Grounds for excluding a brother (name a few)

That is certainly a good example of a need for church discipline. I have got to ask, was this guy married?

 

If it weren't so serious, this would be fertile ground for jokes and wisecracks. Imagine what Letterman or Leno could do with that.

 

Willful sin is any sin that has been confronted and will not be repented of and forsaken. It is unfortunately true that most churches simply don't practice the Biblical restoration process anymore. That is sin on the part of church leadership when we just allow people to wander off into sinful lifestyles without dealing with it Biblically.
We have had to go public 4 times in the last 3 years (after following the preceeding steps of Matt. 18). One for heresy, one for I guess you would say non-attendance, but a little beyond that to some real attitude issues. One for immorality, and one a leader who had a long hidden history of anger and wife abuse. 2 led to dismissal, one to open repentance, one is still in progress (sort of).
Mark Dever and Al Mohler both have some great stuff online on church discipline.

 

Meant to say that in the Matthew 18 process, the original sin almost becomes irrelavant and what you end up dealing with is a stubborn, unrepentant heart.

 

...which, at its essence, is at the root of all sin, eh?

Man, does God ever know what He's talking about!

 

It is so simple. Do what the Bible says and let the Spirit lead. There is an answer to every situation. It is a sin charged to the local church for either not disciplining when there is an obvious need according to the Bible and the model in Matthew, or on the other hand, bringing frivolous charges against someone that results in an unjustified dismissal and unnecessary repentance.

The standards for discipline are from the Lord Jesus, not us. We merely carry them out. There is no excuse for going to either extreme. A local church with immature Christians in leadership positions is a dangerous thing, not only in the past, but more importantly now. We are autonomous local churches, and that demands wise, mature Christians.

 

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

Tom, what if a true "redemptive" approach is rebuffed by the offender?

 

Hey Aqualung....remember those lyrics?

 

http://preceptaustin.org/hebrews_1026-27.htm#10:26


if you scroll down you will discover the answer to your question

 

Fair question. If rebuffed, Jesus says in Matthew 18 to treat him as a heathen and a publican. Each congregation has to decide how that treatment expresses itself.

But up to that point, the ultimate goal of church discipline is to reclaim the offender.

 

Titus 3:9-11, "But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and strife and disputes about the Law, for they are unprofitable and worthless. Reject a factious man after a first and second warning, knowing that such a man is perverted and is sinning, being self-condemned."

 

I don't think this is referring to a Christian. I believe it is talking about someone who rejects the Gospel. It doesn't say they rejected Christ after He has become their Savior. It says they rejected the "knowledge of the truth." The come to a point where they understand the Gospel, but they refuse Christ's sacrifice and continue on in sin.

 

You know Brother, that chapter never entered my mind when I typed these *reasons* for exclusion. I know that Matthew ch. 18 is the "role model" by which we exclude a Brother or Sister.

The thing that gets me is this: it's so much easier to kick someone when they are down, than to extend them a hand and pick them up. Here is what the bible says to do:

Gal. 6:1 Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted.

2 Bear ye one another's burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ.

Whenever we see a Brother or Sister stumble, we need to pray for them, that God would deal with them in a way that they see how wrong they really are, and that they will repent of their evil. At the end of the day, all this falls in their lap. They did this, and they need to repent.

Too many times we jump to conclusions. Just because you see someones vehicle in front of a bar, doesn't mean they are partaking of the "spirits"....*hic* They may have a child who works there, or maybe was there partying, and they needed a ride home(and you wouldn't leave your child stranded at a bar; no one would, who is a real parent). However, too many times, when their car was spotted there, the "gossip hounds" hit the phones and spread the word that Brother or Sister "So-and-So" was at the bar drinking!! And then look what happens!! Complete nonesense. So if we look at this rationally, and according to Matthew 18, it gets pretty hard to exclude someone. Most of the time, the ones at fault, will eventually tell someone in the church to take their name off the churchbook.

i am I AM's!!

Willis

 

I bolded and underlined a sentence to address this, Brother. I heard a story, according to two or three people(so I venture to guess it's true), that a preaching Brother was excluded because he had to file for bankruptcy(sp?). He had gotten some bad tips, and maybe even was "milked" out of some money, and to keep from losing everything, he filed bankruptcy to save his house. Well, that assoc. got "wind" of it(maybe just his home church), but anyways, at the end of it all, he was excluded. He went to another asoc. that wasn't in their correspondence. When he died, the assoc. that he was kicked out of, printed his obituary!! There is another Brother on here who might know more on this than I do, but this is the way I heard it. They said when God got ahold of him, he was a preaching man!! Here is a prime example of being kicked while their down, and not extending them a hand to pull him up.....this was sad!!

i am I AM's!!

 

As I said last week, the tragedy of this is twofold. One, in a case like this, the whole congregation sinned for engaging in such nonsene. Worst of all is to demand an unnecessary repentance for refellowshipping. I wish I had the ability to go back to some of those meetings and put a stop to it. I would do the same with a Board of Deacons that thought they ran the church.