1 Corithians 5 opinions?

JimiTime

In this passage, we are told that while we do not judge those outside the body of Christ, there is a standard within the body. If not upheld it carries quite a staunch command. Have a look below.


6 Your boasting is not good. Don’t you know that a little yeast leavens the whole batch of dough? 7 Get rid of the old yeast, so that you may be a new unleavened batch—as you really are. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. 8 Therefore let us keep the Festival, not with the old bread leavened with malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.

9 I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— 10 not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. 11 But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister[c] but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such people.

12 What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? 13 God will judge those outside. “Expel the wicked person from among you.”[d]

What do you take out of this?

Also, please answer with the assumption that Paul was not some corrupter of the 'original christianity'. We are working under the understanding that Paul is an inspired apostle. Objections to Paul etc is not for this thread. Cheers.

Benny_Cake

It strikes me as a verse, which taken at face value, could be used to back up the policy of "shunning" which some Christian groups practice (the Amish and a few Mennonites). The Jehovah's Witnesses practice something similar. I'd be interested in reading how other churches would interpret this.

PDN

The funny thing is that non-Christians will bang on about how judgemental this is - but then they complain because a particular denomonation failed to weed the paedophiles out from within its ranks.

It's straight forward to me. Those who claim to be followers of Jesus Christ, but who refuse to live be Christian morality, should be confronted and, if possible, brought to a point of repentance and restoration. If they refuse then they should be removed from the membership of the church.

Of course anyone, no matter how evil they are, should be welcome to visit a church and hear the Gospel. But being a member requires a commitment and behaviour to match.

tommy2bad

1 Corithians 5
To deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ.

For those not familiar, this is the passage.

Always struck me that Jesus would have incurred Paul's wrath from reading this piece but I think Paul would have given Jesus a get out of jail card for being God.
So he didn't like sinners in his church, funny that.

tommy2bad

PDN;
It's straight forward to me. Those who claim to be followers of Jesus Christ, but who refuse to live be Christian morality, should be confronted and, if possible, brought to a point of repentance and restoration. If they refuse then they should be removed from the membership of the church.

Spot on, with the proviso that they have a place kept for them should they return.
It's not a difficult piece, all it says is that to participate in this church you have to keep the rules. You are welcome to meet us and deal with us but if you don't keep the rules please have the good grace not to claim to be one of us.

Peregrinus

tommy2bad wrote: »

Spot on, with the proviso that they have a place kept for them should they return.

And I think that point is covered in v. 5, which tommy2bad quotes above. Someone who persistently lives immorally is to be “delivered to Satar”, i.e. excluded from the Christian community, the sphere of Jesus’ lordship and victory over sin. He will then be in the region outside over which Satan is still master. But the purpose of this is so that his “spirit may be saved”, i.e. it’s a medicinal sanction, intended to call his attention to his immorality and its consequences, and to give him a reason to repent of it and return to the sphere of Jesus.

tommy2bad wrote: »

It's not a difficult piece, all it says is that to participate in this church you have to keep the rules. You are welcome to meet us and deal with us but if you don't keep the rules please have the good grace not to claim to be one of us.

The interesting thing, though, is that it ties acceptance into/exclusion from the church with how you live, rather than with what beliefs you profess - i.e. with works, rather than with faith. Is there a tension between this and what paul says about faith and works elsewhere?

PDN

Peregrinus wrote: »

The interesting thing, though, is that it ties acceptance into/exclusion from the church with how you live, rather than with what beliefs you profess - i.e. with works, rather than with faith. Is there a tension between this and what paul says about faith and works elsewhere?

I don't think so. Works are the natural result of saving faith. That is an perfectly Pauline viewpoint:

For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God - not by works, so that no one can boast. For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do. (Ephesians 2:8-10)

If someone claims to have faith, but their life does not change, then their faith would appear to be bogus. As Jesus said, "By their fruit you shall know them."

Peregrinus

PDN wrote: »

I don't think so. Works are the natural result of saving faith. That is an perfectly Pauline viewpoint:

For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God - not by works, so that no one can boast. For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do. (Ephesians 2:8-10)

If someone claims to have faith, but their life does not change, then their faith would appear to be bogus. As Jesus said, "By their fruit you shall know them."

Sure. But does Paul suggest anywhere that if someone is living an apparently moral life but is saying untrue/unorthodox things about Jesus, he should be slung out of the church?

JimiTime

Benny_Cake wrote: »

It strikes me as a verse, which taken at face value, could be used to back up the policy of "shunning" which some Christian groups practice (the Amish and a few Mennonites). The Jehovah's Witnesses practice something similar. I'd be interested in reading how other churches would interpret this.

Its certainly something that could be abused.

PDN wrote: »

It's straight forward to me. Those who claim to be followers of Jesus Christ, but who refuse to live be Christian morality, should be confronted and, if possible, brought to a point of repentance and restoration. If they refuse then they should be removed from the membership of the church.

Of course anyone, no matter how evil they are, should be welcome to visit a church and hear the Gospel. But being a member requires a commitment and behaviour to match.

So how would a member who has been removed be treated if they continue to be, for example, sexually immoral, but continue to attend?

tommy2bad

JimiTime wrote: »

Its certainly something that could be abused.



So how would a member who has been removed be treated if they continue to be, for example, sexually immoral, but continue to attend?

Not sure I understand, if removed how are they attending?
And what level of proof is need to remove someone? Rumor? accusation? known to be? Also what dose attending mean? Is it turning up at gatherings, joining in in prayer or is their a sacramental element involved?

SonOfAdam

The context of 1 Cor 5 is of someone 'having' their father's wife - an immorality that was almost unheard of 'even among pagans' - the church at Corinth seemed to boast in their freedom 'as all things are permissable' that they allowed and boasted in what Paul couldn't countenance. It was a case of open sin that the church of the day didn't recognise as such, possibly in the name of tolerance. These were early days, the church was getting things arse about face [although they should have known this activity was wrong from the OT, Leviticus 18:8 expressly forbids sex with a step-mother] and Paul writes to address this.

When we sin, we think we do so in isolation - that it affects no-one but us but as part of the church our sin permeates much like the leaven and affects our relationships, not only with God but with those around us.

In this case Paul is talking about the unrepentant - partaking in whatever is his sin of choice - he's not talking of those who struggle and fall along the way who seek repentance and restoration but the willfully rebellious. I think there is a clear difference. There's a case doing the rounds on the blogoshpere at the moment dealing with this exact issue - although the 'unrepentant' was in fact repentant all along and it's looking more and more likely a case of abuse of church authority - so it's one extreme to the other.

JimiTime

SonOfAdam wrote: »

The context of 1 Cor 5 is of someone 'having' their father's wife - an immorality that was almost unheard of 'even among pagans' - the church at Corinth seemed to boast in their freedom 'as all things are permissable' that they allowed and boasted in what Paul couldn't countenance. It was a case of open sin that the church of the day didn't recognise as such, possibly in the name of tolerance. These were early days, the church was getting things arse about face [although they should have known this activity was wrong from the OT, Leviticus 18:8 expressly forbids sex with a step-mother] and Paul writes to address this.

Yes, thats the context of why he was talking to that particular church, but the context of his subsequent advice was generic.

In this case Paul is talking about the unrepentant - partaking in whatever is his sin of choice - he's not talking of those who struggle and fall along the way who seek repentance and restoration but the willfully rebellious.

I agree.

Peregrinus

JimiTime wrote: »

So how would a member who has been removed be treated if they continue to be, for example, sexually immoral, but continue to attend?

In most Christian traditions today, worship is public. Anyone can turn up, and turning up does not necessarily imply membership of the community. Visitors are welcome.

But back in Paul's time, it's not so clear. The central communal ritual of the early church seems to have been the eucharistic meal, and this was celebrated in private homes, so presumably it wasn't public. There was an element of hospitality involved in hosting and/or presiding at the eucharistic meal, and presumably people could be and were "disinvited".

Some (and at first probably all) local churches had a distinctively Jewish character, and members of the church were probably also attending synagogue, and saw no contradiction in doing this. (At a later date Christians were expelled from the synagogues.) Presumably a "disinvited" Christian could still go to the synagogue.