1000TH POST!!!!!
Okay. Needed to get that out of my system. The situation in the Corinthian congregation is often used as the basis for the concept of 'reinstatement'. But there is a glaring lack of detail in this that requires them to make up stuff.
1. The person who saddened everyone--well, do we know who that was for sure? No. He might've been the person who committed fornication, or he might not have been. That guy may never have bothered to repent, for all we know.
2. Confirming their love for the repentant sinner did not require a committee of elders to get a letter from him, then meet him to 'determine' if he was truly repentant, then decide what 'was already decided in heaven'.
This goes for the prodigal son as well. The prodigal son didn't sit outside his father's house for a year, then write a letter to his father to be accepted back, then meet with the father's slaves who would then determine if his father should actually let him back in. The father saw his son from a distance, then RAN to meet him, rejoiced that he was back. How would he have known this son wasn't coming back just out of desperation and not out of true repentance? That wasn't at issue--the father accepted him as he was, broken and dejected.
In the end, we're all like that. We could all use some fixing, and that's really the point of it all, if you're a Christian. Jesus died for sinners, not righteous people. He died so we could be accepted without hesitation by the Father.
3. The sinner in 1 Corinthians 5 obviously had a very public situation going on. Both disfellowshipping and reinstatement processes are carried out in secret (not unlike how the Sanhedrin tried Jesus, illegally), and the only thing you know about it is what you hear in the rumor mill. Since you're trying to shame people anyway, might as well have a public trial like it's 'The Crucible' or something. (sigh)
-sd-7
