Baptism while living in sin...

Radagast said:

That's an argument for excommunicating those in persistent serious sin. But the case that Paul is talking in that specific passage represents a fairly extreme case: incest with a stepmother.

Click to expand...

It was presumably also adultery. People I know who are willing to tolerate premarital intercourse or living together would generally still consider adultery to be a serious problem.

Paidiske said:

No. Here we profoundly disagree. If I attempt to control someone, even in love and for their good, that is in itself a violation of their integrity and is inherently wrong.

Of course there are exceptions, for example those who are too young to govern themselves, those who are for whatever reason unable to make their own decisions, and so on. But in general, it is wrong for one person to seek to control another person.

Click to expand...

I would have thought that the New Testament imagery of the clergy as shepherds (which, as you know, is what "pastor" means) implies some degree of spiritual direction.

Obvious we all know of cases of spiritual abuse, but 1 Timothy 5:17 speaks of the presbyteroi ruling (προεστῶτες) their flock. That seems to imply some form of control.

hedrick said:

It was presumably also adultery. People I know who are willing to tolerate premarital intercourse or living together would generally still consider adultery to be a serious problem.

Click to expand...

But Paul seems to be implying that it is sexual sin of a particularly serious sort, which was scandalous even in Roman eyes. It also rates a special mention in Leviticus 20:11.

In the modern-day United States, it would be a felony in several states, with penalties up to 30 years imprisonment.

dqhall said:

Not much can be said for premarital sex or homosexuality as there are no vaccines for HIV or Hepatitis C. The treatments for these are very expensive. There was both homosexual and heterosexual/bisexual transmission. Heterosexual heroin addicts shared needles. Promiscuous behavior led to death.

Click to expand...

Germs don’t know whether you’re married. Couples (of either orientation) living together faithfully on a long term basis don’t seem to be a big risk for STDs. As you note in your last sentence. My impression is that the situations Paidiske is talking about are like that. More dangerous things like using prostitutes a lot or having several sex partners at once would be less likely to come to be immediately visible in a baptismal candidate.

Radagast said:

But Paul seems to be implying that it is sexual sin of a particularly serious sort, which was scandalous even in Roman eyes. It also rates a special mention in Leviticus 20:11.

In the modern-day United States, it would be a felony in several states, with penalties up to 30 years imprisonment.

Click to expand...

I'm not quite sure where you're going with this. Are you arguing that Paul wouldn't have recommended serious discipline in a case that didn't create that kind of public scandal? I guess it's possible, but I don't read him that way.

hedrick said:

I'm not quite sure where you're going with this. Are you arguing that Paul wouldn't have recommended serious discipline in a case that didn't create that kind of public scandal? I guess it's possible, but I don't read him that way.

Click to expand...

I'm saying that it's difficult, from that one verse only, to set a bar for excommunication. The traditional Reformed view of church discipline draws on a wider body of Scripture:

Heidelberg Catechism #85: How is the kingdom of heaven closed and opened by church discipline?
According to the command of Christ, people who call themselves Christians but show themselves to be unchristian in doctrine or life are first repeatedly admonished in a brotherly manner.

If they do not give up their errors or wickedness, they are reported to the church, that is, to the elders. If they do not heed also their admonitions, they are forbidden the use of the sacraments, and they are excluded by the elders from the Christian congregation, and by God himself
from the kingdom of Christ (Matthew 18:15-20; 1 Corinthians 5:3-5; 1 Corinthians 5:11-13; 2 Thessalonians 3:14-15).

They are again received as members of Christ and of the church when they promise and show real amendment (Luke 15:20-24; 2 Corinthians 2:6-11).

Radagast said:

I'm saying that it's difficult, from that one verse only, to set a bar for excommunication. The traditional Reformed view of church discipline draws on a wider body of Scripture:

Heidelberg Catechism #85: How is the kingdom of heaven closed and opened by church discipline?
According to the command of Christ, people who call themselves Christians but show themselves to be unchristian in doctrine or life are first repeatedly admonished in a brotherly manner.

If they do not give up their errors or wickedness, they are reported to the church, that is, to the elders. If they do not heed also their admonitions, they are forbidden the use of the sacraments, and they are excluded by the elders from the Christian congregation, and by God himself
from the kingdom of Christ (Matthew 18:15-20; 1 Corinthians 5:3-5; 1 Corinthians 5:11-13; 2 Thessalonians 3:14-15).

They are again received as members of Christ and of the church when they promise and show real amendment (Luke 15:20-24; 2 Corinthians 2:6-11).

Click to expand...

I would certainly recommend using more than one verse. However the citations given there aren't so explicit. Mat 18:15-20 appears to be talking about resolving interpersonal disputes, not disciplining for moral faults. The two 1 Cor citations are from this passage. 2 Thes 3:14-15 is a bit difficult in this context. It's not entirely clear what behavior it's referring to. It says "obey this letter." But the letter as a whole isn't about behavior, but attitude and belief. Really only chap 3 is about behavior, but that's limited to one specific issue. Further, 3:14-15 isn't very specific on the nature of the discipline. It says have nothing to do with them, but also treat them like brothers.

I don't think you're going to find much specific advice about church discipline in the NT. 1 Cor 5:9 is probably a better reference than the ones given above, but like 2 Thes 3, there's no real information about what this means in practice. Is seems more about your own attitudes towards them than formal church action.

I can understand churches who do discipline based on 1 Cor. We often have to act on general Biblical principles rather than specific instructions. But I'd stop short of saying that there's specific NT instruction on the topic.

hedrick said:

But I'd stop short of saying that there's specific NT instruction on the topic.

Click to expand...

There's certainly not an explicit list of "sins that merit excommunication."

hedrick said:

Germs don’t know whether you’re married. Couples (of either orientation) living together faithfully on a long term basis don’t seem to be a big risk for STDs. As you note in your last sentence. My impression is that the situations Paidiske is talking about are like that. More dangerous things like using prostitutes a lot or having several sex partners at once would be less likely to come to be immediately visible in a baptismal candidate.

Click to expand...

John the Baptist was preaching repentance for the remission of sins. People were going to listen to his teachings and to be baptized. Immersion in water was the ritual of taking away ritual uncleaness to the Jews. There were mikveh immersion pools near the Herodian temple in Jerusalem where a Jewish people going up to the temple resorted to making sure they were ritually clean. There was no chlorine in those days. They may have transmitted cholera or polio in the pools. Baptism may imply going to church and talking to a pastor before receiving baptism, or meeting someone like John who had baptized in the Jordan River. I was baptized as an infant by the will of my parents. As an adult I sought baptism of my own free will. I am not error free, but I have been baptized and do not believe another water dunking would be of any benefit.

Carl Emerson said:

Hi there,

On a couple of occasions I have known churches to baptise candidates who are living with partners unmarried.

Click to expand...

A lot of churches these days seem to be desperate for members and go along with just about anything that seems to be worldly popular. Which will accelerate their decline. God Bless.

Carl Emerson said:

Hi there,

On a couple of occasions I have known churches to baptise candidates who are living with partners unmarried.

I have a couple of questions about this.

First do churches that believe in salvation by baptism believe the candidate is saved in this case?

Secondly should a candidate be re-baptised when they later come to repentance and stop such wilful sinning?

Sadly some churches don't check out such issues before the event.

Click to expand...

The power of Baptism comes from God, not from man. Once is enough!

Carl Emerson said:

The word control is inappropriate and skews the conversation towards abuse.

It is in fact the Holy Spirit that constrains.

A Shepherd watching the flock would be looking out for behaviours inconsistent with the righteous culture that accompanies redemption.

The thief would be caught, the immoral would be cautioned to consider action appropriate to their holy calling.

We seem to have strayed away from the serious nature of koinonia and moved to a socially acceptable culture that is structured so as not to offend.

Click to expand...

well said.

Carl Emerson said:

On the control issue, scripture teaches that to qualify for leadership, ones children must be under control.

In some parts of the world this directive is taken seriously and leaders are required to stand down if it isn't sorted quick.

What we learn in the family prepares us for service in the church.

This is appropriate not abusive effective oversight.

Click to expand...

I think there is a place for church discipline in cases of serious wilful sin that affects or has the potential to affect the body eg fornication, stealing from church funds etc and i agree that is not abusive in itself at all. i also do not htink your OP is at all unreasonable.

Radagast said:

I would have thought that the New Testament imagery of the clergy as shepherds (which, as you know, is what "pastor" means) implies some degree of spiritual direction.

Obvious we all know of cases of spiritual abuse, but 1 Timothy 5:17 speaks of the presbyteroi ruling (προεστῶτες) their flock. That seems to imply some form of control.

Click to expand...

Spiritual direction isn't control. The directee is free to disagree with and ignore the suggestions of the director, and if need be, to leave that relationship. As a pastor I can listen, advise, refer people to Scripture, suggest, and so on; but I have to leave people the room to make up their own minds and act according to their own convictions.

Proistemi is a verb which, in much of the early church literature, has a technical meaning of being the person who presides over worship. I am not sure we should use it in the wider, non-technical sense here.

Carl Emerson said:

Don't you see that this indicates you desired to control the behaviours of your congregation but were delayed?

Click to expand...

No. I did not. I would have been happier if they were also ready to close when I was, but I did not at all want to impose my will on them against their will.

Carl Emerson said:

I can only talk about a seriously fruitful ministry among very broken people, if you don't want to listen that's your choice.

Click to expand...

I was thinking about this, as I woke up this morning. I also have a seriously fruitful ministry among very broken people; the sort of brokenness I tend to find myself dealing with is that of people who have been abused elsewhere. One of the moments of my ministry which means the most to me, was when a young couple who had been badly abused elsewhere, expressed to me that they felt safe seeking pastoral care from me. Without a sense of being safe, we're not able to grow.

It may be that my style of ministry, and my concern not to misuse the power that I have in this position, positions me well to minister to that kind of brokenness, while others might find the Spirit uses them for different kinds of needs.

But at bare minimum, I would argue that all of us with any kind of power over others - which ministry surely has - need to be acutely aware of that power and these issues, and willing to restrain our own power for the sake of the safety of those with whom we work.

And I've walked with too many people who have been severely damaged by the cavalier attitudes of others to their own power, to care whether you think my concern is "inappropriate" or not.

I didn't judge your actions, though, because you have never outright answered my question to tell me what you actually do. I have simply raised concerns about the kind of approach you seemed to be advocating.

Carl Emerson said:

Jesus is not always passive - that is a very dangerous teaching.

Click to expand...

I am not advocating passivity. The opposite of control is not passivity.

Paidiske said:

Proistemi is a verb which, in much of the early church literature, has a technical meaning of being the person who presides over worship. I am not sure we should use it in the wider, non-technical sense here.

Click to expand...

I must admit that that's a new one on me.

Radagast said:

I must admit that that's a new one on me.

Click to expand...

Off the top of my head, particularly in Justin Martyr, that's the verb he uses for presiding over worship. It's also part of the debate about Phoebe's role, because Paul uses that a variant of that verb of her (prostatis), and therefore some claim that she was exercising a liturgical diaconal role (whatever that looked like at the time).

Carl Emerson said:

It would not be loving to ignore their spiritual state and present them with a wide open door rather than the true narrow way.

Click to expand...

Baptism is a beginning point, not an end point. The understanding and expectation would be that a person would grow in faith and holiness from that point.

What we don't expect is that they have everything worked out before coming to the font.

Carl Emerson said:

This is not what a caring shepherd would do.

Click to expand...

Have your own position, but it's not right to suggest that others are not caring because they find themselves in another position. It also skirts CF's flaming rules.

Carl Emerson said:

I didnt mean this thread to call out any one respondent, it is the system that fails us, and the 'teachers' that fail to warn our leaders of the consequences of these actions.

Click to expand...

First we'd have to demonstrate that the system is in fact failing. As long as we see people growing in the fruit of the Spirit - as we do - you're begging the question there.