Church discipline

[theophilus]

n 1 Corinthians 5:3-5 Paul gave instructions about how to deal with a member of the church who was living a sinful lifestyle and showed no inclination to repent of it.

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.

He was to be expelled from the church and from fellowship with other Christians but the purpose of this action was to make him see the seriousness of his sin so that he would repent of it.  Apparently it was effective because in 2 Corinthians 2:5-11 he told the church to restore to fellowship a sinner who had been expelled and later repented.

Now if anyone has caused pain, he has caused it not to me, but in some measure—not to put it too severely—to all of you. For such a one, this punishment by the majority is enough, so you should rather turn to forgive and comfort him, or he may be overwhelmed by excessive sorrow. So I beg you to reaffirm your love for him.

For this is why I wrote, that I might test you and know whether you are obedient in everything. Anyone whom you forgive, I also forgive. Indeed, what I have forgiven, if I have forgiven anything, has been for your sake in the presence of Christ, so that we would not be outwitted by Satan; for we are not ignorant of his designs.

It isn’t certain whether both of these are referring to the same person, but whether or not that is the case the message is clear.  A professed Christian who lives in sin is to be expelled from the church but is to be restored to membership if he repents of his sin.

In his letters to Timothy Paul tells of two other people who were disciplined in this way. In 1 Timothy 1:19,20 Paul says,

Some have made shipwreck of their faith, among whom are Hymanaeus and Alexander, whom I have handed over to Satan that they may learn not to blaspheme.

What was the result of this action? In 2 Timothy, when warning against false teachers, Paul says,

Among them are Hymenaeus and Philetus, who have swerved from the truth, saying that the resurrection has already happened. They are upsetting the faith of some.
2 Timothy 2:17-18 ESV

Hymanaeus is still continuing in his sinful ways but Alexander is no longer his partner, so evidently he must have repented.

Why did the two respond differently? One possible explanation is that Hymanaeus wasn’t really a believer but only professed to be one while Alexander was really a Christian. Being barred from the fellowship of other Christians was a real punishment for Alexander and it led him to repent, while Hymanaeus wasn’t bothered by the lack of fellowship and simply found a new partner to help him spread his false teaching. Church discipline not only brings sinning Christians back to God but also exposes those in the church who aren’t really Christians at all.

2 Timothy 4:14 mentions someone named Alexander the coppersmith who had harmed Paul.

Alexander the coppersmith did me great harm; the Lord will repay him according to his deeds.

It is unlikely that this was the same Alexander mentioned in 1 Timothy. The fact that Paul calls him “the coppersmith” shows that Paul and Timothy knew more than one Alexander and the mention of his occupation showed which one he was talking about. Paul said that this man had harmed him but said nothing about him departing from the faith. Instead of delivering him to Satan Paul left his punishment to God.  Apparently he was someone who had never professed to be a believer so Paul didn’t respond to him the same way he did to the other Alexander.

 

[ItinerantPreacher]

Good observation. It goes very much against the grain of today's Christianity, because in context, what your first example (Corinthians) is showing is church discipline for moral reasons.

Your second example however, is church discipline for doctrinal reasons, specifically eschatology.  There is a hue and outcry if someone is disciplined for no longer agreeing with a doctrinal statement. There is a commotion if a doctrinal statement contains a section on specific eschatology. It is however, scriptural
Romans 16:17  Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.

In context, Paul is alluding to a pre-millenial position. (ie the resurrection is yet to come).

My question expands upon your post. If I am to discipline for doctrinal reasons, reasons that according to the scriptures include eschatology, how then can I "fellowship" or "work co-operatively" with others whose doctrine on important issues is completely different? Doctrines like Eternal Security, the Gifts (specifically the sign gifts) of the Spirit, The Nature and Mode of Baptism, or The Person and Work of Christ. How can I co-operate with someone who if they were a member in my church, we would have to scripturally discipline? Scriptural discipline that includes not socializing with, not praying with, not "communing" with, and they have been turned over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh?

 

[biscuit1953]

Good observation. It goes very much against the grain of today's Christianity, because in context, what your first example (Corinthians) is showing is church discipline for moral reasons.

Your second example however, is church discipline for doctrinal reasons, specifically eschatology.  There is a hue and outcry if someone is disciplined for no longer agreeing with a doctrinal statement. There is a commotion if a doctrinal statement contains a section on specific eschatology. It is however, scriptural
Romans 16:17  Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.

In context, Paul is alluding to a pre-millenial position. (ie the resurrection is yet to come).

My question expands upon your post. If I am to discipline for doctrinal reasons, reasons that according to the scriptures include eschatology, how then can I "fellowship" or "work co-operatively" with others whose doctrine on important issues is completely different? Doctrines like Eternal Security, the Gifts (specifically the sign gifts) of the Spirit, The Nature and Mode of Baptism, or The Person and Work of Christ. How can I co-operate with someone who if they were a member in my church, we would have to scripturally discipline? Scriptural discipline that includes not socializing with, not praying with, not "communing" with, and they have been turned over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh?

I believe you need to be careful.  There is a difference in joining with Christians "of like faith" and making broad statements implying that those who disagree on certain doctrines are lost or reprobate.  Charles Spurgeon was a dyed in the wool hard core 5 point Calvinist and yet held great respect for John Wesley.  He didn't consider other denominations to be the enemies of Christ.  It would be wrong for someone like me who believes strongly in the eternal security of the saints to go to some other church who understands the scriptures differently and berate them for not holding to my understanding.  I can still love them as brethren in Christ while still holding to my beliefs. 

Concerning eschatology, there are many different interpretations concerning the rapture and how things will work out in detail.  Even though I strongly believe in a pre-trib rapture, I know godly men who don't.  In      2 Timothy 2:17,18 Hymenaeus and Philetus were probably arguing that only the spirit was resurrected, not the body (implying that death was truly the final victory).  Paul had to deal with some who taught that immoral behavior was acceptable since the physical body had no place in God's plan for the redeemed so they could sin as they wish (cf. 1 Cor 6:13-20).  On the opposite extreme Paul faced those that practiced asceticism and avoided a lifestyle that was highly legalistic, avoiding sex, drinks and many other things that God intended to be good.

Christians should be careful to love and forbear with others that may disagree on non essential doctrines, if they have a proper view of the person and work of Christ.  While Christians will never completely get along on earth that doesn't mean they can't love one another.

 

[ItinerantPreacher]

Good observation. It goes very much against the grain of today's Christianity, because in context, what your first example (Corinthians) is showing is church discipline for moral reasons.

Your second example however, is church discipline for doctrinal reasons, specifically eschatology.  There is a hue and outcry if someone is disciplined for no longer agreeing with a doctrinal statement. There is a commotion if a doctrinal statement contains a section on specific eschatology. It is however, scriptural
Romans 16:17  Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.

In context, Paul is alluding to a pre-millenial position. (ie the resurrection is yet to come).

My question expands upon your post. If I am to discipline for doctrinal reasons, reasons that according to the scriptures include eschatology, how then can I "fellowship" or "work co-operatively" with others whose doctrine on important issues is completely different? Doctrines like Eternal Security, the Gifts (specifically the sign gifts) of the Spirit, The Nature and Mode of Baptism, or The Person and Work of Christ. How can I co-operate with someone who if they were a member in my church, we would have to scripturally discipline? Scriptural discipline that includes not socializing with, not praying with, not "communing" with, and they have been turned over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh?

I believe you need to be careful.  There is a difference in joining with Christians "of like faith" and making broad statements implying that those who disagree on certain doctrines are lost or reprobate.  Charles Spurgeon was a dyed in the wool hard core 5 point Calvinist and yet held great respect for John Wesley.  He didn't consider other denominations to be the enemies of Christ.  It would be wrong for someone like me who believes strongly in the eternal security of the saints to go to some other church who understands the scriptures differently and berate them for not holding to my understanding.  I can still love them as brethren in Christ while still holding to my beliefs. 

Concerning eschatology, there are many different interpretations concerning the rapture and how things will work out in detail.  Even though I strongly believe in a pre-trib rapture, I know godly men who don't.  In      2 Timothy 2:17,18 Hymenaeus and Philetus were probably arguing that only the spirit was resurrected, not the body (implying that death was truly the final victory).  Paul had to deal with some who taught that immoral behavior was acceptable since the physical body had no place in God's plan for the redeemed so they could sin as they wish (cf. 1 Cor 6:13-20).  On the opposite extreme Paul faced those that practiced asceticism and avoided a lifestyle that was highly legalistic, avoiding sex, drinks and many other things that God intended to be good.

Christians should be careful to love and forbear with others that may disagree on non essential doctrines, if they have a proper view of the person and work of Christ.  While Christians will never completely get along on earth that doesn't mean they can't love one another.

- Posting from my tablet, hope this comes out ok.
Ok, let me clarify. First of all, I do not believe that someone who may differ from me in their belief for instance on eschatology, or eternal security are automaticaly lost or reprobate. I admire Wesley, Booth, Gypsy Smith, and Uncle Buddy Robinson among others. I certainly do not consider them or the denominations they represent(ed) the enemies of Christ. Now, when you change the Person and Work of Christ, things change.

It would be prudent to note that Spurgeon and Wesley never worked together to my knowledge.

I agree with you, it would not be prudent for me to go to a church that differed on these types of doctrines. But I believe by the same token that it would be wrong for us to work together. Deciding not to work with them is not the same as counting them my enemy at all.

However, regarding the view of eschatology, how do you then explain Hymaneus being turmed over to Satan? According to the scriptures, Hymaeus did not say that the ressurection was spiritual vs physical (ie JW doctrine), Hymaneus said the ressurection was already past. Amillenialism. Not post/mid/pre trib. (I am pre-trib btw), but what we commonly recognize as amillenialism. According to the scriptures, this matter was what caused Paul to "turn him over to Satan", a term conected with church discipline in Corinthians.

I think it hard to come to any other conclusion.

 

[theophilus]

Perhaps this statement is the key. "They are upsetting the faith of some."  If someone is teaching something that causes some to doubt the truth of the Bible that is grounds for discipline.  If it is merely a disagreement that doesn't cause doubts then it might show a need for instruction but not for discipline.

 

[ItinerantPreacher]

Perhaps this statement is the key. "They are upsetting the faith of some."  If someone is teaching something that causes some to doubt the truth of the Bible that is grounds for discipline.  If it is merely a disagreement that doesn't cause doubts then it might show a need for instruction but not for discipline.

I came on just now to clarify a couple things and saw your post.

I would agree with that as well. It would appear that they could not keep silent on the issue, and it caused doubt and confusion in the church. In my opinion, the difference is in whether or not the person has a teachable spirit. That does not however change the nature of my earlier post. We are not to ignore doctrine to promote fellowship. Sate that publicly, and one is branded maliciously a "Fundy", or mean spirited or some such thing.

The truth is, separating along doctrinal lines is just acting in accordance with the scriptures, and those doctrinal lines are narrower that just Jesus and salvation.

I posted earlier that Wesley and Spurgeon didn't work together, and I was right,  Wesley was dead before Spurgeon was born. I felt I needed to correct my misleading statement, or error.

 

[subllibrm]

I posted earlier that Wesley and Spurgeon didn't work together, and I was right,  Wesley was dead before Spurgeon was born. I felt I needed to correct my misleading statement, or error.

LOL!

I saw your post and realized your error. I so wanted to point out that Jack Hyles and the Apostle Paul never worked together either. Of course, their separation would have been over the KJV! ;D

 

[ItinerantPreacher]

I posted earlier that Wesley and Spurgeon didn't work together, and I was right,  Wesley was dead before Spurgeon was born. I felt I needed to correct my misleading statement, or error.

LOL!

I saw your post and realized your error. I so wanted to point out that Jack Hyles and the Apostle Paul never worked together either. Of course, their separation would have been over the KJV! ;D

lol. Just goes to show I am still completely capable of sticking my foot in my mouth. Sometimes both feet at the same time.