Paul said NOT to be "Harsh" in Shunning

FusionTheism

The Apostle Paul warned the Corinthians not to be too harsh in their shunning of a man who was guilty of sexual immortality / adultery:

2 Co 2:5-11: Now if anyone has caused sadness, he has saddened, not me, but all of you to an extent—not to be too harsh in what I say. This rebuke given by the majority is sufficient for such a man; now you should instead kindly forgive and comfort him, so that he may not be overwhelmed by excessive sadness.

I therefore exhort you to confirm your love for him. For this is also why I wrote to you: to determine whether you would give proof of your obedience in all things.

If you forgive anyone for anything, I do also. In fact, whatever I have forgiven (if I have forgiven anything) has been for your sake in Christ’s sight, so that we may not be overreached by Satan, for we are not ignorant of his designs.

--------

Otherwise, Paul said, if you are not forgiving, but are harsh, then you've been overreached by Satan.

Also, look at Paul's command regarding those who are disobedient to his inspired letters:

2 Thessalonians 3:14-15: But if anyone is not obedient to our word through this letter, keep this one marked and stop associating with him, so that he may become ashamed. And yet do not consider him an enemy, but continue admonishing him as abrother.

cappytan

Good points for the still-ins.

iwasblind

Hi Fusion

It is very interesting too, that it is some bible scholars say that the case in 1 Cor 5 where Paul told them to throw the immoral man out of the church, is the same man that Paul said in 2 Cor to welcome him back. These books were written in the same year also.

BUT, funnily enough there is no mention of 3 men coming to judge if he is "repentant in a Godly way", making him wait for months alone at the back of their meetings, writing a letter to be reinstated, etc.

As Oubliette says: Let's review - it's a cult!

John Aquila

This rebuke given by the majority is sufficient

Not everyone in the congregation was to shun him.

aintenoughwiskey

John aquilla shunning was a conscience matter. Scriptural proof

Hold Me-Thrill Me

Jesus did not teach those who did wrong should be shunned or put out of the congregation. This was Paul's idea.

John Aquila

This was Paul's idea.

I wonder where he got the idea?

(Acts 8:3) . . .Saul, though, began to deal outrageously with the congregation. Invading one house after another and, dragging out both men and women, he would turn them over to prison.

LisaRose

It ties in with my belief that the early Christians did not practice shunning as the Jehovah's Witnesses do. No judicial committee, no announcement, but if a person was known to do things that was not right, then those people that were aware of it would simply stop associating with him. No need for the elders to sniff out any hint of impropriety, no harsh shunning because someone made a mistake, it would take a consistent practice of such behavior, and such judgement was by individuals, by church leaders.

And since there is a record of the early Christians having disagreements, no shunning because you didn't agree 100 with another person, even if they were church leaders.

Vidiot

John Aquila - "I wonder where he got the idea?"

Huh. Hadn't thought of that.

Once a fanatic, always a fanatic, I guess.

Vidiot

LisaRose - "...since there is a record of the early Christians having disagreements, no shunning because you didn't agree 100 with another person, even if they were church leaders."

I came to the conclusion a long time ago that groups ostracize dissenters, not because they think the dissenters are wrong, but because - deep down inside - they're afraid the dissenters are right.

Paul said NOT to be "Harsh" in Shunning

Share this