Sproul's advice on dealing with son's live in girlfriend.

[Biker]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R._C._Sproul,_Jr.

In January 2006, Sproul and the Session of Saint Peter Presbyterian Church, its governing body, were deposed from office[6] by the RPCGA under charges including "abuse of authority in an inexcusable manner" against several families, alleged illegal use of the ARP's tax identification number, planting a church without authority, and practicing paedocommunion


Lovely guy...

 

[PappaBear]

Questions like this is where Bible study, not just a cursory reading of a passage, comes in handy.

First, the issue is not one of mere mechanical church discipline.  Paul says in verse 2, "And ye are puffed up..." and in verse 6, "Your glorying is not good."  Regarding fornication, history is unfortunately filled with societies justifying sin.  In this case, they were not merely ignoring the sin of this young man, they were proudly displaying their toleration of it -- glorying in it.  Paul reminds them in the latter part of verse 6 that sin is like yeast, it spreads among whatever it contacts.  The next part of verse 2, he is counseling an attitude of mourning (you know, like at a funeral where someone is considered to have died).

Secondly, it is not about a specific type of fornication.  The young man used as an example is indeed guilty of egregious sin, but Paul is stepping back and giving more general directions on how to deal with a range of sins, particularly that of fornication (porneia in the Greek, root where we get the word "porn") which he uses 7 times in 1Cor 5 & 6, four times in the immediate context of 1Cor 5, alone.  He gives 3 lists, starting with a list of 4 sins committed by the lost world.  He then adds 2 more sins for the one who is "called a brother."  Lastly, he takes that same list of 6 sins and expands it to 10 and declares them lost. 

A little background is needed here.  This is the Corinthian Church, one in the midst of a society filled with lewdness and wickedness.  So social (or legal) acceptance is not an excuse for lack of discipline.  Also, it is a Gentile church, and as we learned from Acts 15, fornication is one of the offenses normally accepted by Gentile culture that is prohibited in Christian practice.  So the way they were raised is not a valid excuse for lack of discipline in such matters.  Furthermore, Christ Himself will condemn the toleration of fornication teaching that it is alright, as well as outright seduction in the churches in Rev 2:14 & 20.  Furthermore, He will call for repentance from fornication and condemn even the unrighteous for it in Rev 2:21,22 and Rev. 9:21.

Of the 3 lists given, 4 sins are common to all:  fornication, covetous, idolatry, and extortion.  (1Cor 5:10)  This original list is defined by Paul as "of this world."  In 1Cor 6:9,10, Paul will expand this list to fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, effeminate, abusers of themselves with mankind [Gk arsenokoites compound word meaning male coitus], thieves, covetous, drunkards, revilers [loidoros, same translated "railer" in 5:11] and extortioners.  This list is explicitly stated to be the unrighteous who shall NOT inherit the kingdom of God, and the type that the Corinthian believers may have been in the past, but were now washed, sanctified, and justified from.  Sandwiched in-between these two lists is a list of 6 sins that one who has a profession of faith in Christ and is "called a brother" may commit in 5:11.  They are fornicator, covetous, idolater, railer, drunkard and extortioner.  This list specifically demonstrates that "Christians" indeed can commit many of the same sins as the lost.  The only way you can tell the difference is to test their "testimony" by excluding them from fellowship and withdrawaing the mutual protection from Satan afforded by a body of Christians.  If a so-called Christian is living like a lost man, you do not continue to nurture them, but treat them like a lost person.  If they return, the discipline has worked and restores the weak.  If they continue out into the world, it confirms their actual lost condition.

The final point of study is that this discipline was effective for the fornicator in 1Cor 5.  We read about his repentance and directions for restoration in 2Cor 2:5-11 and 2Cor 7:8-12.  In other words, it may appear to many in this world to be “hard hearted,” but it is the most effective means of examining his faith and the eternal state of his soul.  As 1Cor 11:32 will indicate, current judgment has the purpose of avoiding eternal condemnation with the world.

As for the man in Sproul’s article, RC assumes that there was a profession of faith.  The original question does not state that.  He is rightly with the scriptures in 1Cor 5 when he states that we cannot see the heart in order to get assurance that the son in question is saved or to confirm our doubts.  And as he said, those who commit such gross and heinous sin have every reason to doubt their salvation, if indeed there ever was a profession of it.  But even if there is no profession of faith, or there is, recall that the very first list stated that we should not “company with fornicators” (1Cor 5:9).  Later, after the 3rd list of those who will not inherit the kingdom of God, Paul will continue to deal with the issue of fornication as a sin not intended for the body (1Cor 6:13) and which we should flee from, and which is a sin of the flesh (body), not a spiritual issue (1Cor 6:18).  We flee it not just among Christians, but also from among the Gentile world and customs, and from all those who would so abuse their bodies.

Jude 7 informs us that Sodom and Gomorrah, neither noted as godly or “Christian” cities, suffered the vengeance of eternal fire for giving themselves over to fornication.  It is further stated that they are a warning example to us.  This is the kind of sin that spreads and affects all it is around.  If we want to prevent the infection of such sins, it is right to not only rebuke it within our churches, but also within our communities, and our families.  It is a grave error to tolerate such sin, even if the customs of current society accommodate it.  Such sexual sin has advanced into our Churches and into the ministry (many strong men have been slain by her) because "free love"  has degenerated into social acceptance.  If instead of appeasing such a sinful culture, we would reprove these unfruitful works of darkness, then we would suffer much less trouble among our own ranks.  There can be no double standard where we okay it in the world, but condemn it only in the Christian realm, or if some preacher says about his son who has preyed upon the congregation the LORD holds him accountable son, "But this is my son, and regardless of his sin, we love him."  Love him, yes; but be honest about the disastrous effects of such sin and avoid its spreading influence upon others.

 

[Ransom]

Lovely guy...

Those cursed church-planting paedocommunionists! They're a worse version of Hitler.

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=PappaBear]Secondly, it is not about a specific type of fornication...[/quote]

Actually, it was a very specific sin. The one Paul was calling out was sleeping with his step-mother.

Ironically, Paul explicitly states that his prohibition about he is not referring to those outside the church. So, concerning Sproul's advice, it would depend on two differing things: whether the young man in question was, in fact, part of the church and the previously mentioned (excellent) point, whether or not the couple in question considered theirs to be a legitimate, binding relationship (i.e. a marriage).

And, if you want to look at chapter 6 as well (as it appears you do), Paul also explicitly states "...and such were some of you." We are all guilty before God, and I don't know a personal alive (Deity excluded) who has managed to figure out how to live without sin. Personally, I'd rather exhibit the grace that God has shown me than the wrath that He should show me.

[quote author=PappaBear] But even if there is no profession of faith, or there is, recall that the very first list stated that we should not “company with fornicators” (1Cor 5:9)...We flee it not just among Christians, but also from among the Gentile world and customs, and from all those who would so abuse their bodies.[/quote]

I know! It's such a good thing Jesus didn't bother getting His hands dirty with that adulterous woman!

[quote author=PappaBear]Jude 7 informs us that Sodom and Gomorrah, neither noted as godly or “Christian” cities, suffered the vengeance of eternal fire for giving themselves over to fornication.  It is further stated that they are a warning example to us.  This is the kind of sin that spreads and affects all it is around.  If we want to prevent the infection of such sins, it is right to not only rebuke it within our churches, but also within our communities, and our families.  It is a grave error to tolerate such sin, even if the customs of current society accommodate it.[/quote]

Other passages tell us that S & G were also destroyed for practicing injustice, letting the poor starve, and a general lack of compassion or empathy. Based on those passages, I should avoid a lot of church gatherings too.

 

[PappaBear]

Ironically, Paul explicitly states that his prohibition about he is not referring to those outside the church.

Actually, Paul explicitly wrote in a previous letter (which is not a part of the preserved scriptures) that we should not company with fornicators.  In this letter, he specifically states "Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world," meaning this is not an absolute prohibition of all contact.  This is a place where the differing expressions of different versions will fail you, some seeming to indicate in error this prohibition was meant only for other professed Christians.  The meaning of not to company with fornicators was in no way meant to limit that statement to only those fornicators within the church.  Rather, as Barnes would say, "but that you should not so associate with them as to be esteemed to belong to them, or so as to be corrupted by their example. You are not to make them companions and friends."  (xref Barnes, Hodge, Jamieson Fausset & Brown, and Lightfoot)

And, if you want to look at chapter 6 as well (as it appears you do), Paul also explicitly states "...and such were some of you." We are all guilty before God, and I don't know a personal alive (Deity excluded) who has managed to figure out how to live without sin. Personally, I'd rather exhibit the grace that God has shown me than the wrath that He should show me.

And how, pray tell, did you miss the past tense of "such were some of you"?  Especially with the reference which I made to the very next verse where we are washed, sanctified and justified from such sins?  The list in chapter 6 states very dramatically that these unrighteous "shall not inherit the kingdom of God" and yet you are contradicting that by saying they do and churches as routine matter of course should be filled with such?!?  <sad head shake>

I know! It's such a good thing Jesus didn't bother getting His hands dirty with that adulterous woman!

I know that you are likely referring to the adulterous woman of John 8 that was flung before Christ.  I would certainly hope that you are not metaphysically channeling the idea that Christ consorted with that woman prior to that event in a deep friendship, nor that you would ignore His "go and sin no more" summation to her.  But I truly hope that you are referring to Mary Magdalene!  For in that event, the LORD Jesus tells a pertinent story about who is forgiven much and who loves much to Simon the Pharisee after that man wrongly assumed Mary was the same impure demon-possessed woman he had always known.  With someone who espouses many of the beliefs you have in your posts, I cannot help but wonder of how much you consider yourself to have been forgiven of?  What on earth could such as you have ever repented of?  That story that Christ told Simon specially points out the flaw you keep ducking.  Each of these "sinners" you refer back to repented of those sins, and their lives were changed in a positive way, multiplying their love for Christ Who is "holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners."  Trying to claim Christ in either event was "getting his hands dirty with that adulterous woman" is only an artful dodge, and one that is none too pretty.

[quote author=PappaBear]Jude 7 informs us that Sodom and Gomorrah, neither noted as godly or “Christian” cities, suffered the vengeance of eternal fire for giving themselves over to fornication.  It is further stated that they are a warning example to us.  This is the kind of sin that spreads and affects all it is around.  If we want to prevent the infection of such sins, it is right to not only rebuke it within our churches, but also within our communities, and our families.  It is a grave error to tolerate such sin, even if the customs of current society accommodate it.

Other passages tell us that S & G were also destroyed for practicing injustice, letting the poor starve, and a general lack of compassion or empathy. Based on those passages, I should avoid a lot of church gatherings too.
[/quote]
Really?  Is that in Jude 7?  Or does Jude 7 more categorically refer to "S & G" giving themselves over to fornication?  Are you posing some sort of Biblical contradiction?  Or is it your your attempt to wrest the scriptures to your own destruction?  If other un-named passages of scripture do indicate what you say, does it negate the truth that Jude says Sodom and Gomorrah suffered the eternal vengeance of fire specifically for giving themselves over to fornication and going after strange flesh?  Funny that Jude says nothing about suffering eternal vengeance of fire for practicing injustice, lack of compassion, or ignoring the starving.  However, he does speak of compassion, saying that such compassion should make a difference.  It is found in verse 22, and fairly well says succinctly what I have said verbosely and repeatedly on this thread.  You should look it up, sometime.  But more than likely you will ignore that as easily as you have most every other scripture.  C'est la guerre!

 

[Biker]

"How then ought your family to treat him? The more important question is how ought the church to treat him. When your son professed Christ he surely came under the authority of a local expression of the body of Christ, the church. The elders there vowed to watch out for your son’s soul, and so now have a duty to bring to bear the grace of church discipline in his life. He should be called before the elders to repent, to turn from his sin. If he refuses, he should be barred from the Lord’s Table and from the table of those who belong to the Lord. He should be excommunicated, disfellowshipped. He should, that is, no longer be welcome at your own table as well."

He just happens to "slip in" the last sentence with no scripture backing it up. And the scripture provided prior all had to do with steps taken between a sinning church member and his own church. Paul's letters to the churches upon how to handle a sinner member within the church.

And it gets worse...

This son, after fornicating/cohabitating is to become "a mere relative" to his own father.  Then next he compares this to the Prodigal Son parable, a parable of Jesus.

“But while he was still a long way off, his father saw him and was filled with compassion for him; he ran to his son, threw his arms around him and kissed him" Luke 15:20

Please read the story of the Prodigal Son.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=luke+15:11-32&version=NIV

Now that story, told by OUR LORD, is exactly how you handle this as a Father. You don't need to twist church discipline when our LORD JESUS has already given us the exact situation, a sinning son, and how to handle that. Those Snakes that advocate the opposite need to turn to Christ. Breaking up families, deeming them "mere relatives' with such a flippin attitude...these are sociopaths.

 

[Biker]

Our lord can and does...save sociopaths.
Luke 15: 1-7
Now the tax collectors and sinners were all gathering around to hear Jesus. 2 But the Pharisees and the teachers of the law muttered, “This man welcomes sinners and eats with them.”
Then Jesus told them this parable: 4 “Suppose one of you has a hundred sheep and loses one of them. Doesn’t he leave the ninety-nine in the open country and go after the lost sheep until he finds it? 5 And when he finds it, he joyfully puts it on his shoulders 6 and goes home. Then he calls his friends and neighbors together and says, ‘Rejoice with me; I have found my lost sheep.’ 7 I tell you that in the same way there will be more rejoicing in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who do not need to repent.

Luke 15:11-32

New American Standard Bible (NASB)
The Prodigal Son

11 And He said, “A man had two sons. 12 The younger of them said to his father, ‘Father, give me the share of the estate that falls to me.’ So he divided his [a]wealth between them. 13 And not many days later, the younger son gathered everything together and went on a journey into a distant country, and there he squandered his estate with loose living. 14 Now when he had spent everything, a severe famine occurred in that country, and he began to be impoverished. 15 So he went and hired himself out to one of the citizens of that country, and he sent him into his fields to feed swine. 16 And he would have gladly filled his stomach with the [c]pods that the swine were eating, and no one was giving anything to him. 17 But when he came to [d]his senses, he said, ‘How many of my father’s hired men have more than enough bread, but I am dying here with hunger! 18 I will get up and go to my father, and will say to him, “Father, I have sinned against heaven, and [e]in your sight; 19 I am no longer worthy to be called your son; make me as one of your hired men.”’ 20 So he got up and came to [f]his father. But while he was still a long way off, his father saw him and felt compassion for him, and ran and [g]embraced him and kissed him. 21 And the son said to him, ‘Father, I have sinned against heaven and in your sight; I am no longer worthy to be called your son.’ 22 But the father said to his slaves, ‘Quickly bring out the best robe and put it on him, and put a ring on his hand and sandals on his feet; 23 and bring the fattened calf, kill it, and let us eat and celebrate; 24 for this son of mine was dead and has come to life again; he was lost and has been found.’ And they began to celebrate.

When Biological or Spiritual Sons (or Daughers) comes home, it's time to **Celebrate**

25 “Now his older son was in the field, and when he came and approached the house, he heard music and dancing. 26 And he summoned one of the servants and began inquiring what these things could be. 27 And he said to him, ‘Your brother has come, and your father has killed the fattened calf because he has received him back safe and sound.’ 28 But he became angry and was not willing to go in; and his father came out and began pleading with him. 29 But he answered and said to his father, ‘Look! For so many years I have been serving you and I have never [h]neglected a command of yours; and yet you have never given me a young goat, so that I might celebrate with my friends; 30 but when this son of yours came, who has devoured your wealth with prostitutes, you killed the fattened calf for him.’ 31 And he said to him, ‘Son, you [j]have always been with me, and all that is mine is yours. 32 But we had to celebrate and rejoice, for this brother of yours was dead and has begun to live, and was lost and has been found.’”

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2015:11-32&version=NASB 

 

[rsc2a]

Ironically, Paul explicitly states that his prohibition about he is not referring to those outside the church.

Actually, Paul explicitly wrote in a previous letter (which is not a part of the preserved scriptures) that we should not company with fornicators.

Got it....so a hypothetical command from a questionable letter that is definitely not part of Scripture is to be what we base our decisions on, not the example of Jesus from the gospels.

[quote author=PappaBear]In this letter, he specifically states "Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world," meaning this is not an absolute prohibition of all contact.  This is a place where the differing expressions of different versions will fail you, some seeming to indicate in error this prohibition was meant only for other professed Christians.  The meaning of not to company with fornicators was in no way meant to limit that statement to only those fornicators within the church.[/quote]

Pretty much every other translation would support the understanding of the passage I have supplied, as would the KJV once you stop trying to force additional meaning into ordinary words to force a proof-text. I think I'll stick with the common interpretation.

[quote author=PappaBear][quote author=rsc2a]And, if you want to look at chapter 6 as well (as it appears you do), Paul also explicitly states "...and such were some of you." We are all guilty before God, and I don't know a personal alive (Deity excluded) who has managed to figure out how to live without sin. Personally, I'd rather exhibit the grace that God has shown me than the wrath that He should show me.[/quote]
And how, pray tell, did you miss the past tense of "such were some of you"?  Especially with the reference which I made to the very next verse where we are washed, sanctified and justified from such sins?  The list in chapter 6 states very dramatically that these unrighteous "shall not inherit the kingdom of God" and yet you are contradicting that by saying they do and churches as routine matter of course should be filled with such?!?  <sad head shake>[/quote]

You don't think the church is filled with those who are sexually immoral, greedy folks, slanderers, idolaters, drunks and thieves (along with quite a few more categories)? I don't know what church you're part of, but every church I've even been in has broken people in spades. Luckily for them (and me!), we serve a God that fixes those who are broken. In fact, He'll keep fixing and changing and transforming us until our glorification. (The theological term for this would be "sanctification". )

[quote author=PappaBear][quote author=rsc2a]I know! It's such a good thing Jesus didn't bother getting His hands dirty with that adulterous woman![/quote]
I know that you are likely referring to the adulterous woman of John 8 that was flung before Christ.  I would certainly hope that you are not metaphysically channeling the idea that Christ consorted with that woman prior to that event in a deep friendship, nor that you would ignore His "go and sin no more" summation to her.  But I truly hope that you are referring to Mary Magdalene![/quote]

I was more referring to the fact that Jesus regularly socialized with people that would completely scandalize the local Baptist church (or a host of others for that matter). 

[quote author=PappaBear]For in that event, the LORD Jesus tells a pertinent story about who is forgiven much and who loves much to Simon the Pharisee after that man wrongly assumed Mary was the same impure demon-possessed woman he had always known.  With someone who espouses many of the beliefs you have in your posts, I cannot help but wonder of how much you consider yourself to have been forgiven of?[/quote]

I consider myself to have been forgiven of everything I have ever done that separates me from the one, holy God. 

[quote author=PappaBear]What on earth could such as you have ever repented of?[/quote]

Are you wanting a confession? Because the list is quite long. In fact, I try to repent daily as I continue to fall short of what I have been called to be.

[quote author=PappaBear]That story that Christ told Simon specially points out the flaw you keep ducking.  Each of these "sinners" you refer back to repented of those sins, and their lives were changed in a positive way, multiplying their love for Christ Who is "holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners."  Trying to claim Christ in either event was "getting his hands dirty with that adulterous woman" is only an artful dodge, and one that is none too pretty.[/quote]

Those "sinners" were actually sinners, no pretty quotes. And, I'm not ducking anything...I'm just not going to force the idea that everyone Jesus ever ministered to ended up regenerate followers of Him.

[quote author=PappaBear][quote author=rsc2a]Other passages tell us that S & G were also destroyed for practicing injustice, letting the poor starve, and a general lack of compassion or empathy. Based on those passages, I should avoid a lot of church gatherings too.
[/quote]
Really?  Is that in Jude 7?  Or does Jude 7 more categorically refer to "S & G" giving themselves over to fornication?[/quote]

Sure, that passage does. Other passages give other reasons. It's generally a good idea to let all of Scripture inform your understanding, not just selected bits and pieces.

[quote author=PappaBear]Are you posing some sort of Biblical contradiction?  Or is it your your attempt to wrest the scriptures to your own destruction?  If other un-named passages of scripture do indicate what you say, does it negate the truth that Jude says Sodom and Gomorrah suffered the eternal vengeance of fire specifically for giving themselves over to fornication and going after strange flesh?[/quote]

No. No. And no.

I'm just reading the Bible as a whole...funny that one who said "this is where Bible study, not just a cursory reading of a passage, comes in handy" and also accused me of  "ignor[ing] a lot of scripture in favor of your perceived final authority of humanism" would completely ignore pretty significant passages about S&G when discussing their fall.

[quote author=PappaBear]Funny that Jude says nothing about suffering eternal vengeance of fire for practicing injustice, lack of compassion, or ignoring the starving.[/quote]

Jude doesn't have to...it's already been stated. You might as well argue that it's funny Jesus didn't say anything about there only being one God. It makes about as much sense.

[quote author=PappaBear]However, he does speak of compassion, saying that such compassion should make a difference.  It is found in verse 22, and fairly well says succinctly what I have said verbosely and repeatedly on this thread.  You should look it up, sometime.  But more than likely you will ignore that as easily as you have most every other scripture.  C'est la guerre![/quote]

So you were considering the other S&G passages when you made your statement about them not being destroyed for the very reason those passages mentioned? Oh yeah...you forgot to tell me about the salvific value of baptism (or child-birth if you prefer).

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

Paul absolutely singles out this issue of immorality.
Such that isn't even practiced among the pagans.
This was an extreme case singled out for an extreme discipline.
Wouldn't feel the need to defend Sproul....but don't think Paul ever intended obesity to be a cause for church discipline.

i;m not so sure about that.....  i don;t think all issues of immorality are equal..... and i think the sin of gluttony is a lot more closely related to the sin of incest with ones mother in law... (the sin paul was condemning in 1st corinthians)....  than it is with the practice of having an intimate, and apparently permanent, relationship with a girlfriend or boyfriend.. that only requires the signing of a few states documents to make it a legitimate marriage .... ...like others have said the act of taking someone as a husband or wife... and living with them as such before God... is already considered common law marriage in many places.. ... with or without the states stamp of approval......  but incest with ones mother in law is not acceptable in any society..... no matter where you travel on this earth.... it;s taboo even among the most isolated primitive peoples you can find....  who never even heard of paul.......

i find it interesting sometimes how fundamentalists can broad brush so many different types of sin together as if they are all the same.....(when they are clearly not)....  yet manage to single out a few of their favorites and claim those few are not quite as bad as all the others are....... they frequently do that with the sin of gluttony as if it;s some harmless thing God winks at while condemning all other sins....  or as if the sin of gluttony is different because it doesn;t hurt anybody else but the practitioner thereof....... (plus a few extra chickens that end up in the fryer ahead of their appointed time.... ).. .

but gluttony is not an isolated sin that only affects the person practicing it.....  it has long lasting repercussions with ripple effects that will spread out and that many generations removed will continue to feel even years later after the glutton has died.......  ....gluttony was the sin of eli .... his obesity and what happened to him because of his size and girth are well documented in scripture.....but it;s effects didn;t stop with him... he used his 2 sons hophni and phineas to help him obtain the fattest pieces of raw meat from the offering fire.... making himself fat off the offering of the people...  ..... ..hophni and phineas then changed the burnt offering process altogether to assure they could take even more meat from the altar... and then went on to become 2 of the most evil and sexually immoral people ever mentioned in the Bible.... singling out and raping young girls who came to the altar in the temple to serve God..... they ended up destroying the lives of thousands..... which were.. in effect... also destroyed by eli... who taught his sons to place their own appetites above service to God.... ....

Again, I don't understand your point or the issue you're taking here.
Paul isn't broadbrushing anything or anybody.he's singling out an excessive sin.

I think some miss the point of church discipline...to restore and salvage the brother in question. NOT to punish, chastise or humiliate.

The Scripture is clear, here. Ahhh, poetry! 

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

Now, as to a family situation, there is room for disagreement and discussion.

Seeing that the command was given to not sit at a meal with one who professes Christ yet lives in unrepentant immorality, does not the burden of proof lie with those who argue that it does not pertain to family members?

I would tend to agree with you, since the family member in the article seems to be a church member as well....but a distinction can be made between church policy and family relationships.

 

[PappaBear]

but when i read something like the sproul articile i see a father who feels humiliated by his sons actions and seeks a way to justify humiliating him in return....(by attempting to apply extreme church discipline to a family matter)...  and from what i can see that;s a common reason behind much of the examples of extreme discipline carried out by fundamentalist parents against their children... .... (ie... sending a daughter away to a hezipha house / rollof type institution...)....

I have the most profound respect for the wisdom of DeepSix.  And you, Aleshanee, were one of the posters that attracted me here because I appreciate the common sense of your posts, and your frequent humor that is normally kind instead of mocking as others do.

Today, we live in a permissive and promiscuous society, one that revels in having "no rulez."  However, with a Holy God, we DO have rules.  The question asked of Sproul is very simply,

[size=12pt]... but kicking family members out of a house (unless their are legal issues and a law has been broken).... does many times more harm then it does good.......  and i firmly believe that if my own dad had followed the advice of people like sproul with me, my  brothers and my sister, at least of 2 of us would be dead today and the others apostate.....

The question is what it is, nothing more.  As referenced elsewhere on this thread by several, there are details lacking.  There is no indication that this son is living at home, or that the father is preparing to send him off to some disciplinary home somewhere.  Some want more details before they decide.  I figure Sproul, on the other hand, was attempting to give some Bible education to those Christians who read his blog on how to deal with a progressive social sin that we are seeing repeated all too often today, not just a single specific individual's problem.  And this is right, because the Bible does not include details such as whether it was in Texas or Arizona, an intimate or intended permanent relationship, a son in church or out of church, or any such like in making its judgment.  What I see is more likely a man who has gotten saved later in life after his children have grown and left the house.  He loves the LORD and loves his church and is asking how to relate his new found convictions to issues within his family, who very likely do not share his faith.  So undoubtedly, we are looking at the question through two very different lenses. 

and i also know paul didn;t broadbrush anything or anybody......  you, pappabear and mr sproul are doing that by throwing anything and everything related or even suspected to be related to sexual immorality into the same category as the very serious sin paul was specifically addressing..... and broadbrushing it all as "fornication"..... while pretending other sins don;t really matter by comparison

It is not a pretense or a broadbrushing approach, Aleshanee.  It is my attempt to stick with the topic, which is fornication.  The question Mr. Sproul answered was NOT, "what should our relationship be with our child and their gluttony?" nor was it related to lying, nor different music styles, or any such thing.  Our progressive society is enjoying the use of more comfortable terms that are politically correct for describing sin so that sodomy becomes a "gay lifestyle."  The word "fornication" is quickly passing off the scene, and you rarely hear it spoken any more in modern English.  Fornication is sexual sin outside of marriage.  This man's son was living with a girlfriend outside the bonds of holy matrimony.  That is fornication.  So the topic is how to deal with a son who is a fornicator, not something else. Sproul went to 1Cor 5 because at issue there is a fornicator.  Some of the details of that particular instance have some posters on this thread attempting to make it a very narrow application for discipline.  I have given my reasoning in another post as to why I would disagree with that view.  Paul is using that instance as an example of discipline, and follows on in the chapter by giving general instruction to the Corinthian believers about when and how to discipline.  Each time he gives a list, fornication is at the top.  Not just incestuous fornication nor only fornication with a mother-in-law (Note that in 1Cor 5, it was not his MIL, but his step mother).  In discussing a man that is called a brother in verse 11 and commits either of 6 named sins (fornication, covetous, idolater, railer, drunkard or extortioner), we are told in verse 13, "put away from among yourselves that wicked person."

I would recommend that you sometime look up how often in the New Testament that fornication is brought up.  Hebrews is a book written for knowledgeable Christians and contains a string of warnings about judgment.  In the last chapter, very near the close of the book, it says in Heb. 13:4, "Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge."  That word "whoremongers" is translated from the exact same Greek word used for "fornicators" in 1Cor 5 & 6.  This sin has a promised judgment by God, and is one that Paul says should be judged by our churches.

Back in 1Corinthians, Paul would expand on the sin of fornication.  I would like to direct your attention to 3 verses. 

1Cor 6:18  Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body.

Here, Paul is making your comparison of fornication with other sins.  He singles out fornication, which is the topic of Sproul's article, and says that it is something we should flee away from, and unlike every other sin in that it is uniquely against one's own body.  There is no accommodation in that passage such as only in the case of incest or if it is family.

1Cor 7:2  Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.

Here, the answer given to a sensual culture that desires an intimate and permanent relationship is to make the commitment of marriage.  Fornication, seeking that relationship outside of marriage, is not something to be excused or justified, but to be avoided.  That is why we have had the institution of marriage since the Garden of Eden.  It should not be thought that because America trashes matrimony in the 21st century that it should be done away with altogether, especially by Bible-based Christians.

In 1Cor 10, Paul is going to inform them that the stories of the OT are intended to be our examples so that we do not lust after the same things that brought judgment upon Israel, and he is going to mention a handful of sins.  Idolatry, tempting Christ, and murmuring are there.  But in verse 8 he will deal with fornication.

1Cor 10:8  Neither let us commit fornication, as some of them committed, and fell in one day three and twenty thousand.

He is referring to Israel's stumbling by committing fornication with the daughters of Moab in Numbers 25:1-9.  Notice that he is not merely applying this truth to an individual, but mentions the large number that were judged and addresses it just like the warnings in Hebrews, "Neither let US..."  Though the world may be going sex mad, we Christians should not be so permissive. Please further notice that this fornication he warns about was not about incest or sodomy or anything else that would be a qualifier, but just plain old simple "fornication" (whoredom, sexual sin outside the bonds of marriage).

...... even so far (in pappabears case) as pulling out extra Biblical writings attributed to paul, but not proven or accepted as scripture, to try and make his point.......  how is that any different than using the apocrypha or new age writings to determine doctrine?..... ....

Excuse me?  What extra Biblical writings?  I apologize, did not mean it to happen, but you unfortunately seem to have fallen into the trap intended to catch rsc2a.  I often paste the scriptures I refer to in my posts because I want people to see the Biblical perspective I am talking about.  But in my posts to that poster and a couple of others, I started using run-in Biblical references that many Christians familiar with their Bible would recognize as from the Word of God, instead of pasting the entire verses and setting them off as I usually do.  The intent was to provide the rope with which they normally hang themselves, their responses frequently displaying their lack of Bible familiarity and often outright contradiction to clear scripture.  (And it worked)  Apparently, instead of reading 1Cor 5 which I referred to in my post, he only read my post and insinuated that my reference was a "hypothetical command."  The reference was actually from 1Cor 5:9, but he didn't bother to read the passage before hastily responding.  So, he made the following huge error.

Ironically, Paul explicitly states that his prohibition about he is not referring to those outside the church.

Actually, Paul explicitly wrote in a previous letter (which is not a part of the preserved scriptures) that we should not company with fornicators.

Got it....so a hypothetical command from a questionable letter that is definitely not part of Scripture is to be what we base our decisions on, not the example of Jesus from the gospels.

Apparently, you made the same mistake and only read his post.  I apologize, I did not really expect that to happen.  I may have to rethink that method from now on.  I had not intended to reply to him since he hung himself well (so I thought) in his post.  Anyway, we know that there are 3 Corinthian letters that Paul wrote.  How do we know that?  Paul said so in inspired and preserved scripture.  There is 1Cor and 2Cor in our Bibles.  The following verse is from the FIRST Corinthian epistle, and refers back to a previously written epistle.  Remember, this is NOT 2Cor referring back to 1Cor.

1Cor 5:
9 ¶  I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:
10  Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world.
11  But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.

We know from Paul's own mouth that there was a Pre-Corinthians letter.  Since that letter was not preserved for us, we mostly have no idea of what was in it except what Paul tells us was in it in the Bible book of 1Cor..  He unequivocally states that he wrote "not to company with fornicators" in that first letter.  That is not extra-Biblical writings, or mere attributed quotes to Paul, and 1Cor 5:9 is very definitely proven and accepted as scripture.  The point I was making in my post to rsc2a was that Paul did not expect to need to make such a command regarding Christian brothers, and had not intended such a command be taken to the nth degree.  That is why he uses the words in verse 10 "Yet not altogether ..."  Verse 11 lays it out that his command not to keep company with brothers who are guilty of this range of sins is an update to the one given in the previous letter.  No, we do not know all that is in that Pre-Corinthians epistle, but we know for sure that there was a command "not to company with fornicators."  That is not apocryphal or new age writings.

.... all we know is that pappabear and reverend sproul have spoken.... .. so let it be written.... so let it be done.... 

Now that hurt!  I liked the movie The Ten Commandments with Charlton Heston and Yul Bryner.  But I honestly attempt to gather my thoughts and make my posts based on what God says, and has written, more than upon cable tv reruns, the ravening postings of a heretic, or the wild imaginations of a sleepless night.  What do we know?  Sproul answered a simple question from a father about how to address fornication in his family.  He chose to elevate his answer to applications of church discipline.  Maybe because that was the most plain Biblical explanation of how to deal with fornication, or perhaps because he saw the destruction that comes as the sins we permit in our homes or society does worm its way into our churches.  Whatever the reason, I know assuredly that the weight of Biblical directive is that fornication -- all fornication, not just certain types or details -- is wrong.  I have never read where any nation giving itself over to such rampant fornication has ever come back from the precipice.  History is full of examples such as Ancient Egypt, Greece, Rome, The French Revolution, and Germany which destroyed themselves from within.  Your posts have concerned me.  I hope that it is not so that the best and brightest of our Christian youth are falling blindly into such moral and social decay. 

Ahhh, well.  I have not meant to upset you.  I do apologize if I appear to you as too arrogant and hard.  I don't make the rules, just commissioned to present them all, the whole counsel of God. 

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

If 19 isn't too young to go to hell, then it isn't too young to learn that sin brings separation and death.  What kind of example would a parent set by saying that "Oh, we don't have to worry about the effects of your sin until you're, like, 45?"

Sproul (jr here) is spot on with this one.

Indeed

 

[Biker]

Thanks to Junior Sproul for removing that false teaching from cyberspace...

Good for you.

 

[Biker]

Link replaced.

He's Baaaack!
Snake in the Grass