# Excommunication



## Notthemama1984 (Nov 15, 2009)

I was reading Owen and he states that someone should never be excommunicated from the physical location of the church, only excommunicated from church membership. Is this normal or did others literally bar people from coming to church?


----------



## Herald (Nov 15, 2009)

I can't speak from historical examples, but my understanding of excommunication is to cut the person off from the ordinances of the church as well as fellowship and ministry. They are to be considered an unbeliever for the purpose of proclaiming the gospel. I would not bar them from our physical meeting place.* It would be my hope that the preaching of the gospel would bring them to repentance and faith in Christ.

*An exception would be excommunication for a physical act of violence against a church member or the threat of physical or emotional harm to another by their presence.


----------



## ChariotsofFire (Nov 15, 2009)

Herald said:


> I can't speak from historical examples, but my understanding of excommunication is to cut the person off from the ordinances of the church as well as fellowship and ministry. They are to be considered an unbeliever for the purpose of proclaiming the gospel. I would not bar them from our physical meeting place.* It would be my hope that the preaching of the gospel would bring them to repentance and faith in Christ.
> 
> *An exception would be excommunication for a physical act of violence against a church member or the threat of physical or emotional harm to another by their presence.



How is this consistent with 1 Cor 5:13?
"Purge the evil person from among you."


----------



## Peairtach (Nov 15, 2009)

ChariotsofFire said:


> Herald said:
> 
> 
> > I can't speak from historical examples, but my understanding of excommunication is to cut the person off from the ordinances of the church as well as fellowship and ministry. They are to be considered an unbeliever for the purpose of proclaiming the gospel. I would not bar them from our physical meeting place.* It would be my hope that the preaching of the gospel would bring them to repentance and faith in Christ.
> ...



You'll notice in the context that Paul is speaking of church sanctions by excluding people from the Lord's Supper and not having Christian fellowship with them. We're never told to discipline people by not permitting them to attend worship services. The worship services are for believers and unbelievers and lapsed professors (those who profess Christ's Name).

They are put out of the visible kingdom of God's people, by not being allowed to partake of the bread and wine and not enjoying Christian fellowship. Christ has given the keys of the kingdom to His Apostles and their Apostolic successors, properly ordained elders. See e.g. Matthew 18.

While they are under church sanctions they are in Satan's kingdom. But the message of the Gospel and the Word of God is for everyone including them. Sitting in a church building or meeting doesn't mean you are in Christ's Christian nation.

They should not be excluded from attending unless they are disruptive or violent. The message of the Good News is for all.


----------



## Herald (Nov 15, 2009)

ChariotsofFire said:


> Herald said:
> 
> 
> > I can't speak from historical examples, but my understanding of excommunication is to cut the person off from the ordinances of the church as well as fellowship and ministry. They are to be considered an unbeliever for the purpose of proclaiming the gospel. I would not bar them from our physical meeting place.* It would be my hope that the preaching of the gospel would bring them to repentance and faith in Christ.
> ...



Josh, It is quite possible that the act of removal (purge) is the formal act of excommunication. In practice I don't believe many churches are going to have to discuss whether/how to physically block a person from entering the church once they are excommunicated. When church discipline has gone to this extreme most individuals will have already left the church of their own volition. In the rare case where they remain until the church has decided the issue, the church would still be in compliance with 1 Cor. 5:13. They have been removed. They are no longer considered a brother. They have been removed from the roll, as it were. At that point they are like any other sinner who enters the church; vile, wicked, and utterly depraved, and in need of the saving message of the gospel of Jesus Christ.


----------



## au5t1n (Nov 15, 2009)

Herald said:


> ChariotsofFire said:
> 
> 
> > Herald said:
> ...



This does seem to fit with [KJV]Matt. 18:17[/KJV].


----------



## Peairtach (Nov 15, 2009)

Herald said:


> ChariotsofFire said:
> 
> 
> > Herald said:
> ...



Sometimes excommunication is for a temporary period until the individual is deemed to have shown repentance, as in the case of the incestuous man in I Corinthians 5 who was restored in II Corinthians.

In fact in every case of sin there is opportunity for restoration once the kirk session has decided that the individual is ready. Of course for some sins the person professing faith will also have to face civil sanctions as well, even capital punishment.

I've seen people who have flagrantly sinned continue attending church for e.g. a year or several years, and only then be allowed to return to full communion. This they apparently meekly did. Then they went to the session and the session deemed them ready to be restored.

Everything must be done properly and above board, and the Lord has promised to bless it, where it is properly done e.g. What is bound on Earth will be bound in Heaven; what is loosed on Earth will be loosed in Heaven, etc. The Holy Spirit can and will get behind the actions of the kirk session and bless them to the individual and congregation.

Christ has given church sanctions to His church as the method of repentance and restoration in cases of willful, public, presumptious and flagrant sin. All communicant members should be aware of this, so that they are not taken by surprise when they are suspended from church privileges e.g. when they srteal, get drunk, commit adultery, etc.

This is the way it's always done in properly ordered presbyterian churches. If someone takes the huff and goes to another denomination, ideally they should not take him, without agreement with his former church that he has shown signs of repentance.

Closing church doors on people that want to come to church is not the biblical way. Who knows what may be blessed to even the vilest sinner? And when a brother has to be disciplined for something we should always remember that we may in some ways be worse than him/her, and that we who think we stand should watch lest we fall.

See e.g. Jay Adams' book on this, and also presbyterian church handbooks.


----------



## Scott1 (Nov 15, 2009)

Fred posted a link to this and I've not read this, but it may be helpful to understanding this topic (the PCUS commentary on rules of discipline):

Internet Archive: Free Download: An exposition of the form of government and the rules of discipline of the Presbyterian Church in the United States


----------



## ChariotsofFire (Nov 15, 2009)

Thank you everyone for your insights on this.


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Nov 15, 2009)

I second the motion.


----------

