Do not even eat with such a one...

tuliplane

Newbie
Oct 19, 2012
289
85
✟31,502.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
People are not to judge that way. Sorrrrry :sorry:

John 7:24
Do not judge by appearances, but judge with right judgment.”

John 8
15 You judge according to the flesh; I judge no one.

Isaiah 11
3 And his delight shall be in the fear of the Lord. He shall not judge by what his eyes see, or decide disputes by what his ears hear, but with righteousness he shall judge the poor, and decide with equity for the meek of the earth;

John 8
7 And as they continued to ask him, he stood up and said to them, “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.”

James 2
4 have you not then made distinctions among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts?

Proverbs 24
23 These also are sayings of the wise. Partiality in judging is not good.

1 Samuel 16
7 But the Lord said to Samuel, “Do not look on his appearance or on the height of his stature, because I have rejected him. For the Lord sees not as man sees: man looks on the outward appearance, but the Lord looks on the heart.”

So do you think these verses just don't apply? It's pretty clear to me what we're supposed to do. I think you may be not understanding that the context of some of the 'don't judge' verses you listed were referring to those who were self-righteous; condemning others and ignoring sin in their own lives, while touting their false holiness.

1 Corinthians 5:12
For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge?

1 Timothy 5:20
As for those who persist in sin, rebuke them in the presence of all, so that the rest may stand in fear.

Luke 17:3
Pay attention to yourselves! If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him,

Titus 2:15
Declare these things; exhort and rebuke with all authority. Let no one disregard you.

John 7:24
Do not judge by appearances, but judge with right judgment.

Ephesians 5:11
Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: ChicanaRose
Upvote 0

ViaCrucis

Confessional Lutheran
Oct 2, 2011
37,342
26,788
Pacific Northwest
✟728,246.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
The sort of person Paul speaks about is a Christian who engages in destructive behavior. We aren't simply talking about someone who is in the wrong. The list includes destructive behaviors--idolatry, prostitution, drunkenness, extortion, etc.

Such a person is no longer welcome into the community of faith, or what we often call excommunication.

The question further then is what does the Apostle mean by eating, does he mean simply sharing a conversation over a basic meal? Or does he refer to the Eucharist? In either case, the point is such a person is now excluded from the fellowship of the community as their destructive behavior shouldn't be tolerated, or worse, encouraged. The goal, of course, of church discipline is ultimately restoring communion, and so the point isn't punishment--to hurt, shame, or revile the person--but to clearly establish boundaries about what sorts of behaviors can't be tolerated because they bring harm, and that repentance and restoration are the end goal. And if this person has no interest in this, they are allowed to go their own way.

What this passage does not permit is shaming and shunning, as is frequently practiced among cultish and dangerously authoritarian groups.

There must be love, compassion, and an intent by the Church to both establish boundaries as well as foster an atmosphere of reconciliation and healing.

-CryptoLutheran
 
Upvote 0

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
25,918
11,305
76
✟363,350.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
What this passage does not permit is shaming and shunning, as is frequently practiced among cultish and dangerously authoritarian groups.

There must be love, compassion, and an intent by the Church to both establish boundaries as well as foster an atmosphere of reconciliation and healing.

Well said. Are you familiar with the way the Hutterites handle such a person?

Someone who is overtly defiant of the denomnations beliefs and persists in this, is shunned, but in a particular way. The others don't speak to the person or include the person in church activities, but are extremely careful to protect the individual from harm. They believe that such a person is certain to go to Hell if they die in such a state, and so try to keep them from anything remotely dangerous until they either leave or return to acceptance of the Hutterite beliefs.

This seems much more loving and Christlike than the complete exclusion by some other groups that practice shunning.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: ViaCrucis
Upvote 0

Anguspure

Kaitiaki Peacemakers NZ
Supporter
Jun 28, 2011
3,865
1,769
New Zealand
✟125,935.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Something that I have been thinking about a lot lately is 1 Corinthians 5:11. This is specifically about the person who claims they are Christian, but is living in sin...even boasting about it. It is clear that we are not to associate with a person like this, not even to share a meal.

In these present times, I'm seeing more and more people who claim Christ embrace some of the very sins listed in this passage. I can scroll through facebook and see someone post about God's love only just to post acceptance of immorality not too long later; this person also lives with her boyfriend and child they have together. I've had a classmate who claimed she was Christian laugh about sleeping with her boyfriend; they're not together anymore and she has a new boyfriend who I've seen act inappropriately with her in public before they were "officially dating" and they even just went on vacation together. I know another girl who also claims she's Christian and lives with her boyfriend. My own sister is living in this way and sadly, we are not speaking because of it. She wanted nothing to do with me when I voiced how I felt about her lifestyle. These are just a few examples among what I am seeing a lot of lately.

I've interacted with all of these people, and yes, even shared a meal with them. I wasn't thinking too much about this verse then, but according to it, am I not to associate with them? What happens in the case where they study at the same university as you or work in the same workplace? Isn't that "associating" with them by the very definition of the word? The same passage says it is not talking about the people of the world, because to not deal with them we would have to leave this world. Obviously we aren't supposed to be best friends with the people of the world either, which leaves us free to do business with them, work with them, speak with them, etc. This must mean that for those who claim to be Christians and are living in blatant sin, that we cannot even associate with them in mundane everyday ways. How can we realistically do this, if say, they happen to be your coworker?

Is this verse talking about only the person engaging in such immorality, or does it also address those who are active supporters of it? I know of many who aren't committing immoral acts themselves, but they applaud those who do. They either think calling the person out on their sinful behavior will leave them feeling condemned and fear it will push them further from God, or they actually celebrate the lifestyle the "Christian" is living in the name of freedom and love. I am friends with someone else on facebook, an ordained reverend; instead of rebuking the other "Christian" friend who is falling away in faith, recently declared she is a witch, that she doesn't believe that the path she is on will lead to destruction and that she is in control of her power, gets the support and cheering of her new found freedom by the reverend instead. This left me so unsettled.

I don't understand why people who want to live in such a way don't just use their freewill and fully commit, since they are already doing these things anyway, rather than claiming Christ at the same time. It seems actually more complicated and less "freeing" if they want to be tied to the very faith that condemns these things. But I digress...

What I'm really wondering is how we follow this verse, especially in these times when so many say they follow God but live in sin. How do we navigate this issue in our everyday lives? How do we define "associating"? Is being employed by the same employer associating? Being friends on facebook? Are those who condone and even preach immorality while they themselves are not physically engaging in the sin on the same level as those who are?
Who are you to say who is simply cohabitating and who is married? Where you there when the two became one?
 
Upvote 0

hedrick

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Feb 8, 2009
20,250
10,565
New Jersey
✟1,147,348.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
The sort of person Paul speaks about is a Christian who engages in destructive behavior. We aren't simply talking about someone who is in the wrong. The list includes destructive behaviors--idolatry, prostitution, drunkenness, extortion, etc.

Such a person is no longer welcome into the community of faith, or what we often call excommunication.

The question further then is what does the Apostle mean by eating, does he mean simply sharing a conversation over a basic meal? Or does he refer to the Eucharist? In either case, the point is such a person is now excluded from the fellowship of the community as their destructive behavior shouldn't be tolerated, or worse, encouraged. The goal, of course, of church discipline is ultimately restoring communion, and so the point isn't punishment--to hurt, shame, or revile the person--but to clearly establish boundaries about what sorts of behaviors can't be tolerated because they bring harm, and that repentance and restoration are the end goal. And if this person has no interest in this, they are allowed to go their own way.

What this passage does not permit is shaming and shunning, as is frequently practiced among cultish and dangerously authoritarian groups.

There must be love, compassion, and an intent by the Church to both establish boundaries as well as foster an atmosphere of reconciliation and healing.

-CryptoLutheran
I don't disagree with anything you say, but I'm not sure this addresses the OP's concern. I have little question that Paul would expect church discipline against anyone living with someone outside marriage. But many churches don't do that. I'm not sure whether it's "many" or "most." It may well be "most."

In fact the list of sins is much longer than just sexual. It includes things that would be included in "social justice." To my knowledge, churches have used church discipline almost entirely for sexual sin, except in fairly legalistic church that might use it for dancing, etc. Not generally for greedy or "revilers," though.

I think two things are going on, neither of which is likely to change:
  1. The church is no longer like a family to most of us. It's more like one of several clubs we're members of. It makes sense for a family to do discipline. A club really can't. In many churches we don't know enough about members' lives to provide help, much less discipline. A club, and most churches, can throw you out, but not do what Paul actually intended.
  2. Like it or not, there's been a change in sexual ethics. Few Christians would openly say that it's OK to have sex outside of marriage, but few really expect Christians to wait until marriage to have sex.
I would argue that for individuals to shun other individuals, in an environment where it's not really useful for discipline, accomplishes nothing and is a bad idea. It would be different if you're a member of a congregation that is actually following Paul's approach to discipline. In that case members would be expected to support it. I don't think individual Christians can expect to discipline others outside of the kind of congregational structure that Paul assumed.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

bèlla

❤️
Supporter
Jan 16, 2019
20,485
17,646
USA
✟933,730.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
In Relationship
The church is no longer like a family to most of us. It's more like one of several clubs we're members of.

Exactly. Many have no relationship with their members outside of volunteering and collecting tithes. They don’t ‘know’ them at all.
 
Upvote 0

tuliplane

Newbie
Oct 19, 2012
289
85
✟31,502.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Who are you to say who is simply cohabitating and who is married? Where you there when the two became one?
That is indeed the purpose of a public marriage ceremony. Having sex does not = marriage. Marriage is a covenant consummated by the physical act of sex. These people I know are enjoying the sexual component, but have made no marriage commitments. Also, this statement makes no sense because the examples of people I gave, fully disclose that the person they are living with are their boyfriends.
 
Upvote 0

tuliplane

Newbie
Oct 19, 2012
289
85
✟31,502.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I don't disagree with anything you say, but I'm not sure this addresses the OP's concern. I have little question that Paul would expect church discipline against anyone living with someone outside marriage. But many churches don't do that. I'm not sure whether it's "many" or "most." It may well be "most."

In fact the list of sins is much longer than just sexual. It includes things that would be included in "social justice." To my knowledge, churches have used church discipline almost entirely for sexual sin, except in fairly legalistic church that might use it for dancing, etc. Not generally for greedy or "revilers," though.

I think two things are going on, neither of which is likely to change:
  1. The church is no longer like a family to most of us. It's more like one of several clubs we're members of. It makes sense for a family to do discipline. A club really can't. In many churches we don't know enough about members' lives to provide help, much less discipline. A club, and most churches, can throw you out, but not do what Paul actually intended.
  2. Like it or not, there's been a change in sexual ethics. Few Christians would openly say that it's OK to have sex outside of marriage, but few really expect Christians to wait until marriage to have sex.
I would argue that for individuals to shun other individuals, in an environment where it's not really useful for discipline, accomplishes nothing and is a bad idea. It would be different if you're a member of a congregation that is actually following Paul's approach to discipline. In that case members would be expected to support it. I don't think individual Christians can expect to discipline others outside of the kind of congregational structure that Paul assumed.
I absolutely agree that churches have become clubs. People who become members have this elevated sense of importance and man-made rules are constructed, which become club guidelines.
 
Upvote 0

ViaCrucis

Confessional Lutheran
Oct 2, 2011
37,342
26,788
Pacific Northwest
✟728,246.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
I don't disagree with anything you say, but I'm not sure this addresses the OP's concern. I have little question that Paul would expect church discipline against anyone living with someone outside marriage. But many churches don't do that. I'm not sure whether it's "many" or "most." It may well be "most."

In fact the list of sins is much longer than just sexual. It includes things that would be included in "social justice." To my knowledge, churches have used church discipline almost entirely for sexual sin, except in fairly legalistic church that might use it for dancing, etc. Not generally for greedy or "revilers," though.

I think two things are going on, neither of which is likely to change:
  1. The church is no longer like a family to most of us. It's more like one of several clubs we're members of. It makes sense for a family to do discipline. A club really can't. In many churches we don't know enough about members' lives to provide help, much less discipline. A club, and most churches, can throw you out, but not do what Paul actually intended.
  2. Like it or not, there's been a change in sexual ethics. Few Christians would openly say that it's OK to have sex outside of marriage, but few really expect Christians to wait until marriage to have sex.
I would argue that for individuals to shun other individuals, in an environment where it's not really useful for discipline, accomplishes nothing and is a bad idea. It would be different if you're a member of a congregation that is actually following Paul's approach to discipline. In that case members would be expected to support it. I don't think individual Christians can expect to discipline others outside of the kind of congregational structure that Paul assumed.

I agree with you. Paul assumes a certain way of congregational life that isn't necessarily reflective of how congregational and community life has changed in certain ways over the centuries. We live in a very different world then the one of the first Christian communities. The modern post-industrial western world is a very different kind of place than 1st century Roman antiquity. And so there are going to be times where simply trying to replicate things from the 1st century aren't going to work, because much of those things were shaped by the particular circumstances of the time. Christians living as a new religious movement and oppressed religious minority in the Roman Empire simply isn't an applicable statement to refer to a two thousand year old religious movement that is the majority religion of most developed countries.

And that isn't to say that we shouldn't be critical of our modern structures and find ways to help really communicate the fact that as God's people we are called to a committed life to one another in love and service. But that gets us into the nitty-gritty discussions of missiology, of the Church being the Church and living out her mission in the time and place where she is at the moment.

And so all of this is really a matter about how we talk about congregational ethics; and I think those sorts of discussions, and how we go about both keeping the vulnerable safe as well as seek the reconciliation of those who have or are doing harm. Because both of these things are parts of the Church's mission, to be a people of peace, love, and reconciliation in a sinful world. We cannot tolerate destructive and harmful behavior, and at the same time we desire the reconciliation and healing of the abuser even as we desire to protect and safeguard others from abuse.

-CryptoLutheran
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

hedrick

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Feb 8, 2009
20,250
10,565
New Jersey
✟1,147,348.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
And so all of this is really a matter about how we talk about congregational ethics; and I think those sorts of discussions, and how we go about both keeping the vulnerable safe as well as seek the reconciliation of those who have or are doing harm. Because both of these things are parts of the Church's mission, to be a people of peace, love, and reconciliation in a sinful world. We cannot tolerate destructive and harmful behavior, and at the same time we desire the reconciliation and healing of the abuser even as we desire to protect and safeguard others from abuse.
Congregations I'm in have done various types of discipline a few times. But not in quite the way Paul envisioned. Of course it's probably true that what we see as the major threats aren't the same. Not surprising, since we're not dealing with a whole congregation of converts from Roman culture in Corinth.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: ChicanaRose
Upvote 0

ChicanaRose

Well-Known Member
Mar 26, 2019
1,250
1,331
west coast
✟75,698.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
And so all of this is really a matter about how we talk about congregational ethics; and I think those sorts of discussions, and how we go about both keeping the vulnerable safe as well as seek the reconciliation of those who have or are doing harm. Because both of these things are parts of the Church's mission, to be a people of peace, love, and reconciliation in a sinful world. We cannot tolerate destructive and harmful behavior, and at the same time we desire the reconciliation and healing of the abuser even as we desire to protect and safeguard others from abuse.

-CryptoLutheran

I agree. Sometimes I hear people say, "my sin doesn't affect anyone but me." But it's not true. Even if they do not directly cause others harm, they have the power to influence or make others stumble.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: tuliplane
Upvote 0

Anguspure

Kaitiaki Peacemakers NZ
Supporter
Jun 28, 2011
3,865
1,769
New Zealand
✟125,935.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
That is indeed the purpose of a public marriage ceremony.
A question I have then is what sort of public marriage ceremony is acceptable to our God?
If I have a wedding in the name of whatever god that most of the world follows, is my marriage covenant with YHWH?
If my covenent is not with our God, does it have any real standing, anymore than the covenant of common law marriage?
At what point does a person become married?
Are a man and a woman simply married when a community recognizes the special relationship between them?
What if we have no community that will recognize our relationship before Him?

Certainly the scriptures do not prescribe the form of a wedding ceremony, nor who should be present, rather they simply state: "That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh." and: “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’ ? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”
Having sex does not = marriage. Marriage is a covenant consummated by the physical act of sex. These people I know are enjoying the sexual component, but have made no marriage commitments. Also, this statement makes no sense because the examples of people I gave, fully disclose that the person they are living with are their boyfriends.
While I accept that the people you refer to are living in fornication it does not follow that they have not been joined as one in sex because of their desire to subvert the created order by not making a covenant before YHWH.

Certainly neuroscience points towards the fundamental neurological link that forms as a result of sexual consummation and also the profound psychological and emotional damage that occurs when this link is broken by the failure of that relationship.

That they do not in their hearts hold to the one that they have consummated their relationship with, nor ever intended to, also makes them adulterers because from the beginning they adulterate the special relationship that they have formed with another.

That people can leap in and out of sexual relationships with no apparent ill effect simply points to a terrible deep hardening of the heart.

But I am really only a seeker in this respect. My background is one of may broken relationships and rejection and the one that I have just lost has brought me so much pain that at one point I thought I was finished.

Now that I have been left alone it seems to me that much of this thinking just sets up a massive barrier to the already difficult job of meeting somebody to love and be loved by.
 
Upvote 0

ooQQoo

Active Member
Oct 23, 2019
78
16
24
La
✟560.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Something that I have been thinking about a lot lately is 1 Corinthians 5:11. This is specifically about the person who claims they are Christian, but is living in sin...even boasting about it. It is clear that we are not to associate with a person like this, not even to share a meal.

In these present times, I'm seeing more and more people who claim Christ embrace some of the very sins listed in this passage. I can scroll through facebook and see someone post about God's love only just to post acceptance of immorality not too long later; this person also lives with her boyfriend and child they have together. I've had a classmate who claimed she was Christian laugh about sleeping with her boyfriend; they're not together anymore and she has a new boyfriend who I've seen act inappropriately with her in public before they were "officially dating" and they even just went on vacation together. I know another girl who also claims she's Christian and lives with her boyfriend. My own sister is living in this way and sadly, we are not speaking because of it. She wanted nothing to do with me when I voiced how I felt about her lifestyle. These are just a few examples among what I am seeing a lot of lately.

I've interacted with all of these people, and yes, even shared a meal with them. I wasn't thinking too much about this verse then, but according to it, am I not to associate with them? What happens in the case where they study at the same university as you or work in the same workplace? Isn't that "associating" with them by the very definition of the word? The same passage says it is not talking about the people of the world, because to not deal with them we would have to leave this world. Obviously we aren't supposed to be best friends with the people of the world either, which leaves us free to do business with them, work with them, speak with them, etc. This must mean that for those who claim to be Christians and are living in blatant sin, that we cannot even associate with them in mundane everyday ways. How can we realistically do this, if say, they happen to be your coworker?

Is this verse talking about only the person engaging in such immorality, or does it also address those who are active supporters of it? I know of many who aren't committing immoral acts themselves, but they applaud those who do. They either think calling the person out on their sinful behavior will leave them feeling condemned and fear it will push them further from God, or they actually celebrate the lifestyle the "Christian" is living in the name of freedom and love. I am friends with someone else on facebook, an ordained reverend; instead of rebuking the other "Christian" friend who is falling away in faith, recently declared she is a witch, that she doesn't believe that the path she is on will lead to destruction and that she is in control of her power, gets the support and cheering of her new found freedom by the reverend instead. This left me so unsettled.

I don't understand why people who want to live in such a way don't just use their freewill and fully commit, since they are already doing these things anyway, rather than claiming Christ at the same time. It seems actually more complicated and less "freeing" if they want to be tied to the very faith that condemns these things. But I digress...

What I'm really wondering is how we follow this verse, especially in these times when so many say they follow God but live in sin. How do we navigate this issue in our everyday lives? How do we define "associating"? Is being employed by the same employer associating? Being friends on facebook? Are those who condone and even preach immorality while they themselves are not physically engaging in the sin on the same level as those who are?
You should not be associating with them
that say they follow God but live in sin.
 
Upvote 0

Justasking123

Active Member
Nov 7, 2019
82
30
B
✟30,164.00
Country
Germany
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
The goal, of course, of church discipline is ultimately restoring communion, and so the point isn't punishment--to hurt, shame, or revile the person--but to clearly establish boundaries about what sorts of behaviors can't be tolerated because they bring harm, and that repentance and restoration are the end goal. And if this person has no interest in this, they are allowed to go their own way.
Hi, I agree with your message, but I'm struggling as to take it in action.. I wanted to join a community of Christians, I'm myself not converted but I know the Word of God is Truth, somehow I still wanted to have close contact with friends and family who are non-believers.. I did not put God first so the community sent me home because I didnt decide to convert and follow Jesus and I did not feel convicted over my desobidience...
The problem is that I still feel no conviction over my sins, I only feel condemned so I haven't come back to the community, because I don't have sincere repentance, I feel trapped half in the World/half away from it because I have knowledge of the Bible but disobeyed and do not have godly repentance.. I also don't feel comfortable speaking about God and Jesus openly because with this discipline I think I'll be a bad example from faith.

I wish the discipline could have brought me to a godly sorrow like the Corinthien, it is a need and shows love to the sinner from the elders, who need to protect the other sheeps in the church
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

ViaCrucis

Confessional Lutheran
Oct 2, 2011
37,342
26,788
Pacific Northwest
✟728,246.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
Hi, I agree with your message, but I'm struggling as to take it in action.. I wanted to join a community of Christians, I'm myself not converted but I know the Word of God is Truth, somehow I still wanted to have close contact with friends and family who are non-believers.. I did not put God first so the community sent me home because I didnt decide to convert and follow Jesus and I did not feel convicted over my desobidience...
The problem is that I still feel no conviction over my sins, I only feel condemned so I haven't come back to the community, because I don't have sincere repentance, I feel trapped half in the World/half away from it because I have knowledge of the Bible but disobeyed and do not have godly repentance.. I also don't feel comfortable speaking about God and Jesus openly because with this discipline I think I'll be a bad example from faith.

I wish the discipline could have brought me to a godly sorrow like the Corinthien, it is a need and shows love to the sinner from the elders, who need to protect the other sheeps in the church

If this church was expecting you to cut ties with friends and family who aren't Christians, then I'd say you dodged a bullet. No respectable church would tell you to break off friendships or end relationships with family. That kind of controlling behavior is a hallmark of cult-like groups, not authentic Christian community which is supposed to be built upon love, compassion, liberty, and grounded in Christ. Christian life is life lived in the midst of where we are in life, in our vocations and relationships with others.

-CryptoLutheran
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Heavenhome
Upvote 0

hedrick

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Feb 8, 2009
20,250
10,565
New Jersey
✟1,147,348.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
“Do not even eat with such a one” needs to be qualified by two things:
  • Paul explicitly limited it to church members. There is no way it would apply to your family.
  • Paul only applied it in cases where everyone agreed on the standards.
Paul was involved in two issues that were the 1st century equivalent of today’s hot-button issues: (1) Did Christians need to become Jews before Christians could fellowship with them? (2) was it OK to eat meat sacrificed to idols? In both cases he took the more tolerant position. With the idol-meat question, he recommended that the two sides respect each other. Breaking fellowship with someone was an approach to church discipline, not a way to deal with people you disagreed with or people outside the Church.

There is no reason for you to break ties with your family, and in refusing to do so you have no sin to repent of. I agree with CryptoLutheran that making that demand is a sign of a “cult.”
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Heavenhome
Upvote 0