2 Thessalonians 3:6-15

[jcright]

My brothers and sisters in Christ, once again I am in need of your assistance. I'd like to know what you think about 2 Thessalonians 3:6-15.

Thanks

 

[bleechers]

Which verse in particular? There is a lot of meat in the passage.

The first distinction I would make is that this passage has to with bothers (i.e. Christians) as opposed to the Titus parallel which deals with "hereticks".

Even so, when was the last time your local church "shunned and shamed" a brother? Try that and some CCM artist will write some "How-come-the-church-doesn't-love-enough" song and win 4 Dove awards...

 

[NicodemusPrime]

The Disorderly (6-15), were lazy people who, taking advantage of the charitable disposition of the church (I Thessalonians 4:9-10) and, making their expectation of the immediate appearance of the Lord an excuse for abandoning their ordinary occupations, were claiming the right to be supported by the brethren who had means.
Paul, though he was an ardent advocate of charity toward those who were really in need, and though he spent a good deal of time gathering offerings of money for the poor, yet he spared no words in condemning the able-bodied who could but would not work. In these verses he positively forbids the brethren to support such people; even commands the church to withdraw fellowship from them.

I would for the most part agree with this explanation. Living off of the charity of others and making welfare a profession even though you are able to work for a living is unchristian. If someone is able to work, they should.

 

[Gold Dragon]

He's telling some of the Thessalonians to get off their lazy butts.

 

[Cright]

http://www.gospelcom.net/eword/comments/2thessalonians/mh/2thessalonians3.htm

This is from an online bible commentary.



Can anybody explain Vs. 15 more specifically?

Thanks,
Carina

 

[Belteshazzar]

2 Thessalonians 3:15 "Yet do not count him as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother." (NJKV)

Paul writes this verse to to indicate how lazy individuals is to be treated
by the Christian community. The community is not to associate with these
stubborn people, but to not treat them as the enemy.
Because these lazy persons are not the enemy, lines of commuication were
kept open to warn them of the errors of their ways in a brotherly manner.
In so doing there was the hope that the lazy indivdual would repent of their idleness
and once more be welcome in the Christian community.

 

[Bizzlebin Imperatoris]

I think it means that elders/teachers/deacons/bishops need to support themselves in some way, and not rely on a congregation for the majority of their needs. Back then, some people were living an easy life off of other's donations in exchange for preaching false gospels. (like false prophets)

 

[jcright]

Which verse in particular? There is a lot of meat in the passage.

The first distinction I would make is that this passage has to with bothers (i.e. Christians) as opposed to the Titus parallel which deals with "hereticks".

Even so, when was the last time your local church "shunned and shamed" a brother? Try that and some CCM artist will write some "How-come-the-church-doesn't-love-enough" song and win 4 Dove awards...

2 Thess 3:15

Let me give you guys a little background information.

As some of you know, Carina and I are engaged. In an attempt to make the wedding affordable and at the same time be able to invite all our family and close friends (she has a HUGE family), we are looking for the cheapests routes. Our church is charging X amount of dollars, something that I kind of expected but had hoped would be a little cheaper. My sister's sister-in-law is married to a senior pastor (confused yet?) and so my sister asked the pastor about holding the wedding at his church. I know the pastor quite well, we've spoken many times and agree on much of the same things. He sent me an e-mail indicating that he would do the wedding for free but only if we were in a fundamental baptist church (I'm sure he would prefer his church, but any fundamental church would do). He went on to say what he didn't like about my church and why. He believes that my church should be strict militant separatists. By this, he means that our Pastor should not only preach the truth of the gospel, but point out those religions that go against what the bible says. Our pastor, to his credit, does preach the truth! However, he doesn't take the time to point out the religions that falter...although, he does say things like "there people out there that will not be happy to hear this but...". Personally, I'm not sure that we really need to point fingers at other groups and point out where they are wrong in order to reveal the truth of the bible. It's been my thought that the pastor should preach the truth so that we know the lies when we see/hear it and therefore take the appropriate action as we see necessary. So he has used that verse, and I can only assume because of the preceding verses, to say that our church is being lazy in it's duty to tell the truth and expose the other religions for their false teachings. I have a lot of respect for this man, he definintely knows the bible and it is obvious that he takes great care in being accurate so that there are no misunderstandings...which is why I posted the verses. I was wondering if somehow I had misinterpreted what I was reading.

I'm going to edit what I've said before I get myself into trouble. There's another reason he has pointed out that verse and applied it to my church, however, that is something I will have to investigate as a separate issue.

 

[Bizzlebin Imperatoris]

Find an elder or bishop that truly follows the truth and isn't followed by a divisive and/or greedy spirit

 

[NicodemusPrime]

Personally, I'm not sure that we really need to point fingers at other groups and point out where they are wrong in order to reveal the truth of the bible. It's been my thought that the pastor should preach the truth so that we know the lies when we see/hear it and therefore take the appropriate action as we see necessary.

I definately do not support finger pointing and I don't think the issue should be address directly from the pulpit. However, I do believe that it is very important for the differences between doctrines be pointed out. This can be done from study groups, a recommend reading list or something of that manner. A lot of times people get deeply involved in some pretty shady stuff before they are even told some of the more questionable doctrines that are supported by that group. I'm not supporting finger pointing and name calling, but its important for people to be able to recognize unsound doctine and approach it with caution instead of just accepting every group with the Christian moniker.