Can believers be excommunicated? Some, like Faith, say this about excommunication:

You said: "Really Gail--Jesus excommunicates true believers who are *called out* and are found in Him? Verses Please?? Or are you talking about an unbeliever found within a local assembly? And please, excommunicate.., Jesus said that? The same Jesus who died for us even while we were still sinners would so easily excommunicate someone for---what? Unbelief? Why would He bother to even come in the first place if that were truly His attitude?

First, let's define "excommunication" (per Merriam' Dictionary):

1. an ecclesiastical censure depriving a person of the rights of church membership; 2. exclusion from fellowship in a group or community

Now, let's see what scripture says:

Matthew 18:15 IF your brother sins, go and reprove him in private; if he listens to you you have won your brother (Yep, that definitely someone IN THE CHURCH)

Matthew 18:17 And 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 GENTILE AND A TAXGATHERER. (Sounds like ex communicato to me).

Then of course, there is the supreme example of the member of the Corininthian Church who was having an adulterous affair.

1 Cor. Chap 5: 5 I have decided to deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of his flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.

5:9 I wrote you in my letter not to associate with immoral people. I did not at all mean with the immoral people of this world, or with the covetous and swindlers, or with idolaters; for then you would have to go out of the world. But actually I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he should be an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler -- not event o eat with such a one.

Verse 12 For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Do you not judge those who are within the CHURCH? But those who are outside, God judges. REMOVE THE WICKED MAN FROM AMONG YOURSELVES.

Yep, that's definitely what it means to be excommunicated, Faith. Someone who falls into sin and refuses to repent gets the boot!

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), January 31, 2005

Answers

To the top please

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net.), January 31, 2005.

Nope., it doesn't quite work Gail.

I don't see excommunication here. No brother is being removed from God's body.

Unbelievers are being removed from the earthly institution called church. We know that the weeds grow along with the wheat until that last day--but only the wheat is in Him.

REMOVE THE WICKED MAN FROM AMONG YOURSELVES.

-- (faith01@myway.com), January 31, 2005.

IF your -- brother -- sins, go and reprove him in private; if he listens to you you have won your brother.

Tell me, Faith, the word surrounded by dashes (3rd from the left), is that word b-r-o-t-h-e-r, or do you see u-n-b-e-l-i-e-v-e-r?

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), January 31, 2005.

I'm seeing a middle ground here though. Suppose a man in the church is discovered having an adulterous relationship. Those closest to him follow the instruction Jesus gave in Matthew 18. Unfortunately, he does not listen to them, even unto the church. Now, the elders of the church reason that he cannot be allowed to worship in the assembly as long as he remains unrepentant. His deeds are wicked.

Now, here's where the difference comes between churches who believe they are the true church and ones who believe they are only one expression of the true church:

True churches recognize that church membership is given upon salvation. Church membership is not a card you fill out, but being a baptized member into Christ's body. Therefore, being removed from the church means the member no longer is a part of the body, hence, has fallen from grace. It IS possible that the man was an imposter all along, but this is not usually the case. This blood-bought brother has been removed.

Denominational churches believe that church membership is a privilege given after a person's personal salvation, and the practice of entering varies. Some churches require a vote of the elders, some just require baptism. Anyway, they view church membership as only a physical assembly and not necessarily a reflection of salvation. Therefore when the man is involved in sexual immorality and chooses not to repent, they tell him to go some place else to worship. They don't view him as having lost salvation, for he can go worship some at some other denomination that allows that kind of behavior. BTW, he is black-listed nationwide in that particular denomination, but he is still saved. Some might say he was never saved to begin with, which IS possible, but not always the case.

I believe in God's eyes, there is no difference between the "called out," and the church. They are one and the same. God knows that unbelievers can penetrate the presence of the believers. Considering the Word of God was written by the Holy Spirit, I doubt that the apostles used "brother" in reference to unbelievers or "church" as the assembly and not the saved.

-- Luke Juarez (hubertdorm@yahoo.com), February 01, 2005.

This get's into the keys to the Kingdom discussion.

Is the man spiritually dead to Christ before pronounced excommunication, or does he become so upon such a decree?

He is obviously already into a life of sin again, hence the need for an excommunication. But is there a period in which he is dead to Christ but still saved until he is officially booted by the Church?

Does God remove from the Book of Life this man's name before the church actually pronounces such a sentence?

-- Luke Juarez (hubertdorm@yahoo.com), February 01, 2005.

I'm always amazed at how layered doctrine is. This subject not only touches "who has the keys to the kingdom?," but also:

OSAS?

What does it mean to be saved?/What must I do to be saved?

What is the church?

Why does God create people knowing they'll go to Hell?

Are we saved when we put faith in Jesus or when Jesus returns?

Is the Church the kingdom or is another one coming?

Just to name some popular ones

-- Luke Juarez (hubertdorm@yahoo.com), February 01, 2005.

Faith,

The point you miss is that Paul only has authority over believers. So when he says to deliver someone over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh - excommunication - so that his spirit may be saved - a desire that the excommunication will produce repentance bringing the excommunicant back to God for salvation - he's exercising authority over a believer who has committed mortal sins and refused to repent. Paul couldn't deliver a non-believer over to Satan, a non-believer already belongs to Satan.

David

-- non-Catholic Christian (no@spam.com), February 01, 2005.

A *so-called* brother who is a drunkard and idolater Gail?? This is a true believer in your opinion? It even says so-called!! Wheat and tares are in earthly established churches...

-- (faith01@myway.com), February 01, 2005.

Faith, that may answer the question of whether he is fallen before God previous to his excommunication.

-- Luke Juarez (hubertdorm@yahoo.com), February 01, 2005.

I never said he was a "true believer" Faith. Paul addressed this admonition to anyone is is called a "brother." Your argument is with St. Paul not me. No one has the ability to look inside another's heart to determine if they are a "true" believer as you put it. But outward fruit and/or sinful behavior certainly can be judged and is to be treated with Church "discipline".

Jesus says the same thing, "If your brother sins against you" . . .

Matthew 18:15 IF your brother sins, go and reprove him in private; if he listens to you you have won your brother (Yep, that definitely someone IN THE CHURCH)

Matthew 18:17 And 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 GENTILE AND A TAXGATHERER. (Sounds like ex communicato to me).

************

I'll ask you again, Faith, if your Presbyterian sister sins against you, to whom do you take your grievance, or is Matthew 18:17 inapplicable?

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), February 01, 2005.

I never said he was a "true believer" Faith. Paul addressed this admonition to anyone is is called a "brother." Your argument is with St. Paul not me. No one has the ability to look inside another's heart to determine if they are a "true" believer as you put it. But outward fruit and/or sinful behavior certainly can be judged and is to be treated with Church "discipline". Jesus says the same thing, "If your brother sins against you" . . .

Matthew 18:15 IF your brother sins, go and reprove him in private; if he listens to you you have won your brother (Yep, that definitely someone IN THE CHURCH)

What church Gail---the church of Jesus Christ as found in the Scriptures, or the Roman Catholic Church or the Baptist Church or etc....?

My bet is that Jesus is talking about Elders in the local assembly of believers--which could be composed of both believers and unbelievers.......

Matthew 18:17 And 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 GENTILE AND A TAXGATHERER. (Sounds like ex communicato to me).

Excommunication? Of an unbeliever? Gail, the church, as we know it., didn't even exist yet when Jesus spoke these words.

************

I'll ask you again, Faith, if your Presbyterian sister sins against you, to whom do you take your grievance, or is Matthew 18:17 inapplicable?

Again, I will answer you., I would not consider someone outside of my congregation, whether Catholic, Presbyterian or Lutheran., to be whom Jesus was speaking about. He was talking about how to handle problems within your congregation., conflict resolution within your assembly-- not the community at large...

-- (faith01@myway.com), February 01, 2005.

Again, I will answer you., I would not consider someone outside of my congregation, whether Catholic, Presbyterian or Lutheran., to be whom Jesus was speaking about. He was talking about how to handle problems within your congregation., conflict resolution within your assembly-- not the community at large...

And if your church tells you you are wrong, you don't have to change your beliefs, just start going to a NEW church that agrees with you! That's what Jesus wanted, right?

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), February 01, 2005.

I thought you said that the church was the "spiritual body of believers" which would certainly be ALL believers, and yet now you say that this passage just pertains to the spiritual body of believers within your congregation . . . and I take it now you are conceding Christ is talking here about a "visible hierarchy" . . .?

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), February 01, 2005.

I have always maintained that there are two meanings to the word church. It is probably just a bad transliteration.

Eclessia--or *a called out body* really shouldn't even be called *church.* But it is, so we need to deal with it.

Jesus is not talking about this called out body of believers--but He is talking about a local assembly of people of the faith, which we also call church..

But there is a difference.

I think the word *church* in Matthew is probably not the best choice of words and Jesus certainly never meant the Roman Catholic religion.

-- (faith01@myway.com), February 01, 2005.

Frank,

I my Church told me that I was wrong about something--they would show me in the Scriptures and I would likely see their point of view. I always do : )

-- (faith01@myway.com), February 01, 2005.

The word Jesus uses is "eklesia" called out ones, and it is the same word He uses when he says "and upon this rock I will build my Church."

I wonder why Jesus didn't say if you have a problem with a brother, take it to the scriptures, pray about it, and I will give you guidance? But no, he gives the CHURCH authority. No surpise, then, that St. Paul echoes Christ's injunction when he claims the Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth!

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), February 01, 2005.

But Gail--the Church as you think of Church --didn't even exist yet...

Matthew was written in Hebrew to the Jews.....and the word used is meant "congregation" according to my *Complete Jewish Bible* an English Version by David Stern.

My Greek to English Interlinear translates to assembly.

-- (faith01@myway.com), February 01, 2005.

However your resource states it, it is EXACTLY the same word "Ekklesia" that is used throughout the entire N.T. per Strong's.

Christ was simply setting a "rule" for His Church, Ekklesia, the same one He would build and the gates of hell shall not prevail.

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), February 01, 2005.

Sorry Gail--b8ut it isn't quite that simple.

Ekklesia, according to my expository dictionary [Vine's]was used among the Greeks of a body of citizens gathered to discuss the affairs of State (Acts 19:39).

In the Septuagint, it is used to designate the gathering of Israel, summoned for any definite purpose, or a gathering regarded as representivie of the whole nation.

In Acts 7:38 it is used of Israel, in Acts 19:32, 41, it is used of a riotous mob.

It has two applications to companies of Christians...

(a) to the whole company of the redeemed throughout the present era, the company which Christ said He would build His Church Matt 16:18 and which is further described as the "Church which is His Body" Ephesians 1:22-23 "And God placed all things under his feet and appointed him to be head over everything for the church, which is his body, the fullness of him who fills everything in every way. and 5:23 "For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior."

(b) in the singular number (e.g., Matt 18:17 "congregation"), to a company consisting of professed believers, e.g., Acts 20:28; 1 Cor. 1:2; Gal 1:13; 1 Thess. 1:1; 2 Thess. 1:1; 1 Tim. 3:5, and in the plural, with references to churches in a district.

-- (faith01@myway.com), February 01, 2005.

Hebrews 12:22-24...But you have come to Mount Zion, to the heavenly Jerusalem, the city of the living God. You have come to thousands upon thousands of angels in joyful assembly, to the church of the firstborn, whose names are written in heaven. You have come to God, the judge of all men, to the spirits of righteous men made perfect, to Jesus the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel.

-- (faith01@myway.com), February 01, 2005.

Faith, most of the wisdom Jesus imparted to us was for the church. Think about it. Yes, the church as we know it did not exist. So that means the words of Jesus count for nothing? You seem to be discounting them based on timing, not relevance. Jesus was given us for while he was away.

-- Luke Juarez (hubertdorm@yahoo.com), February 01, 2005.

Not discounting anything Luke--I just see no reason to assume that Jesus meant the Roman Catholic religion of the future...

-- (faith01@myway.com), February 01, 2005.

I am not interested in Vine's exposition of the passages, Faith.

It is the same word Ekklesia used throughout the N.T.

Secondly, your "poured in meaning" doesn't make since "in the singular." Hypothetically, you have a brother in one "local" church who gets excommunicated from his "local" church for, say, dipping into the money bags. So all he has to do is go over to the "congregation" that meets a few towns down and join there, 'cause he wasn't excommunicated from that church yet. That is completely ridiculous, but according to your interpretation, that is exactly what he can do.

Good grief, can't you do better than that?

Thirdly, I love the Hebrew's passage, though I don't know how its relevant to the topic at hand, but yes, when we come to God, we are in the company of the entire heavenly host INCLUDING the spirits of righteous men made perfect! (Sounds like a "communion of saints")

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), February 01, 2005.

If you look real close Gail--you'll find that the word means different things and is also spelled differently--depending on where its used. And I don't know what you mean by poured in meaning--I just posted what the expository said.

"Church" has two meanings or different applications.... and I posted hebrews because it is a picture of the Body of Christ--not some earthly institution we also call church.

-- (faith01@myway.com), February 01, 2005.

If that's the view you take, then it doesn't have much power to it, does it? No teeth, as they say. Excommunication really means nada - - empty of effect -- since the sinner can just hop about from church to church, escaping the arm of discipline at every turn, and hence has very little hope of "turning back to the pathway of righteousness."

Oh it is singular alright, ONE CHURCH, ONE BODY!

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), February 01, 2005.

faith,

The name of the Catholic church is just that, the Catholic church. You should use that name rather than saying the Roman Catholic church. That was invented by people out of bias, and would be like me saying the Heretic Christian church for whatever denomination you belong to.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), February 02, 2005.

I'm sorry Frank--but someone should inform your church of this matter then. The church I went to growing up was called the R.C. Annunciation...and R.C. stands for Roman Catholic!

-- (faith01@myway.com), February 02, 2005.

Gail--excommunication is a cult thing....all the cults do it! Ask a Jehovah Witness or a Mormon about it.

But true believers cannot be excommunicated from the true body of Christ.

What Jesus was teaching was how to handle an unbeliever...or a so- called believer caught-up in sin.., and it had nothing to do with church membership!

-- (faith01@myway.com), February 02, 2005.

Faith, I don't know what kind of goofy sort of sloppy-agape church you belong to, but I don't know of one single Protestant church in my area that does not excommunicate card-carrying members for unrepentent sin -- from Word of Faith, to Baptist, to Presbyterian, Calvary Chapel . . . you name it, they do it!

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), February 02, 2005.

Mine is Baptist and I never see it done, never hear of it, and never worry about it.....my church is the church for the unchurched--it is a reachout, evangelical. We Baptise new members all the time. Until they are Baptised, they sit in our church--the sinners., and we reach out.

Excommunication?--nope.

-- (faith01@myway.com), February 02, 2005.

I would be the first to be excommunicated from your "church", Faith. That's if anyone else was before me. I would be willing to bet that many have been shown the exit door in your "church". Invisible door, even...

.........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), February 02, 2005.

As I said, rod--my church doesn't excommunicate people. We are an outreach--we bring people into the fold. Since our Bible interpretation is not private--people are not forced to believe everything that some hierarchy would declare. We don't determine the non-essentials for people. We preach the truth of the gospel--and all are welcome.

-- (faith01@myway.com), February 03, 2005.

"As I said, rod--my church doesn't excommunicate people. "--Faith.

Hmm, then how do you all get along knowing that there is a multiplicity of conflict among the congreation in regards to doctrine?

Do you just hope that everyone will one day come to their senses and agree?

Where is the "body" in such a church situation?

..................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), February 03, 2005.

Oh, I know. You all just wait until those heretics leave and quickly wave them goodbye, "don't forget your hat".

And, then there's the voting out of the Pastor for a new one with new and better ideas--doctrines.

...........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), February 03, 2005.

Doesn't happen, rod. Kid yourself if it makes you feel better to think that were are all in cults. But we are not.

-- (faith01@myway.com), February 03, 2005.

Sounds like a seeker sensitive church. I would be interested to know what kind of "Baptist" Church has such an "anything goes" type of mentality. The "General Baptists" I think are as non-doctrinal as you can get. So I guess it depends on what branch of "Baptist" it is.

At any rate, a church that has no disciplinary policies is certainly not a New Testament type of church by any stretch of the imagination. The seeker sensitive movement has been widely criticized for spreading a "watered down" version of the gospel, which could certainly explain why Faith has a whole case full of scriptures that "don't compute" and end up in the recycle bin.

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), February 03, 2005.

Don't go thinking that I am isolating by arguments solely against your church, Faith. I have seen both Protestant and non-Protestant congregations go through such scenarios. Priest do get moved around, too.

Sure, that isn't as severe as Excommunication, but it does have a the same kind of flavor withing the small church workings. And, that is because, those little churches have a pick-n-choose kind of doctrine going on. When a heretic or dissodent believer stirs things up, it is like being Excommunicated on to the next small church, as the person is asked, told, forced, or volunteers to leave.

I've see it happen way too often.

...........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), February 03, 2005.

I have no idea what you are going on about rod. Really, I don't.

Gail--you also do not know anything about my church.

The truth is that Jesus was not teaching excommunication. Excommunication is one of the earmarks of cultic behavior., and it has to do with keeping people under their thumb, brainwashing them into believing only what they say is true.

The Scriptures do not teach this behavior.

My Church is completely in accord with the New Testament. Love the sinner--hate the sin.

-- (faith01@myway.com), February 03, 2005.

Then what did Paul do in Corinthians, Faith, did he just pat the adulterous man on the back and say, "we love you bro," or did he take some direct action, and kick the fellow out. Paul did exactly what Jesus said to do . . . it's called OBEDIENCE, Faith, and it is a requirement of those who wish to follow Him.

Your church sounds exactly like what John McArthur says about seeker sensitive churches:

"You won't learn much about the holiness of God or the importance of obedience, either. You're more likely to hear a sermon on human relationships, success in the business world, or how to make your life in this world more satisfying. THAT'S BECAUSE IF A CHURCH'S PRIMARY FOCUS IS TO ENCOURAGE UNBELIEVERS TO ATTEND, IT WILL INVARIABLY SOFTEN THE TRUTH to make it more palatable. It will skirt the hard teaching of Scripture on matters of repentance and the cost of discipleship, choosing instead to focus on God's grace and how easy it is to become a believer."

Softening the truth is what we have all come to know about you, Faith. There is no cross in the gospel you preach. No obedience required. Just a sloppy watered down version of a gospel that does not even exist.

Mr. MacArthur's article in toto is found here. http://www.eternallifeministries.org/jm_ssm.htm

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), February 03, 2005.

Wow Gail--

You really don't know what you are talking about.

-- (faith01@myway.com), February 03, 2005.

Why, Gail., are you refering us to MacArthur's article? Why would you turn to a Calvinist to support your point of view?

-- (faith01@myway.com), February 03, 2005.

Hi Faith.

Are you bashing the author/source? You learn quickly. That's good.

I think the poits is that even within their own ranks, conflict is prevalent.

......................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), February 03, 2005.

Gee, I don't think Mr. McArthur is addressing Calvinism here, Faith, but rather his article is concerning the seeker sensitive movement and the various churches that have chosen this pathway to evangelize. I chose his article because he is well respected by Protestants, and the article itself accurately presents the pitfalls of this movement.

Your description of your church fits the model of a "seeker sensitive" church. It uses no church discipline. It preaches a gospel without necessity of obedience "choosing instead to focus on God's grace and how easy it is to become a believer." There is no cross!

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), February 04, 2005.

Well, you are wrong.

My Church is definately evangelical--but I never heard the term seeker sensitive, and my church preaches hard messages. We are in the Scriptures every single service and nothing is watered down--quite the contrary.

By watered down, McArthur is undoubtedly refering to the idea that we don't preach predestination as he sees it. I wonder why a Calvinist bothers with evangelizing anyway--since they are in the opinion that we all have been predsetined before the creation of the world to either be saved or not.

Calvinistic Churches surely spend more time on their worship--and self edifying for their own uplifting--since they don't believe that they can change God's will for those who are being sent to hell anyway.

But we follow God's command to bring the gospel to the ends of the earth.., and we remember that Jesus Himself hung out with the prostitutes and taxcollectors. His heart was for the lost., for that one sheep who was still not home. But at the same time--Jesus never comprimised God's Word. He was hard on people who wouldn't rise up to meet Him where He was teaching. That's the attitude of my church. We tell it like it is--but we do so in love.

-- (faith01@myway.com), February 04, 2005.

"He was hard on people who wouldn't rise up to meet Him where He was teaching. That's the attitude of my church. We tell it like it is-- but we do so in love. "--Faith.

Then, it would not be a problem for your group to bring a member to the "church" leaders for correction, yes?

Then, it would not be a problem for you group to have the member leave the "church" because of failure to conform to correction, yes?

Or, do you all just leave the poor soul alone and hope/pray that things get fixed, yes?

What exactly does your "church" do with these heretics?

..................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), February 04, 2005.

I will take that burning amber from your tongue because I love you. Or, I will let you sit in my "church" with your burning blisters, as long as you sit quietly, because I love you.

Something just doesn't quite sound right.

.............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), February 04, 2005.

Seeker sensitive churches do not generally list themselves as such in the Yellow Pages, Faith, but they have been labeled such because of their modern progressive "evangelistic" outreach methods. Some say they are overly sensitive to the "unchurched".

They are similar to your church in that they do not govern with church disciplinary principles found in the N.T. They also tend to overemphasize grace at the expense of obedient discipleship. Since obedient discipleship and the COMMAND of such is something which is abhorrent to you, as evidenced by some of your recent debates on this forum, one could only conclude that you have become unwittingly involved in this type of church.

You say your church is Baptist, but I have never heard of a Baptist church that does not "discipline" its members, harshly, if need be. However, there are now so many denominations with "Baptist" in its title is really is impossible to read ANYTHING into a label.

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), February 04, 2005.

Gail,

You are so self-deluded. Where do you get the idea that my church doesn't govern with the principles found in the new testament. We are a biblical church and we do nothing but follow the teachings of Jesus and the apostles. Lol!

I think your problem comes from your inability to separate true biblical teaching from Catholic Church teaching.

Like I said--Jesus never taught excommunication. In fact, He was pretty excommunicated Himself.

Jesus taught us to love our neighbor and to gently guide our lost brother to the truth, not excommunicate them. Even the command to have no part in their behavior if they don't listen--was not a call to excommunicate and abandon them. It was more for our benefit that we don't be considered partakers of their sinful ways--but I see nothing in these teachings about excommunication as the jehovah Witnesses, the Mormons or the catholics would practice.

-- (faith01@myway.com), February 04, 2005.

So is St. Paul a mormon since he excommunicated the adulterous man, and then later took him back after the man repented?

If you church does not use this disciplinary tactic for those in its midst that are in persistent sin, then your church is NOT following the N.T. mandate, and it is certainly not following the "Baptist" way of doing things.

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), February 04, 2005.

Here is what the Southern Baptists have to say about church discipline, Faith. This article is found at the official Southern Baptist website.

New Southern Seminary journal focuses on church discipline By Jeff Robinson

LOUISVILLE, Ky. (BP)--When discipline leaves a church, Christ goes with it, remarked nineteenth century Baptist theologian John L. Dagg.

The winter edition of the Southern Baptist Journal of Theology -- which focuses on church discipline -- concurs with Dagg's assertion. The journal -- a publication of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary -- analyzes the loss of biblical church discipline and calls for its recovery.

Essayists include Southern Seminary President R. Albert Mohler Jr., Capitol Hill Baptist Church pastor Mark Dever, Faith Seminary professor H. Wayne House and Southern Seminary professors Thomas Schreiner, Greg Wills, Don Cox and Hershael York.

The writers point out that church discipline is virtually nonexistent in evangelical circles today, having been relegated to a relic of church history. Mohler attributes the loss of church discipline to a radical notion of individualism that exists in much of modern-day evangelicalism.

"Individuals now claim an enormous zone of personal privacy and moral autonomy," Mohler writes. "The congregation -- redefined as a mere voluntary association -- has no right to intrude into this space. Many congregations have forfeited any responsibility to confront even the most public sins of their members. Consumed with pragmatic methods of church growth and congregational engineering, most churches leave moral matters to the domain of the individual conscience."

In his editorial, Schreiner contrasts biblical church discipline with a false view of "judging" held by today's politically correct culture.

"What must be said at the outset is that discipline is not contrary to love but, an expression of love, when properly applied," Schreiner writes. "Our culture is quick to use labels, such as 'mean- spirited,' 'harsh,' and 'proud' against those who exercise discipline. We are prone to confuse love with sentimentality, thinking that love is always accepting, soft, and tolerant."

Wills, associate professor of church history at Southern, demonstrates by historic example Southern Baptists' stalwart commitment to biblical discipline in the nineteenth century south.

Wills argues that, while Southern Baptists have embraced the inerrancy of Scripture, many have been slower to carry out its teaching on church discipline.

"In our churches, however, we demonstrate considerable ambivalence toward asserting such authority," Wills writes. "We want to make certain that our missionaries and seminary professors are orthodox in faith and pure in behavior, but we tolerate much lower standards in our churches.

"Pastors, missionaries, and teachers are rightly held to higher standards. But our churches falter in enforcing New Testament standards of church membership. Once persons have prayed the sinner's prayer and submitted to immersion, their membership is secure in most churches for as long as they wish to remain a member -- usually longer."

Wills clearly sets forth the purpose of church discipline: "CHRIST COMMANDED HIS CHURCHES TO EXCLUDE THOSE WHO WERE IMMORAL OR WHO DENIED THE DOCTRINES OF THE GOSPEL. They could not in good conscience call themselves Christians while ignoring the clear command of Christ.

"Baptists drew encouragement in their practice however from reflecting on the benefits of the discipline. The benefits, they felt, were basically three: discipline kept the churches pure and thereby glorified Christ; discipline aided the offenders themselves; and discipline fostered revival and the conversion of sinners."

Dever outlines both the Scriptural imperative and guidelines for church discipline. Church discipline, he writes, is not a matter of being mean-spirited, but rather a practice that should humble all Christians, making them keenly aware of their fallible nature.

"When we hear of discipline, we tend to think of correction or of a spanking," Dever writes. "If we're particularly literate we have visions of Hester Prynne wearing her scarlet 'A' around the nightmarish Puritan New England town of Nathaniel Hawthorne's misdirected imagination.

"We should all, without hesitation, admit our need for discipline, our need for shaping. None of us is perfect, finished projects. We may need to be inspired, nurtured, or healed; we may need to be corrected, challenged, even broken. Whatever the particular method of cure, let's at least admit the need for discipline. Let's not pretend or presume that you or I are just as we should be, as if God had finished His work with us."

Dever writes that churches should carefully examine who is allowed to become a member of their congregations and exercise biblical church discipline to clearly delineate the church from the world.

"We need to be able to show that there is a distinction between the church and the world -- that it means something to be a Christian," he writes. "If someone who claims to be a Christian refuses to live as a Christian should live, we need to follow what Paul said and, for the glory of God and for that person's own good, we need to exclude him or her from membership in the church."

Mohler asserts that the church will continue its downward spiral morally and theologically unless biblical church discipline is rediscovered and practiced.

"... without a recovery of functional church discipline -- firmly established upon principles revealed in the Bible -- the church will continue its slide into moral dissolution and relativism," he writes. "Evangelicals have long recognized discipline as the 'third mark' of the authentic church. Authentic biblical discipline is not an elective, but a necessary and integral mark of authentic Christianity."

Cox brings forth a facet of biblical church discipline often omitted from any discussion of the subject: its aim at spiritual formation for the person or persons under discipline.

"To understand church discipline properly, we must first broaden our horizon concerning the subject," Cox writes. "Church discipline is, in actuality, a binary concept rooted in Scripture that seeks to accomplish at least four goals: These goals are: (1) to build a regenerate church membership; (2) to mature believers in the faith; (3) to strengthen the church for evangelism and the engagement of culture; (4) and to protect the church from inner decay."

http://www.sbc.net

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), February 04, 2005.

So Gail.,

How does the Catholic Church do this *excommunication* of the adulterer?

Just curious%?*%#?

How does your church hierarchy even know about it??

And how, may I ask--would you uphold something like that? Are there armed guards at the door?

Give me a break!

Are you asking me if I am privy to every discipline action that takes place in my church? I can assure you that I am not.

All I can tell you is that I have never seen or heard of any such action. Perhaps if one of our Elders was involved in something like homosexuality or pedophilia., then there would definately be an action taken against the person. Yes., just like in the catholic Church.

-- (faith01@myway.com), February 04, 2005.

As in any church where people know one another, "word gets around." Just like the Corinthian Church, the fellow was quite proud of his sin, it became known, and St. Paul the apostle dealt with it by simply excluding the chap from fellowship until he came around.

The local Assembly of God Church in my my area had to give three pastors the boot; two for adultery and one for dipping into the funds. The local Calvary Chapel in my area gave one fellow and his live-in girlfriend the boot. Another couple from that same church were given a "shotgun" wedding once the pastor found out they were sleeping together.

I guess it depends on the size of the fellowship and how close people get to one another. It also depends on how the church views scripture; whether it takes a lax view toward sin, and whether it's got the guts to do the "hard thing."

At any rate, as per the article I posted by the SBC, church discipline is a MUST per scripture, and excluding someone from fellowship definitely is the prescription Jesus gave . . . at least per the Baptist article I posted.

Suffice it to say, church discipline, is not a Catholic thing, or Mormon thing or a JW thing, but it is the SCRIPTURAL thing.

Gail

BTW, google up "seeker sensitive" and you will that Willow Creek is one rather large example of a seeker sensitive church. Your man, Dave Hunt, does not care for this movement either, for the same reasons stated by JM.

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), February 04, 2005.

Still Gail,

I do not think that the verse you provided was about excommunication from Church membership. The church didn't even exist when Jesus said those words. It was more about how to handle a brother who is actively practicing sinful behavior.

I also want to add that my Church is not of the Southern Baptist kind.

You also ignored my subtle hint that even your Catholic Church does not practice excommunication where it really should.

-- (faith01@myway.com), February 04, 2005.

You keep ignoring St. Paul's clear example in Corinthians, Faith. Why? He is clearing following Christ's words. Was St. Paul in error?

A couple in my parish has been excommunicated for willfully living together apart from marriage. We love them and can't wait for them to wed and come back into full fellowship. Hopefully that will be soon. I don't get your sarcasms. The Church excommunicated President Vicente Fox, of Mexico some years ago when he married after NOT receiving an annulment, thereby putting him in the "adulterer" category.

The Southern Baptists are a terrific, orthodox, congregation of believers, who truly strive to follow the clear teachings of scripture. I think they are probably the most powerful body of Baptists in the states. Do you know which Baptist church your's is affiliated with? Or perhaps I should ask, why does it call itself Baptist?

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), February 04, 2005.

I really don't know why we don't call ourselves Baptist anymore. If you look into our history or at our government--we are definately Baptist. Someone told me that Southern Baptists are different--a little crazier with all the dropping in the isle, falling on their faces screaming and whatnot. She said that we just didn't want to be confused with that because it would turn people away., not bring them in.

We are a modern non-denominational biblical church in practice. We bring the Scriptures into this century with a message that pertains to todays living. The Bible is the Living Word--not some ancient document that no one can relate to. It was designed to speak to all people--past, present and future. What we do is completely in line with God's intent, which is that all people should hear the gospel message from every generation.

Yet--our church is quite serious about the truth. We do not sugar- coat anything.

I would think that excommunication could only apply to members., and our church is filled with members and non-members alike. I have never seen or heard of such treatment of anyone, though as I said--I really wouldn't be privy as gossip is also a sin.

-- (faith01@myway.com), February 04, 2005.

No, your friend is grossly incorrect about the Southern Baptists. Southern Baptists are about as far away from "holy rollers" or pentecostals as any denomination can get. They do not practice such nonsense. I am really surprised that you know so very little about them. Isn't your church affiliated or accountable to any group? Or are they completely autonomous? Don't they have any sort of "statement of faith" or something that indicates what they believe?

Was St. Paul "sinning" when he listened to the Church at Corinth "gossiping" about the adulterer . . .? Was Jesus advising His disciples to "gossip" when they tell their brother's sin "to the Church" . . .?

Of course, excommunication is for those who have been baptized into the body, and who have fallen into gross immorality. I have never said otherwise. St. Paul says "I do not judge those OUTSIDE, but those inside the Church."

That's the Bible, clear and pertinent. Any church that never takes disciplinary action against immorality within its "members" has NOT taken the N.T. principals to heart.

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), February 04, 2005.

Like I said Gail--we really don't want to be confused with the Southern Baptists.

We are an Evangelical Baptist Church with a non-denominational approach to the biblical message. Paul would be quite at home.

We follow New Testament teaching precisely.

-- (faith01@myway.com), February 04, 2005.

Gail says:

"A couple in my parish has been excommunicated for willfully living together apart from marriage. We love them and can't wait for them to wed and come back into full fellowship. Hopefully that will be soon."

It seems that Faith has a problem with this? Faith, what would your congregation do if two of its members were doing something like this? Does your congregation have to allow them to receive communion? Do so, would signify full fellowship with your congregation. What if it were the pastor who was involved in such an illicit situation? Would your congregation accept this? I don't raise this to criticize any pastors, but just to see if your church has absolutely no accountability at all.

-- James (stinkcat_14@hotmail.com), February 16, 2005.

I was expressing that no one can be actually excommunicated from the true Body of Christ because only true believers are part of that ghurch..

I think the miscommunication comes from not being able to see the difference between the true church of Jesus Christ which is His Body, and local assemblies also called church.

This is an old thread, so I don't really remember much of it and I would need to reread it. I can say that if a Pastor were behaving in such a fashion--he would no longer remain our Pastor. But he would not be excommunicated from the true Body unless he wasn't a true believer to begin with. And I would add that only God really knows our hearts to that degree and only He can make that kind of judgement.

I do not believe that what Paul was teaching in Corinthians was about excommuncation the way it is practiced by the Catholic Church.

There is no way to separate the wheat from the Chaff in a congregation and therefore excommunication is not practical. I am sure that there are plenty of church goers living in all kinds of sin. How can a church hierarchy determine who these people are and then lock the church doors to them? How can a church hierarchy deny Communion to an individual without serious judgement being heaped right back upon them? What does God teach about judging others?

-- (faith01@myway.com), February 16, 2005.

Faith says, "There is no way to separate the wheat from the Chaff in a congregation and therefore excommunication is not practical."

God says, "11 But now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone named a brother, who is sexually immoral, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner--not even to eat with such a person. 12 For what have I to do with judging those also who are outside? Do you not judge those who are inside? 13 But those who are outside God judges. Therefore "put away from yourselves the evil person." (1 Cor 5:11-13).

Faith says, "I am sure that there are plenty of church goers living in all kinds of sin. How can a church hierarchy determine who these people are and then lock the church doors to them?"

God says, "Those who are sinning rebuke in the presence of all, that the rest also may fear." (1 Tim 5:20).

God also says, "And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them." (Eph 5:11).

Faith wrote, "How can a church hierarchy deny Communion to an individual without serious judgement being heaped right back upon them?"

God says, "...Therefore "put away from yourselves the evil person." (1 Cor 5:13).

Faith wrote, "What does God teach about judging others?"

God says, "Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment." (John 7:24).

-- Kevin Walker ("navyscporetired@comcast.net"), February 16, 2005.

Kevin,

How can a church hierarchy deny Communion to an individual without serious judgement being heaped right back upon them?"

God says, "...Therefore "put away from yourselves the evil person." (1 Cor 5:13).

How about a little consistency? Weren't you just saying the church could NOT deny someone communion? Why are you arguing with Faith when she agrees with you?

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), February 16, 2005.

Faith says:

"I can say that if a Pastor were behaving in such a fashion--he would no longer remain our Pastor."

This is exactly my point, if you were to find a member of your church obstinately in obvious sin, it would be the duty of the church to point out that they cannot claim 100% fellowship with that person. And if they were in a position of leadership, they would have to be removed. This is really no different than what the Catholic Church teaches. Obviously, we cannot judge everyone by the externals, but there are some things that are clearly, obviously sinful and that would prevent full fellowship with the church. We pray that they repent and come back to the church, but sometimes a stand needs to be taken in a loving matter.

-- James (stinkcat_14@hotmail.com), February 16, 2005.

No Kevin,

Your verses are out of context--as usual.

God says let he who is without sin--cast the first stone.

All those verses that you used, say nothing about excommunication as we understand it. Those verses are about how to handle sinners in the church--but they say nothing about excommunicating them out of the church.

1 Corinthians 4:5 says, "Therefore judge nothing before the appointed time; wait till the Lord comes. He will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and will expose the motives of men's hearts."

Paul makes it clear that we should not disassociate ourselves from unbelievers--but warns that associating with believers who are disobedient--does not serve Christ, but harms others for whom Christ died. we must be ready to correct--in love--such offenders. But excommunicating someone out into the cold was hardly the real point of Paul's message. Casting someone out--is hardly going to be very ministering!

By not including them in things and not associating with them will be enough to send a strong message--but this is not to say that you lock them out of church.

-- (faith01@myway.com), February 16, 2005.

But Faith, aren't you ignoring how Paul himself instructed the Corinthians to remove the adulterous man?

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), February 17, 2005.

This was an extreme case, Gail, where everyone kbnew about the relationship.

Paul wanted to eliminate distractions right away.

The Christian Yahwist

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), February 17, 2005.

Frank,

You wrote, "How about a little consistency? Weren't you just saying the church could NOT deny someone communion? Why are you arguing with Faith when she agrees with you?"

If you would read what I wrote, you would see that I am "not" advocating denying someone communion which is what you want to see in my post that is just not there... Please go back and re-read what I wrote, I quoted 1 Cor 5:13 which states, "Therefore "put away from yourselves the evil person." The person would not be in the assembly to partake of communion if they are "put away" now would they Frank??? Faith wrote, "No Kevin, Your verses are out of context--as usual."

Of course that is your opinion and you are entitled to it however, it is not the truth...

You wrote, "God says let he who is without sin--cast the first stone."

Jesus made those remarks concerning a woman who was caught in adultery... This has nothing to do with judging someone...

You wrote, "All those verses that you used, say nothing about excommunication as we understand it."

How about quoting the verses that I used and show how I am "guilty" as you allege of taking them "out of context" as you allege???

You wrote, "Those verses are about how to handle sinners in the church--but they say nothing about excommunicating them out of the church."

I suppose that to "put away" someone does not mean anything to you does it Faith???

You quoted, "1 Corinthians 4:5 says, "Therefore judge nothing before the appointed time; wait till the Lord comes. He will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and will expose the motives of men's hearts."

Then wrote, "Paul makes it clear that we should not disassociate ourselves from unbelievers--but warns that associating with believers who are disobedient--does not serve Christ, but harms others for whom Christ died. we must be ready to correct--in love-- such offenders. But excommunicating someone out into the cold was hardly the real point of Paul's message. Casting someone out--is hardly going to be very ministering!"

You really don't get it do you Faith??? Talk about me taking a verse "out of context" you really did a number on 1 Cor 4:5... Just a few verses later Paul writes in 1 Cor 5:2, "And you are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he who has done this deed might be taken away from among you." Paul is definitely stating that the person who did this deed is to "be taken away" from them... Do you just blindly listen to what your minister whithout investigating what the Bible actually says on any given subject??? What you said above clearly contradicts what Paul wrote in the verse I quoted... So much for your assertion "But excommunicating someone out into the cold was hardly the real point of Paul's message."

You wrote, "By not including them in things and not associating with them will be enough to send a strong message--but this is not to say that you lock them out of church."

God says in 1 Cor 5:6-7, "6 Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump? 7 Therefore purge out the old leaven, that you may be a new lump, since you truly are unleavened."

-- Kevin Walker ("navyscporetired@comcast.net"), February 17, 2005.

Here is the definition of "excommunication" as defined by Webster:

1. an ecclesiastical censure depriving a person of the rights of church membership; 2. exclusion from fellowship in a group or community.

This appears to be exactly what St. Paul prescribed, does it not? If not, why not?

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), February 17, 2005.

Frank, I think that through the course of discussing this issue, Kevin and I determined that we were really comparing apples and oranges here. Kevin's church "puts away" members of itself that are in willfull unrepentent sin, thereby vicariously precluding them from the communion table . . .in other words they have no opportunity to "commune at the table" because that have been ipso facto "ex communicated."

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), February 17, 2005.

Gail,

Thank you for pointing that out to Frank...

-- Kevin Walker ("navyscporetired@comcast.net"), February 19, 2005.

In my opinion--Kevin and Gail.,

The goal is to get rid of the *sin* not the sinner....

-- (faith01@myway.com), February 19, 2005.

Scripture makes it clear that severing ties with the sinner is always a last resort, after all other approaches have failed. (Matt 18:15-17) But it is also clear that such a rejection of the sinner is appropriate in certain circumstances.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), February 20, 2005.

Of course, Faith, that is exactly the point. As soon as the fellow in Corinth repented, St. Paul (bless his heart) exhorted the Corinthians to welcome him back with open arms!

The use of this discipline should only be used as a last resort, and it should be done with profound humility and sorrow, and with the grandest hope that the wayward fellow will return to full fellowship.

Sin can be very blinding in that some that fall (and I am guilty I admit) can be so caught up in their folly that they can actually delude themselves into believing that they have a special "pass" from the Almighty. "Exclusion" is a wakeup call -- a big slap in the face with a wet towel that hopefully will awaken the sinner from his sin- incuded stupor . . . and that is just what it is, a "stupor".

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), February 20, 2005.

I meant "sin-induced" stupor!

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), February 20, 2005.

Gail / Kevin,

No, Gail, what I was objecting to was that on this thread Kevin said

How can a church hierarchy deny Communion to an individual without serious judgement being heaped right back upon them?"

God says, "...Therefore "put away from yourselves the evil person." (1 Cor 5:13).

Whereas on the prior thread he made a big squawk about how the church could NOT deny someone from communion, as it was an individual decision... but later said his church excluded them. What he should have said HERE then to Faith was that he agreed with her, and the church could NOT exclude them from communion. By his previous standards this is not within their authority, and is an individual decision. Remember, she didn't ask whether or not they could be ***excluded from the assembly***, just asked about communion.

For myself, it seems pretty clear that Kevin was just on a roll disagreeing with her, and wasn't taking the time to make sure his positions were consistent across posts. No big deal I suppose, but for someone who thinks they are the end determiner of Truth in the Bible, I'd think a bit more clarity would be in order.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), February 21, 2005.

"Whereas on the prior thread he made a big squawk about how the church could NOT deny someone from communion, as it was an individual decision... but later said his church excluded them. What he should have said HERE then to Faith was that he agreed with her, and the church could NOT exclude them from communion."

Ok, I made a mistake and didn't agree with Faith that we cannot exclude someone from communion... This just goes to show that I am human like everyone else... :-)

"By his previous standards this is not within their authority, and is an individual decision. Remember, she didn't ask whether or not they could be ***excluded from the assembly***, just asked about communion."

Obviously Gail knew what I was talking about...

"For myself, it seems pretty clear that Kevin was just on a roll disagreeing with her, and wasn't taking the time to make sure his positions were consistent across posts."

Most of the time my positions are consistent... Every once in a while I will make a mistake... Are you so perfect that you don't make any mistakes???

"No big deal I suppose, but for someone who thinks they are the end determiner of Truth in the Bible, I'd think a bit more clarity would be in order."

As I stated before, it is obvious that Gail knew what I was talking about... So does this mean that since the Catholic Church determines what truth you can believe that you don't have to be crystal clear in your posts since they have already done the thinking for you???

-- Kevin Walker ("navyscporetired@comcast.net"), February 21, 2005.

why did He call the bread and wine His own Flesh and Blood if the bread and wine were symbolic of everlasting life, why bother with bread and wine at all if it does nothing and you don't need it, but yet He said that this was the moment He had longed for, the moment when He would leave His Body, Blood and Spirit on earth for all time, a continuation of His Sacrifice on Calvary, not a reinaction. The Food He would leave in the World would be His Living Flesh. In the same way that He is in the Father and the Father is in Him, So to when we recieve His Body and Spirit we live in Him and He lives in us so that all may be one in the Father. This is the mystery of the Catholic Church, the unity with God which was lost by one man ,Adam, is now restored by the new Adam , Christ. When we eat His Flesh we Really, Physically and Spiritually become a part of His living Body, His Body which was resurrected from the dead and has everlasting life. This is what He means when He said whoever eats My Flesh will have everlasting life, He achived everlasting life not just spiritually but physically also. Since a Human Being is body and spirit, neither can exist without the other, our salvation is necessarily both physical and spiritual. As Gods life as a man is now Both physical and spiritual since He resurrected His Own Body, our own future life is also both physical and spiritual and necessitates His physically Resurrected Flesh so that we are resurrected IN His already resurrected Body and BECAUSE of His resurrected Body.

A person in mortal sin excommunicates themselves in a sense, by being a willing accomplice in disobedience against Gods Commands, so they literally cut themselves off from Christs Body and life and would go to Hell if they died at that moment. Some sins are public and a person can be excommunicated publicly. In any case the Church is simply putting into words that which has already occured.

There is a local prodestant rev. here who went to the states, he got his degree [hon.] from Billy Bobs Baptist university, set up churches in a few countries and used to sing songs about burning the Pope in oil. When discipline goes it goes with a vengence.

-- dot (dot4@hotmail.co.uk), February 21, 2005.

The point is Kevin, that while Gail may have known what you meant from the prior thread, no one ELSE would have, so unless you were posting only for Gail, you should have been more clear.

The point with *my* posting in comparison with yours is that you don't NEED to ask me my belief, you can look to the church's position. If I post something that doesn't agree with it, I am wrong, and will accept the church's belief. I'm not trying to be rude here, but I don't think you fully understand the strength of that position. Having Christ's assurance that the Holy Spirit is guiding the church and hence its official teachings on faith and morals is equivalent to having Christ right next to you guiding you in spite of one's own prejudices and desires. I hope you find it out some day.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), February 21, 2005.

"why did He call the bread and wine His own Flesh and Blood if the bread and wine were symbolic of everlasting life, why bother with bread and wine at all if it does nothing and you don't need it, but yet He said that this was the moment He had longed for, the moment when He would leave His Body, Blood and Spirit on earth for all time, a continuation of His Sacrifice on Calvary, not a reinaction."

Not once does the Bible state that the Lord's Supper is a "continuation of His Sacrifice on Calvary"... This is merely an invention of men, not what God said in His word...

"The Food He would leave in the World would be His Living Flesh. In the same way that He is in the Father and the Father is in Him, So to when we recieve His Body and Spirit we live in Him and He lives in us so that all may be one in the Father."

Actually the food that He left is the "words" that He "spoke" for these words are the words that bring eternal life and have nothing to do with any sort of physical eating of bread and fruit of the vine... (See John 6:63 and Peter's response in John 6:67).

"This is the mystery of the Catholic Church, the unity with God which was lost by one man ,Adam, is now restored by the new Adam , Christ."

This may be a "mystery of the Catholic Church" however, I can assure you that this practice of the bread and the fruit of the vine physically becoming Jesus literal body and blood is nothing more than a distortion of the truth...

"When we eat His Flesh we Really, Physically and Spiritually become a part of His living Body, His Body which was resurrected from the dead and has everlasting life."

Actually, we become a part of the body (which is the church) when we are baptized in water for the remission of our sins, we are baptized into Jesus death... (See Romans 6:3 and Ephesians 5:29-30).

"This is what He means when He said whoever eats My Flesh will have everlasting life, He achived everlasting life not just spiritually but physically also."

See John 6:63 which states, "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life."

-- Kevin Walker ("navyscporetired@comcast.net"), February 23, 2005.

"The point is Kevin, that while Gail may have known what you meant from the prior thread, no one ELSE would have, so unless you were posting only for Gail, you should have been more clear."

You were the only one with the problem Frank... My posts were clear enough except to you who it seems only want to argue...

"The point with *my* posting in comparison with yours is that you don't NEED to ask me my belief, you can look to the church's position."

Then why do you bother to post if all I "need" to do is "look to the church's position"???

"If I post something that doesn't agree with it, I am wrong, and will accept the church's belief. I'm not trying to be rude here, but I don't think you fully understand the strength of that position."

What strength are you talking about Frank??? I don't think you fully comprehend what you are doing when you are surrendering your belief system to that of an organization... If on judgment day the Catholic Church was wrong, then where will you be??? If I am wrong, I have no one but myself to blame, and if the Catholic Church is wrong, then billions of souls will be lost because they took man's word over God's word...

"Having Christ's assurance that the Holy Spirit is guiding the church and hence its official teachings on faith and morals is equivalent to having Christ right next to you guiding you in spite of one's own prejudices and desires."

Ha!!! I can assure you the Holy Spirit has nothing to do with guiding the Catholic Church... Is this the same Holy Spirit that moved popes in the early days to murder many thousands of people in the name of Christ??? Christ has never been a part of this corrupt organization... How many popes have been excommunicated in the past and yet you claim the Holy Spirit is guiding the Catholic Church??? This is too funny... lol... The Holy Spirit does not lead anyone except through the word of God and I challenge you to prove otherwise...

"I hope you find it out some day."

I already have found out and it is most certainly not through the Catholic Church...

Maybe one day God will open your eyes to the truth of His word...

-- Kevin Walker ("navyscporetired@comcast.net"), February 23, 2005.

Hi Kevin, when you quote John 6:63 "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life."

Whose flesh profits nothing?

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), February 23, 2005.

Hello Kevin, Obviously baptism by water and spirit are necessary first to become part of His Body. The same God who said You must be baptised by water and spirit is the same God Who said Let There Be Light is the same God Who said This is My Flesh... unless you eat My Flesh and drink My Blood you will not have Life in you.

-- Ming the Merciless (dot4@hotmail.co.uk), February 24, 2005.

Gail,

You wrote, "Whose flesh profits nothing?"

Come on Gail, what are we talking about here??? When I quote John 6:63, what Catholic doctrine am I saying is false???

-- Kevin Walker ("navyscporetired@comcast.net"), February 24, 2005.

Ming wrote, "Hello Kevin, Obviously baptism by water and spirit are necessary first to become part of His Body. The same God who said You must be baptised by water and spirit is the same God Who said Let There Be Light is the same God Who said This is My Flesh... unless you eat My Flesh and drink My Blood you will not have Life in you."

This is also the same Jesus that said "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life." (John 6:63).

What does John 3:5 say???

-- Kevin Walker ("navyscporetired@comcast.net"), February 24, 2005.

Kevin, are you telling us that Jesus means that His own flesh profits nothing? If not, then whose flesh is Christ talk about here?

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), February 24, 2005.

Gail,

You wrote, "Kevin, are you telling us that Jesus means that His own flesh profits nothing? If not, then whose flesh is Christ talk about here?"

Eating Jesus flesh "profits nothing"... The words that Jesus spoke are what gives life...

How did Jesus give life to the world Gail??? (Hint, see John 6:33).

-- Kevin Walker ("navyscporetired@comcast.net"), February 25, 2005.

You are inserting words into the text, Kevin, Jesus didn't say "eating my" flesh profits nothing.

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), February 25, 2005.

Gail,

You are correct...

Can't you see that you are doing the same thing when you try to place the partaking of the Lord's Supper into this chapter of Scripture when Jesus isn't even stating that one must "physically" and "literally" partake of His flesh???

Who or what was Jesus referring to when He said "the flesh profits nothing"??? If He is not referring to His flesh, then what is He talking about???

-- Kevin Walker ("navyscporetired@comcast.net"), February 26, 2005.

Hi Kevin,

I am taking Christ's words "eat my flesh" literally because that is the only reading that makes sense in light of the fact that there were those who LEFT him -- they certainly believed he was speaking literally and left him because of it. Furthermore, the word "eat" in the Greek is not even the standard word for eat, but rather a stronger word meaning to "munch, or naw."

As to the "the flesh profits nothing but words are spirit of life" -- I don't think He's talking about the Eucharist at all, but rather the supernatural implications of His words -- they are "life giving" and without his "word" the flesh produces no good thing.

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), February 26, 2005.

Gail,

You wrote, "I am taking Christ's words "eat my flesh" literally because that is the only reading that makes sense in light of the fact that there were those who LEFT him -- they certainly believed he was speaking literally and left him because of it. Furthermore, the word "eat" in the Greek is not even the standard word for eat, but rather a stronger word meaning to "munch, or naw."

That is why those Jews left Christ because they misunderstood what Jesus said... Peter understood for Christ asked him in John 6:67, "Do you also want to go away?"

Peter replied in verse 68, "...Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life."

You are making the same mistake the early Jews made in saying that Jesus really meant one is to "literally" eat His flesh...

You wrote, "As to the "the flesh profits nothing but words are spirit of life" -- I don't think He's talking about the Eucharist at all, but rather the supernatural implications of His words -- they are "life giving" and without his "word" the flesh produces no good thing."

The problem with the Catholic view of the Eucharist or Lord's Supper is the passage they use to try to justify their position speaks absolutely "nothing" concerning the Lord's Supper... Yet people still believe this because "the Catholic Church" teaches it... I find this truly amazing... There are many things the Catholic Church teaches that are not found in God's word...

-- Kevin Walker ("navyscporetired@comcast.net"), February 27, 2005.

Hi Kevin,

When Christ instituted the "Lord's Supper," He said "This is my body, this is my blood," echoing His words in John. People fell dead for "not discerning the body." It was not merely a symbol.

It amazes me that non-Catholics do not see this correlation. Of course Christ's "words" are spirit and life, but they are also tangible. His body was literally given for us, and he is literally the Manna from Heaven. Peter's confession certainly is profound. But he was not the first one to make that confession. (There was another disciple who made that confession first.) If Peter's confession was what "eating my flesh and drinking my blood" was all about, then why did Christ institute the "Lord's Supper"? No, Kevin, on this you are dead wrong, "This we DO in remembrance of Him."

Did not the Jews literally "eat" the passover lamb? And did they not literally "eat" the manna from heaven? Of course they did, and these are foreshadows of the true heavenly food . . . Christ's body broken for us.

It may seem odd to you, as a non-Catholic, but I assure you, historically speaking, it has always been this way. Symbolic, yes it is that, but it also much much more . . .it is also substantive.

The Eucharist is the central feature of the mass. There is nothing that compares to it by way of "union with Christ." There is nothing more holy, nothing more profound, nothing more reverential than the "Marriage Feast of the Lamb."

It is by the far the most glorious, the most uniquely divine moment of the spiritual journey; it is a grace that far surpasses any other. I cannot find a human word to describe the majesty of this great gift. It is touching the fingertip of God! It is like standing on the brink of eternity. It is AWESOME!

I wish you could believe!

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), February 27, 2005.

Gail,

You said that better and more courteously than I, but at this point I bet the result will be the same.

Frank

-- someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), February 28, 2005.

""That is why those Jews left Christ because they misunderstood what Jesus said... Peter understood for Christ asked him in John 6:67, "Do you also want to go away?" ""

It would be impossible for Christ as God to allow a missunderstanding on this point.

As God, He knew exactly what those Jews thought of his words.

Yet He allowed those Jews to leave and did not alter the words He used.

-- Ming the Merciless (dot4@hotmail.co.uk), February 28, 2005.

Gail,

You wrote, "It amazes me that non-Catholics do not see this correlation. Of course Christ's "words" are spirit and life, but they are also tangible. His body was literally given for us, and he is literally the Manna from Heaven. Peter's confession certainly is profound. But he was not the first one to make that confession. (There was another disciple who made that confession first.) If Peter's confession was what "eating my flesh and drinking my blood" was all about, then why did Christ institute the "Lord's Supper"?"

Jesus instituted the Lord's Supper so that as Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 11:26, "For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death till He comes."

We partake of the Lord's Supper every week to remember Jesus death... We don't literally eat His body or drink His blood when we remember His death...

You wrote, "No, Kevin, on this you are dead wrong, "This we DO in remembrance of Him."

That is your opinion Gail... Sorry, I am not "dead wrong" as you assert...

You wrote, "Did not the Jews literally "eat" the passover lamb? And did they not literally "eat" the manna from heaven? Of course they did, and these are foreshadows of the true heavenly food . . . Christ's body broken for us."

We are not talking about the Jews "literally" eating the passover lamb or "literally" eating the manna from heaven now are we Gail??? Did Jesus disciples "literally" eat Jesus body and "literally" drink His blood when they were with Him in person??? I think not...

You wrote, "It may seem odd to you, as a non-Catholic, but I assure you, historically speaking, it has always been this way. Symbolic, yes it is that, but it also much much more . . .it is also substantive."

You and I have been back and forth on how much I really like listening to those so-called "historians" right Gail... :-)

You wrote, "The Eucharist is the central feature of the mass. There is nothing that compares to it by way of "union with Christ." There is nothing more holy, nothing more profound, nothing more reverential than the "Marriage Feast of the Lamb."

One does not need to "literally" partake of the Lord's Supper in order to remember Jesus death...

You wrote, "It is by the far the most glorious, the most uniquely divine moment of the spiritual journey; it is a grace that far surpasses any other. I cannot find a human word to describe the majesty of this great gift. It is touching the fingertip of God! It is like standing on the brink of eternity. It is AWESOME!"

Again Gail, that is your opinion and you are entitled to it however I do not agree with the Catholic view concerning the Lord's Supper and until someone can change my mind, I will continue to say that this is not the correct way to observe the Lord's Supper...

You wrote, "I wish you could believe!"

I do "believe" Gail, just not how Catholics observe the Lord's Supper...

-- Kevin Walker ("navyscporetired@comcast.net"), February 28, 2005.

"It would be impossible for Christ as God to allow a missunderstanding on this point."

Then why did the Jews leave Jesus???

"As God, He knew exactly what those Jews thought of his words."

Those Jews misunderstod the same way that Catholics misunderstand...

"Yet He allowed those Jews to leave and did not alter the words He used."

Didn't you just say, "It would be impossible for Christ as God to allow a missunderstanding on this point"

You just contradicted yourself...

-- Kevin Walker ("navyscporetired@comcast.net"), February 28, 2005.

Hi Kevin, I'm not talking about what historians say about history. I could care less about what historians say because I find them to be biased. I NEVER relied on historians when I was investigating the Church.

I am talking about the writings of the early church leaders -- what they believed about the Lord's supper. And I don't mean to imply that the writings of the early church leaders are "gospel," but they shed light on the understandings of the church when the church was at it's embrionic stage.

For instance, Ignatius, who was a disciple of John, and actually sat under John's tutelage, his letters are useful to get a "glimpse" of the early church.

You and I are just going to have to respectfully disagree on this issue. I know that the Church's teachings on the Eucharist seem outlandish, and even bizarre, but the overwhelming evidence is that the very earliest church writings we have show that this was the prevailing belief, and this belief has been carried into the present age.

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), February 28, 2005.

Kevin ""Then why did the Jews leave Jesus??? "" Perhaps it was a question of the words being too important to change.

-- Ming the Merciless (dot4@hotmail.co.uk), February 28, 2005.

Gail,

You wrote, "You and I are just going to have to respectfully disagree on this issue. I know that the Church's teachings on the Eucharist seem outlandish, and even bizarre, but the overwhelming evidence is that the very earliest church writings we have show that this was the prevailing belief, and this belief has been carried into the present age."

We have discussed the "early fathers" teaching on this subject also... To which I don't agree and on many subjects they don't even agree.. If I cannot change your mind, very well...

Ming wrote, "Perhaps it was a question of the words being too important to change."

Perhaps it was to show that one is to not take "literally" Jesus words "eat my flesh" and "drink my blood" which is what caused the Jews to depart from Him...

-- Kevin Walker ("navyscporetired@comcast.net"), February 28, 2005.

Thanks Kevin, for realizing you can't change my mind, and for not beating me up over it.

I want you to know that everything I posted above was not to "beat you up" either. The ONLY reason I wish I could change your mind is because I would dearly love for you to experience the POWER in this sacrament WHOLLY as I have had.

You don't believe it, so I won't press it, and God Bless you anyway!

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), February 28, 2005.

Gail,

You wrote, "God Bless you anyway!"

May God bless you also in everything that you do Gail...

-- Kevin Walker ("navyscporetired@comcast.net"), March 01, 2005.

Thanks for the blessing Kevin. It means a lot!

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), March 01, 2005.