Shunning

[pom2014]

and unrepentant sin

Like the sin of divorce without adultery?
Like remarriage when the spouse still lives?

Stones glass houses.

I'll shun when the people in power are shunned as well.

pom,

As Christians, we accept the Bible as inspired by God. Are you suggesting that Paul was not inspired and that not all of the NT is the word of God? Im just trying to be clear about where you stand on revelation.

Paul is well noted for giving his opinion. That of why he prefaced passages with I say not the Lord.

But Paulists will say all he said is God. So that's why we have evil things like remarriage and divorce for any reason under the sun.

And intolerance of women and those considered undesirable. Not once, not ONCE did our King stipulate that the new order of priests can ONLY be men. Never.

But here comes Paul limiting who the holy spirit can ordain. No no no. This was to be the order of Melchizedek not Levi.

The church is wrong. And people taking Paul above the King are in error.

I stand with you on that question, wormwood. Paul even said he was Christ's ambassador and spike in his stead. So unless its one of those circumstances where Paul spoke by permission, Paul's words carry the same weight as jesus' just as when the prophets sais, " thus saith the Lord".

Them we have to agree to disagree. No man NONE has authority like the King.

I will not follow a mere human when I have the King of all.

 

[JimParker]

the three strikes policy doesn't allow for the types of slow transitions many people need.

Paul was referring to people who were not interested in any transition and who's behavior was detrimental to the congregation.

Being "excommunicated" is never a permanent situation. Anyone who will repent is always welcome. And no one would be excommunicated unless they had clearly demonstrated that they had no intention of repenting.

That's what Christ said; "The kingdom of God is at hand. Repent and believe the Gospel." Whoever repents is accepted. It has been that way since the time of Cain and Able.

Excommunication is an extreme measure. It is only used when all else has failed.

Here's Jesus' teaching:

Mat 18:15-17 "If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector."

So, we're talking about intransigent sinners, not "slow learners." Even a slow learner is listening and moving toward the kingdom of God with hes/her heart open to Jesus' teaching.

 

[Wormwood]

But Paulists will say all he said is God. So that's why we have evil things like remarriage and divorce for any reason under the sun.
And intolerance of women and those considered undesirable. Not once, not ONCE did our King stipulate that the new order of priests can ONLY be men. Never.

Well, its clear where you stand on the authority of the New Testament. I suppose if we cannot agree on what constitutes God's word, than there isn't much room for discussion here on how we understand the will of God. As a side note, Mark and Luke were both Paul's traveling companions who shared in his ministry and message. I think its absurd to suggest that Paul's understanding of Jesus was foreign to the life and teaching of Jesus as we see it in the NT (since Mark and Luke wrote two of the Gospels!). Your views on the Scriptures are unfounded and decidedly unorthodox and heretical when compared to historical Christianity.

 

[pom2014]

Historical christianity aka church dogma having nothing to do with The King but what men want.

Nowhere did Jesus say divorce is ok for any reason other than adultery. Put Paul said its ok and men wanted that so went with Paul.

Neither did Jesus say that remarriage unless the spouse.died. But historical christianity allowed it so its ok with God.

Nor was he against women as priests, but Paul was so the church was too.

The list goes on and on. Counter to the King.

Acceptable rebellion endorsed by historical christianity.

Hence why the church is not the Kings church.

 

[Wormwood]

Well, I'm not going to derail the OP to go on a tangent with you about whether or not 2/3 of the NT is evil and anti-Christ. If you want to start a thread on this issue go for it. Let's keep this discussion focused on the topic at hand.

Jesus himself tells his disciples to stop fellowshipping with someone who will not respond to the rebuke of the church leadership or the church body. Thus, I think Jesus disagrees with you on this topic.

 

[aspen]

I cannot control my hate. I got my dogs a new home be at I worked so much. Now I am fired

 

[HammerStone]

Glad we could clear that up. My dad comes from an Amish(ish) background, so when I see the term "shunning", it means something very specific to me.

Good deal. I don't see this being an issue with the typical even Reformed Baptist or Presbyterian when they use the term or the language similar to the term. However, I do know there are some conservative circles where shunning would be akin to the Amish style, and would never sanction that. We have to want to speak into an unbelievers life (or a fallen away believer if you happen to be Arminian like me), as I would see anything close to shunning as unbiblical. When Paul said hand those fallen away ones over, he also included the clause about them hopefully being restored.

To me, this is the last best chance style option when all other avenues have been exhausted. All of the references to it in the Bible indicate that it was the result of a major issue and not that Joe was a few minutes late to Sunday School and the church service.

I cannot control my hate. I got my dogs a new home be at I worked so much. Now I am fired

Aspen, not to go all self-help on you, but you first have to want to change, and then you absolutely need to seek out accountability with a person who will keep track of you and your battle with a godly eye. I know you have a lot on your plate given that you've probably only shared a portion of it here in this community, but I know that you can overcome this and I see the manifestations of the desire there. You really must seek out that person who you can unload every little deep and dark secret on that can keep track of you and counsel you in a godly way.

You may not be able to control that hate, but you have a Savior that can through putting godly and caring people in your life.

 

[Wormwood]

Aspen,

I would simply remind you that there are other forces at work in your life than the people and circumstances around you. The enemy would seek to ruin you through these trials whereas God is desiring to refine and purify your faith. Trust the Lord that as you hope in him, he will strengthen and bless your life. (cf. Joel 2:25-27)

My thoughts and prayers are with you.

 

[River Jordan]

Good deal. I don't see this being an issue with the typical even Reformed Baptist or Presbyterian when they use the term or the language similar to the term. However, I do know there are some conservative circles where shunning would be akin to the Amish style, and would never sanction that. We have to want to speak into an unbelievers life (or a fallen away believer if you happen to be Arminian like me), as I would see anything close to shunning as unbiblical. When Paul said hand those fallen away ones over, he also included the clause about them hopefully being restored.

To me, this is the last best chance style option when all other avenues have been exhausted. All of the references to it in the Bible indicate that it was the result of a major issue and not that Joe was a few minutes late to Sunday School and the church service.

:)