I have no idea what that means.
> 
> 
> If they are divorced, then they are divorced.  They are not married at that point.  Jesus said we should not divorce.  But he knew that some would anyway because it was legal...just like it is today.



So, are they really divorced if there is no biblical grounds for the act?  Can the bond be broken?


----------



## Huntinfool

Sure it can be broken.  But there is no biblical grounds to initiate divorce IMO.

I even said in the other thread.  Jesus acknowledged that, if one spouse seeks divorce, there is very little the other can do to stop it.  His instructions to believers, however, were that we should not seek it.

He addressed the issue of re-marriage when one spouse does divorce the other and when that is ok and when it's not.  As I said in the thread, grace covers a multitude of sins.

JB, I'm not trying to convince you or tell you that you're a sinner anymore than I am.  I'm just trying to rehash my position for rf.


----------



## JB0704

Huntinfool said:


> JB, I'm not trying to convince you or tell you that you're a sinner anymore than I am.  I'm just trying to rehash my position for rf.





....I was just re-reading that thread, I like you guys a lot more now than I did then


----------



## Huntinfool

I think we're all a little less "empassioned" than we were then.  Probably a good thing, huh?


----------



## JB0704

Huntinfool said:


> Probably a good thing, huh?



For the sake of peace and decent discussions....absolutely


----------



## reformedpastor

JB0704 said:


> I agree.
> 
> My issue with judgement is the uneven application.  For instance, I know many "great men of God" who have no problem violating game laws.  When a game law is violated, every citizen of the state becomes a victim.  Yet, there are church-based huntin' clubs out there which think nothing of it.
> 
> But, toss a gay man in that same church and he gets dragged before the elders.
> 
> I think it goes back to determining who is qualified to judge.  We touched on it earlier in the thread.  But, we may be getting into "splinter / plank" discussion here.  But, can we legitimately judge one believer's sin and look the other way for anothers?
> 
> If I take my orange vest off in the deer stand, I have just created millions of victims in the state of georgia.  I don't think anybody has ever been publicly judged within a church for such a matter even though it is constant, unrepentant sin.  It seems we like to find easy targets, such as gay folks, and overlook those "sins" that everybody commits, such as game law violations and gossip.
> 
> This is why I cringe at the concept of public judgement.





Ok, sad when things like that happen. But I think there is a difference between sin and crime. Its illegale to preaching the gospel in certain countries so if one does it he breaks that law but he has not sinned. But that is another thread for sure. 

I'm against singling anyone out in church. I think its wrong to focus on the homosexual whole the youth group and single adults fornicate. Fornication is a sin. Doesn't matter who its with. 

So on this point I think your right. As far as Matt 7:1-5 goes its not that hard. Both in this example have impaired sight and need help but the one who who needs the most help is judging and because he's is impaired he can't rightly judge. Apply this to the crowd Jesus was addressing. The Pharisee had seriously impaired vision but where the guides. First, addresses yourselves then you "can" have the ability to help your brother. 

Oh, I looked at the marriage thread and way to much for me to look over. Although I disagree with this permanece thing, I didn't see any clear reason from the whole of scripture to support a NO NO on all divorce. I saw attempts that expressed opinons but not addressing the whole counsel of God's word. 

Plus, any who takes a postion that all divorce is wrong is simply not in line with 2000 years of church teaching. So I hope I haven't started trouble? Just enjoying the blog.


----------



## JB0704

reformedpastor said:


> Ok, sad when things like that happen. But I think there is a difference between sin and crime. Its illegale to preaching the gospel in certain countries so if one does it he breaks that law but he has not sinned. But that is another thread for sure.



That is for another thread......I think I'll start one 



reformedpastor said:


> I'm against singling anyone out in church. I think its wrong to focus on the homosexual whole the youth group and single adults fornicate. Fornication is a sin. Doesn't matter who its with.



I knew of churches which were adamantly opposed to many things, but had Sunday school teachers cohabitating instead of gettin' married.  Kind of pushes me away from the whole concept of judgement because there is too much individual bias involved....too many "easy targets" and not a lot of consistency.  My biggest pet peeve is folks being picked on and hurt in the name of Jesus.  That does nto mean I am "anti-judgement."  I am just anti-the current use of the concept.



reformedpastor said:


> Plus, any who takes a postion that all divorce is wrong is simply not in line with 2000 years of church teaching. So I hope I haven't started trouble? Just enjoying the blog.



Aer you orthodox? Also, it's not trouble. I enjoy the discussion.


----------



## Huntinfool

> Plus, any who takes a postion that all divorce is wring is simply not in line with 2000 years of church teaching.



The permanence view of marriage is not new and, honestly, I'm less concerned with what the church has to say than I am what scripture says.

The church has been wrong on many things over those 2000 years.


If you'd like, I'd love to hear your biblical reasoning for the "adultery exception".  Maybe you can add onto that other thread...or just put it here if JB is ok with it.  There is nowhere in scripture, that I see, where Jesus makes an exception for adultery.  A covenant is a covenant.  God has never, in history, made a covenant and then put a caveat on it.  I don't suspect he would allow us to treat a covenant any differently...do you?


----------



## JB0704

Huntinfool said:


> ....or just put it here if JB is ok with it.



I am.


----------



## Huntinfool

I think the world would actually implode if a thread in here actually stayed on subject!


----------



## JB0704

Huntinfool said:


> I think the world would actually implode if a thread in here actually stayed on subject!


----------



## gemcgrew

Huntinfool said:


> A covenant is a covenant.  God has never, in history, made a covenant and then put a caveat on it.  I don't suspect he would allow us to treat a covenant any differently...do you?


Do you distinguish between conditional covenants and unconditional covenants?

Upon death of a spouse, is the living not permitted to marry again?


----------



## JB0704

gemcgrew said:


> Upon death of a spouse, is the living not permitted to marry again?



...oh, for fun, let me add to that......

Can a person who's spouse died and then remarried be an elder?  They are no longer the "husband of one wife" under many folks interpretation.....


----------



## gemcgrew

JB0704 said:


> ...oh, for fun, let me add to that......
> 
> Can a person who's spouse died and then remarried be an elder?  They are no longer the "husband of one wife" under many folks interpretation.....



I would say yes but that again is conditional. How did she die?


----------



## JB0704

gemcgrew said:


> I would say yes but that again is conditional. How did she die?





I don't think you were around when we discussed divorced elders and the "husband of one wife" stuff.  It was fun.  But, everybody seems to look at that verse a little differently.


----------



## Huntinfool

gemcgrew said:


> Do you distinguish between conditional covenants and unconditional covenants?
> 
> Upon death of a spouse, is the living not permitted to marry again?



Not sure I would consider that "conditional".  The covenant ends at death.  While it is in place, it is not to be broken.  God does not caveat covenants, agreed?  He ends them and establishes new ones on occasion.  But he never caveats them.

Death and re-marriage would be ending a covenant and establishing a new one as I see it.  That and, biblically speaking, there is plenty of evidence to support remarriage after death of a spouse.

If you call it conditional, I suppose I could go along with that.


----------



## gemcgrew

Huntinfool said:


> Not sure I would consider that "conditional".  The covenant ends at death.  While it is in place, it is not to be broken.  God does not caveat covenants, agreed?  He ends them and establishes new ones on occasion.  But he never caveats them.
> 
> Death and re-marriage would be ending a covenant and establishing a new one as I see it.  That and, biblically speaking, there is plenty of evidence to support remarriage after death of a spouse.
> 
> If you call it conditional, I suppose I could go along with that.


And I am not disagreeing with you. I do not see any grounds for divorce that aren't also grounds for reconciliation.


----------



## Huntinfool

If marriage is the picture of Christ's relationship with the church, why is there an adultery exception?  God's chosen were compared to adulterors over and over again, yet he never divorced them.

What does it say to the world when something designed after God's relationship with his church allows for breaking that bond for "cheating".  Will God abandon those he's chosen if the "cheat"?  He never has in history even though he's been "cheated on" repeatedly.  His love for his bride has endured multiple affairs.

Jesus is coming back for his bride.  Had adultery been a reason to leave, he'd have left a long time ago.


----------



## reformedpastor

Just because there are grounds for divorce doesn't mean divorce is necessary. The couple may certainly stay together by God's grace work things out. I personally desire this over the other. However, I have seen spouses not able to move on and take the divorce route and were not at fault for doing so. 

HF- you asked for biblical proof. To prove divorce is never allowed or acceptable or not advised or what? 

Plus, your comments about not caring what the church has believed is understandable but not advised. The church as been wrong but I think its been highly exaggerated by folks who wish to have the blessing of Christianity without the church. This kind of exaggeration continues to plague the church and cause riffs and fractures where we should be united. 

Matt 18 address once all fails- tell it to the church. And he isn't talking about the congregation but the elders who have charge over the flock for Christ sake. 

Someone asked me if I am orthodox. Not sure what you're looking for help me with this and I'll gladly answer the question. Orthodox meaning? 

thanks for allowing me to participate.


----------



## JB0704

reformedpastor said:


> Someone asked me if I am orthodox. Not sure what you're looking for help me with this and I'll gladly answer the question. Orthodox meaning?



Part of the Orthodox Christian church.  You would know it if you were.  There is a regular poster on here who is, and he references church history a lot, that's the only reason I asked.


----------



## reformedpastor

Huntinfool said:


> If marriage is the picture of Christ's relationship with the church, why is there an adultery exception?  God's chosen were compared to adulterors over and over again, yet he never divorced them.
> 
> What does it say to the world when something designed after God's relationship with his church allows for breaking that bond for "cheating".  Will God abandon those he's chosen if the "cheat"?  He never has in history even though he's been "cheated on" repeatedly.  His love for his bride has endured multiple affairs.
> 
> Jesus is coming back for his bride.  Had adultery been a reason to leave, he'd have left a long time ago.




Jer. 3:8 She saw that for all the adulteries of that faithless one, Israel, I (God) had sent her away with ta decree of divorce. Yet her treacherous sister Judah did not fear, but she too went iand played the - I AM A POTTY MOUTH -- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -.


----------



## reformedpastor

JB0704 said:


> Part of the Orthodox Christian church.  You would know it if you were.  There is a regular poster on here who is, and he references church history a lot, that's the only reason I asked.



I understand. No, I am not part of the Orthodox Christian Church. But I am orthodox by common theological definition. 
Help?


----------



## rjcruiser

Welcome back rp...been a while.


----------



## JB0704

reformedpastor said:


> Help?



YEa, I was just curious.


----------



## reformedpastor

Huntinfool said:


> If marriage is the picture of Christ's relationship with the church, why is there an adultery exception?  God's chosen were compared to adulterors over and over again, yet he never divorced them.
> 
> What does it say to the world when something designed after God's relationship with his church allows for breaking that bond for "cheating".  Will God abandon those he's chosen if the "cheat"?  He never has in history even though he's been "cheated on" repeatedly.  His love for his bride has endured multiple affairs.
> 
> Jesus is coming back for his bride.  Had adultery been a reason to leave, he'd have left a long time ago.



A beautiful analogy isn't it, but still an analogy. Don't you think you have to be careful not to press an analogy to far? For example if pressed to far we can make the wife obey her husband in everything without exception ever. But there is never an exception for the church's obedience to Christ. 

I agree with your enthusiasm for marriage, I do, I just want to be careful not to press the whole church with someones personal feelings. Christ is the head of the Church and its His prerogative to allow for divorce and He cannot be wrong.


----------



## reformedpastor

rjcruiser said:


> Welcome back rp...been a while.



Thanks for the welcome rj. Hope you and you family are doing well.


----------



## gemcgrew

reformedpastor said:


> Jer. 3:8 She saw that for all the adulteries of that faithless one, Israel, I (God) had sent her away with ta decree of divorce. Yet her treacherous sister Judah did not fear, but she too went iand played the - I AM A POTTY MOUTH -- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -.


My thoughts immediately ran to Hosea and Gomer. Do you have a sermon on Hosea that you could point me to? I am assuming of course, by your screen name, that you are a pastor.


----------



## reformedpastor

Hosea and Gomer is a picture of God's deep mercies for His people and how we are all undeserving of any grace due to our own stubbornness. I don't have a sermon of that book but I have a friend who preached an overview on it and I thought it was excellent. He pastors a church in Conyers, I can find and post that link if you like or I can do it privately.


----------



## gemcgrew

reformedpastor said:


> Hosea and Gomer is a picture of God's deep mercies for His people and how we are all undeserving of any grace due to our own stubbornness. I don't have a sermon of that book but I have a friend who preached an overview on it and I thought it was excellent. He pastors a church in Conyers, I can find and post that link if you like or I can do it privately.


Either way is appreciated.


----------



## gemcgrew

reformedpastor said:


> A beautiful analogy isn't it, but still an analogy.


But the analogy is true in what it typifies.



reformedpastor said:


> For example if pressed to far we can make the wife obey her husband in everything without exception ever.


The analogy remains true. Your example is accomplished in Christ. Is it not?


----------



## reformedpastor

gemcgrew said:


> But the analogy is true in what it typifies.
> 
> 
> The analogy remains true. Your example is accomplished in Christ. Is it not?



Yes it is a true analogy but is not to be used as anything more than what it is, an analogy helping us to understand a profound truth about the relationship between Christ and His church. What the analogy teaches must taken seriously. But using this analogy to support non-divorce is taking it beyond Paul's purpose. 

Not sure by what you mean by that last sentence. 

Here is one link to a sermon on Hosea I enjoyed. 

http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=9140392547


----------



## Huntinfool

> HF- you asked for biblical proof. To prove divorce is never allowed or acceptable or not advised or what?



That Jesus allowed for an "adultery clause".


----------



## gemcgrew

reformedpastor said:


> Not sure by what you mean by that last sentence.


You gave an example of pushing the analogy too far. You said,"For example if pressed to far we can make the wife obey her husband in everything without exception ever."

In keeping your example faithful to the analogy, you are saying "For example if pressed to far we can make the Church obey Christ in everything without exception ever."

Does the Church not obey Christ in everything without exception ever? Of course and it is accomplished by Christ.

My point is that I do not see how an analogy can be pushed too far as long as you remain true to the analogy and what it typifies. I don't know how to explain any better.

To clarify: I am not saying that the analogy can't be misused. 



reformedpastor said:


> Here is one link to a sermon on Hosea I enjoyed.
> 
> http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=9140392547



Thank you. I will listen asap.


----------



## reformedpastor

To HF

Matt. 19:7 They said to him, “Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?”  8 He said to them, “Because of your yhardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. 9 And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.” 

I take the phrase "for sexual immorality" to include adultery. Plus, Paul doesn't contradict Jesus in 1 Cor 7. The Apostles did speak authoritatively and their words were binding on the Church. They were Christ' spokesmen speaking infallibly on matters of church and doctrine. 


To gemcgrew- 

My point was that the church must obey Christ without exception. A husband has authority over his wife but it is delegated and limited. A wife is never obligated to obey her husband if it is a sin. Simple example, one that should stir up discussion, A husband can't command his Christian wife to stay home from church. So my point is this analogy was used to support every thing concerning a marriage and to try and make it that will lead to some whacky views.


----------



## Huntinfool

> To HF
> 
> Matt. 19:7 They said to him, “Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?” 8 He said to them, “Because of your yhardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. 9 And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.”
> 
> I take the phrase "for sexual immorality" to include adultery. Plus, Paul doesn't contradict Jesus in 1 Cor 7. The Apostles did speak authoritatively and their words were binding on the Church. They were Christ' spokesmen speaking infallibly on matters of church and doctrine.



That's the typical passage that is quoted in regards to the exception clause.  Here is why I disagree and why I believe the permanence view.  It seems to me that you left out the context of that passage...and it's very important.  The FIRST question they asked him was what?



> And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one's wife for any cause?”



and then..He answered, 



> “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.”
> (Matthew 19:3-6 ESV)




His answer to the question of whether it was ok to divorce was "no".  Then he clarified based on a follow-up question about why Moses allowed divorce.

Jesus did not give an expection in that passage.  He gave instructions on who could RE-MARRY after a divorce (even though they shouldn't divorce).  He did not make an exception for divorce in the case of adultery.

Jesus said, "because your hearts were hard, Moses allowed it".  BUT....very important BUT....from the beginning it was not so.  He reiterated his position on the matter from the passage I just posted.  God did not institute marriage to end in divorce.  

Moses allowed it because the peoples hearts were hard (and we can get into the details of that later).  God did not intend marriage to end in divorce.

Jesus is speaking concerning the reality of divorce.  It was happening and he was addressing a question about it.


----------



## JB0704

Huntinfool said:


> Not sure I would consider that "conditional".



The pertinent word was "how."  If he killed her, it might limit his qualifications.



Huntinfool said:


> The covenant ends at death.



Your translation of "husband of one wife" does not allow for such an exception. 

After that thread, and more study on the topic, I am more convinced than ever that it was a reference to polygamy.  Sin is forgiven when it's forgiven.  A man can have his house in order, and be divorced.


----------



## gemcgrew

reformedpastor said:


> To gemcgrew-
> 
> My point was that the church must obey Christ without exception. A husband has authority over his wife but it is delegated and limited. A wife is never obligated to obey her husband if it is a sin. Simple example, one that should stir up discussion, A husband can't command his Christian wife to stay home from church. So my point is this analogy was used to support every thing concerning a marriage and to try and make it that will lead to some whacky views.


I understand what you are saying but you have left the analogy when you say "Christ has authority over his Church but it is delegated and limited". Can you now see my point?


----------



## reformedpastor

gemcgrew said:


> I understand what you are saying but you have left the analogy when you say "Christ has authority over his Church but it is delegated and limited". Can you now see my point?



I'm trying to find where I wrote what you are saying? If I wrote it exactly the way you quote it I left out the word "not." Meaning Christ authority is "not" delegated and limited like the husbands is. 

My original point is you should not use Eph 5 to teach that divorce is wrong. At some point I will address HF. Now I know why I set this aside! It can be very time consuming....but I have enjoyed this today.


----------



## Michael F. Gray

Responding in a limited fashion to the cited passage on discipline : the goal you start with when approaching Church discipline is important. It must be restoration. We are taught to submit ourselves one to another, and also to those in authority over us. That submition along with repentence from error will allow restoration of fellowship. In my 37 years of serving Christ, I can only remember one occasion when an offending brother was unrepentant. That gentleman remans away from the Lord to this day. Hope I never see it again. His sin was dark and secret, but as the WORD says, "Be sure your sin will find you out."


----------



## gemcgrew

reformedpastor said:


> I'm trying to find where I wrote what you are saying? If I wrote it exactly the way you quote it I left out the word "not." Meaning Christ authority is "not" delegated and limited like the husbands is.



Your example must remain true to the analogy. The analogy being "marriage is the picture of Christ's relationship with the church". 

You then presented this example, "A husband has authority over his wife but it is delegated and limited".

Holding that example true to the analogy, it would read "Christ has authority over his Church but it is delegated and limited".

We know that is not true, so your example would be false, if also kept true to the analogy.

If you correct it, ("Christ has authority over his Church. It is not delegated and limited"), wouldn't we also be required to correct your example and make it ("A husband has authority over his wife. It is not delegated and limited")?

In summary - I do not see how we can say "marriage is the picture of (or typical of) Christ's relationship with the church" and then say "a husband has authority over his wife but it is delegated and limited".

What am I missing? Anybody? (I have a tendency to lock into something like this)


----------



## JB0704

gemcgrew said:


> In summary - I do not see how we can say "marriage is the picture of (or typical of) Christ's relationship with the church" and then say "a husband has authority over his wife but it is delegated and limited".
> 
> What am I missing? Anybody? (I have a tendency to lock into something like this)



When a man breaks his responsibility to love her as Christ loved the church, is his authority limited?


----------



## reformedpastor

gemcgrew said:


> Your example must remain true to the analogy. The analogy being "marriage is the picture of Christ's relationship with the church".
> 
> You then presented this example, "A husband has authority over his wife but it is delegated and limited".
> 
> Holding that example true to the analogy, it would read "Christ has authority over his Church but it is delegated and limited".
> 
> We know that is not true, so your example would be false, if also kept true to the analogy.
> 
> If you correct it, ("Christ has authority over his Church. It is not delegated and limited"), wouldn't we also be required to correct your example and make it ("A husband has authority over his wife. It is not delegated and limited")?
> 
> In summary - I do not see how we can say "marriage is the picture of (or typical of) Christ's relationship with the church" and then say "a husband has authority over his wife but it is delegated and limited".
> 
> What am I missing? Anybody? (I have a tendency to lock into something like this)





You have made my point about taking an analogy to far. By vertue of creation man's authority is limited, he is not God, and it is delegated. It's was granted to him. 

Here is the link I told you about. 

http://www.sermonaudio.com/search.a...SourceOnly=true&keywordwithin=hosea&x=15&y=11

Doubtful I can respond much today, I have the opportunity to hit the deer woods, so I'm taking advantage.


----------



## gemcgrew

reformedpastor said:


> You have made my point about taking an analogy to far.


Or perhaps the husband is still the head of the wife, who
must obey him in everything as she obeys the Lord himself. The analogy remains true and I question your example.

Hope you have a good time in the deer woods. Should be good movement after this rain settles.


----------



## reformedpastor

gemcgrew said:


> Or perhaps the husband is still the head of the wife, who
> must obey him in everything as she obeys the Lord himself. The analogy remains true and I question your example.
> 
> Hope you have a good time in the deer woods. Should be good movement after this rain settles.



You may interpret Paul's word to mean that the woman is obligated to obey her husband in everything no matter what he ask of her and I don't. The husband is God. 

I take these words to teach that she is to submissive in all things but only as the husband commands that which is according to God's word. Thus, my illustration about a husband not having the "right" to keep his wife from attend worship services. So I think my interpretation takes the analogy seriously and works quite well with the whole of scripture. The man is a head but not the supreme head, only Christ is. 

This seems to be way off topic so let me add this to the discussion on Matt 18. Maybe it will add something to this thread and will help I hope so. 

I pastor a church that practices Matt 18 I have been a member in churches that practice Matt 18 and I can give example after example of grace abounding where sin was manifested. Many think Matt 18 is about micro managing people but it isn't. Matt 18 isn't addressing those daily sins that we all struggle with but that sin which begins affecting others in a way that they are offended, used and hurt. 

In all the cases I have been apart of sin looked like it would win the day and often, in some of these cases, years passed before softening took place but in God's time grace won out. Folks have been restored to friends, family, church and they wouldn't change the lessons learned through those dark times because in that they came to Christ. Some for the very first time and others again in obedience. I have been edified and so has my family to see such grace work among imperfect and needy people. Myself and family included. I can also add that I have never met a person who was disciplined who thought they deserved to be disciplined-all of them and I mean all of them see no guilt on their part. NEVER! And I never met a person who had been disciplined and was ready to repent be rejected and shunned by the church but received with open and loving arms. NEVER! I cringe to hear of cases where the church does act unloving it bothers me but throwing out this means of grace because its abused in some cases is unwise and can only lead to weak churches. A classic example of throwing the baby out with the bath water I think. 

True discipline is an act of love and a means of grace. Just my two cents. 

I've enjoyed the participation but feel I have muddied the waters a bit, I didn't mean for that happen but I think it did. 

Oh, by the way I had a good day in the woods. Nothing killed just a good day!


----------



## StriperAddict

RF, great post, especially...



reformedpastor said:


> In all the cases I have been apart of sin looked like it would win the day and often, in some of these cases, years passed before softening took place but in God's time grace won out. Folks have been restored to friends, family, church and they wouldn't change the lessons learned through those dark times because in that they came to Christ. Some for the very first time and others again in obedience. I have been edified and so has my family to see such grace work among imperfect and needy people. Myself and family included. I can also add that I have never met a person who was disciplined who thought they deserved to be disciplined-all of them and I mean all of them see no guilt on their part. NEVER! And I never met a person who had been disciplined and was ready to repent be rejected and shunned by the church but received with open and loving arms. NEVER! I cringe to hear of cases where the church does act unloving it bothers me but throwing out this means of grace because its abused in some cases is unwise and can only lead to weak churches. A classic example of throwing the baby out with the bath water I think.
> 
> True discipline is an act of love and a means of grace. Just my two cents.
> 
> I've enjoyed the participation but feel I have muddied the waters a bit, I didn't mean for that happen but I think it did.


 
No mud I see here, thanks for the attention on these things.


----------

