Judgment in the Apostate Church

does lie with the person who took the law into his own hands.

1 Corinthians 5:2
“And ye are PUFFED up, and have not rather mourned, that he that hath done this deed might be taken away from among you.”

The reason Tiller was still in a Church is for the same reason a fornicator was still in the Church at Corinth; because to have him in the Church “puffed” the Church up in pride. For it showed the world how tolerant, open-minded and "loving" they were toward sinners.

This is the kind of Church you’ll find a caday5. In fact, it is full of those like him. No “holier than thou” attitude, here. No sir! They “loved” their sinner. I'm sure they even "commended" him for all his giving to the poor.

But Paul says, “Your glorying is not good,” verse 6. How so? Since love isn’t “puffed” up, 1Corinthians 13:4, and they were, it only follows that they had no love. Oh, they had a love for the sinner, alright. They’d be the first to tell you. But what they didn’t have by keeping such a man in the Church was a love for God and His righteousness. If they had, they would have put that man out of the Church and mourned for him. Their “love” profited no one.

Gary Gordon

Actually, I am a member of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. And though there is legitimate content behind your criticisms of Tiller's Church, I believe it was Unitarian, those legitimate criticisms give no allowance for hatred and a holier than thou attitude.

What you might want to look up is a symposium on Abortion conducted by the faculty of Westminster Theological Seminary. In that symposium, you will find a minority view expressed by Paul Wooley who did not see the scriptures condemning abortion. The faculty at Westminster, including during Paul Wooley's tenure, are as fundamentalist and conservative as any Christian faculty or Church.

Finally, what of the person who did the shooting? What disciplinary actions should his church exercise?

I know the OPC well. The ones I’ve been associated with are just as I’ve described above. They refuse to issue Church discipline. You can believe whatever you want and live and do whatever you please and they won’t say a word to you. The only person they are going to say anything to is the Christian that says, “That’s not right.” Or “That’s not Biblical.” That person will be the one they ask to leave. I know.

I make no bones about my disgust for you, caday5, because you insist on staying here, as though you’re somehow welcome, to constantly accuse the Godly of being hypocrites. You’re a Scripture twister, so you have a hard time defending what you say. So instead, you find fault with the heart, as though we’re haters and holier than thou; making us out to be Pharisaical.

How I talk to people depends on who I’m talking to. I agree with John Calvin in his commentary on Mt 12:19-20

“But as there are some who falsely and absurdly maintain that mildness ought to be exercised indiscriminately towards all, we must attend to the distinction which the prophet expressly makes between weak and wicked persons. Those who are too stubborn need to have their hardness beaten violently with a hammer; and those who endeavor to spread darkness in every direction, or who act as torches to kindle conflagrations, must have their smoke dispelled and their flame extinguished.”

As far as the man who did the deed, obviously, he should be put out of the Church (and should have been long ago), and after he’s tried, executed.

Gary Gordon

We actually had this discussion on the front stoop of our church last night after Vacation Bible School. What was Tiller doing in a church and why is that church described as "his" church. Well, presumably he was a member. Since many of the non-clergy leaders of our church were assembled for VBS, it was a great time for this discussion.

We all agreed that George Tiller would have been removed from membership by a vote of the membership of our church. That would have taken away his voting rights. However, we wouldn't necessarily deny him attendance. Why? Because the worst reprobate in the world needs Jesus Christ as Savior and it's far more likely someone will come to know the Lord if they're allowed to attend church than if they are not.

We noted that over the years our church has opened its doors to drug addicts, alcoholics, sex offenders, ex-convicts, lesbians, etc. For the most part, the Lord's work has been done. We've disfellowshipped only two people in 50 years -- one was a lesbian who kept hitting on teenaged girls and the other was a man who perpetually divided the church on every contentious issue that he could find.

Tiller was a monster. I don't think the world is a darker place because he is gone from it (don't know if it's a lighter place, either), but churches should never turn their backs on any non-Christian. It's a fine line that we walk between presenting the gospel to them and condoning their sinful behavior, but we are called to do just that. Churches should not claim a sin-monster like Tiller as a member, but neither should they shun him and withhold the gospel.

Our experiences with the OPC do not coincide. If anything, people in the OPC are too eager to issue Church discipline.

Also, what I have pointed out about people like chief is his tendency to list scriptures without showing relevance to the topic discussed and try to talk down to people he disagrees with. As for you, if you want to attack me than discuss the issues that I have brought up, that is your choice.

For example, on this thread, I mentioned the responsibilities of the person who did the shooting and whether he merited Church disipline. In addition, I stated that the criticisms of the Unitarian Church were legitimate. I did say that those criticisms did not justify shooting Tiller. Finally, I mentioned a symposium on abortion written by the faculty of WTS in which there was a dissenting view expressed by Paul Wooley.

So where have I found fault with the heart as opposed to your prediction of the Church I belong to without having any knowledge of what Church I go to in the first place?

Then I mentioned

"The fault here is not the law, neither is it the pro-lifers, nor is it the one who took the law into his own hands; the fault lies with the apostate churches that have forsaken the Law of Christ and now abide in the law of man."- Vft


Isaiah 29
13Wherefore the Lord said, Forasmuch as this people draw near me with their mouth, and with their lips do honour me, but have removed their heart far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men:

14Therefore, behold, I will proceed to do a marvellous work among this people, even a marvellous work and a wonder: for the wisdom of their wise men shall perish, and the understanding of their prudent men shall be hid.


God has often used the heathen to mete judgment to those who claimed to be His people.

"Also, what I have pointed out about people like chief is his tendency to list scriptures without showing relevance to the topic discussed and try to talk down to people he disagrees with. As for you, if you want to attack me than discuss the issues that I have brought up, that is your choice."-Caday 5 in post to Gary Gordon

I reference this because you mentioned me in particular.

The facts are:

I list the scriptures that are relevent to the discussion at hand. These scriptures indicate your lies and attempts to twist and distort the Truth. But all who know the Truth are wise to your deceit. (John 10:5)

Just because you cannot follow the scriptures that I list, does not indicate their lack of relevence, but your lack of comprehension of doctrine and the Truth. (Is 28:9-13)

If it seems I "talk down to people I disagree with", it is because I quote the scriptures to illustrate the truth. There is no loftier position than that. Your trouble is that your pride is injured when you are corrected; we are not bowing before your pulpit as others do. Therefore you must strike back with the old stand by- others are judging you because they possess a pharisee's spirit. But in reality, the Word is judging you and you argue in opposition to It. You do this by dismissing it as "irrelevent" or feigining ignorance at its content, then attack the presumed "pharisee" who quotes it to you.

Isaiah 8:20
To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

I suppose that is irrelevent too.

Why refer to the tiller's church as apostate? Don't all churches have sin in them? What about the corinthian church? Were they apostate?

Give one example of me distorting and twisting the scriptures.

And again, I have already noted where you just listed scriptures without any attempt to connect them to the issue.

Finally, using the scriptures to address the issue and talking down to people are not mutually exclusive. People can purposely or inadvertently say truth while talking as if they are superior to those they are addressing.

I have no time these days to play your games. Those who post here can testify to the veracity of my statements, and I stand by them.

I'm sure that, since you continue to post here, we'll all have ample opportunity to see it all again.

Your response was as expected. Make a claim but avoid listing specifics that would back it up.

It was expected because it is the same as the last time you posted that foolishness.

If you want examples, read our exchanges on past threads. There is no need to waste the time to rehash it. It will change nothing, and you'll still claim irrelevence and pride. Why waste my time.

Again, list the specific statements that you regard as foolish

What are you referring to now? Are my answers to your questions incomprehensible to you?

Again, rather than deal with logic, statement and fact, you wish to put down. Quite simply you made the charge that I twist scripture. I intelligibly asked for you to provide examples. Now you wish to talk down to me again.

Where are the examples that support your charge?

"Where are the examples that support your charge?"-C5

Again, my answer to your question:

If you want examples, read our exchanges on past threads. There is no need to waste the time to rehash it. It will change nothing, and you'll still claim irrelevence and pride. Why waste my time.

BTW read Alpena's post of Wednesday, June, 03, 2009 12:41 AM. He makes the same charge so to portray my opinion as some aberration is another example of your dishonesty.

So basically, what you and Gary have are broad accusations without concrete examples. And either Gary is imitating you or you are imitating him.

If you are to lump us together, then don't forget Vft, he has not spoken highly of you either; as a matter of fact he has gone so far as to ask you not to post here, out of common courtesy.

But then you wouldn't know about that, would you?

You are right that any readers of our discourses with c5 can judge for themselves. You have no need to defend yourself. There is nothing profitable going on here with c5. Jack had the courtesy to withdraw; perhaps c5 will also.

What are you reading and what are your learning?
I have been studying the wedding feast parable because Jesse brought up the passage about 'many called but few chosen'. Please give us your view if you like.

I haven't heard from Ed on Romans in awhile, but trust he is doing well and hope to hear from him soon.

Peter tells us that the mockers and the scoffers will come following after their own lusts, but we are to be given to holy conduct and godliness. As far as it is in our power let us be at peace with all men.

Take care my brother. We pray that our Lord is continuing to build you up as a vessel fitted for more and more honorable use.

So what does Vft's comments about me imply? Nothing, unless you regard him as an authority and that would imply that we do not have to examine the logic of what he has to say in the light of scripture.

We could question why Vft did not correct Gary's comments about the OPC when Gary accused me of going to a church that does not exercise discipline on its members even when I said I went to an OPC church. The Law of Moses is clear, do not accept a charge without the testimony of two or three witnesses. And yet Vft says nothing as Gary tried to use those statements to paint an incorrect picture of me.

See Chief, these boards are public, not private. When I saw Vft post material that seemed to have come from a presuppositional approach to apologetics, I was interested because that is the approach I am most familiar with after having read and even met Van Til. I was hoping that this is a place where one could discuss and even disagree where the standard personal attacks would not come as they do on many of the other TH boards.

The problem is when one questions a sacred cow, such as capitalism or America, one gets the same response here as other places. That response consists of personal attacks with much self-congratulations from the attackers.

These boards are not a Church. These boards are here for discussion and examination. When Christians discuss debatable issues, one would hope that personal attacks do not come attached to the disagreements. Unfortunately, here they do. Perhaps, you should consider whether your adherence to political conservative ideology, which has both merits and weaknesses, is counteracting the fruit of the Spirit in your responses. It is a question we should all always ask of ourselves.

Yes, the church at Corinth was not without sin, because Christians are not without sin. But did they obey the apostolic command to deal with the open sin in the church? That is the question. The apostate church leaves off discipline or abuses it to ‘lord’ it over the flock.

The purpose of church discipline is to confront sin in the hope of repentance. When open sin is not confronted, then the church loses it purity and its power to minister the gospel and sanctify the saints is diminished. The church is weakened when righteousness and holy living is not taught and practiced as part of the gospel of grace.

Men are not redeemed to be comfortable in their sin, but to forsake it and declare war against it.

Here is another passage we would do well to consider…

“But avoid foolish disputes, genealogies, contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and useless. Reject a divisive man after the first and second admonition, knowing that such a person is warped and sinning, being self-condemned.” [Titus 3:9-11]

And I want you to think about the verse you quoted for yourself and your friends. After all, I don't decide which subjects will be discussed, you do. I offer views based on my faith and knowledge of the scriptures. But what makes our discussions disputes is when people disagree by making personal assessments of others. That Christians disagree with each other is no sin. But I really wonder what is happening when non-Christians can disagree more gracefully and with respect while some Christians choose not to.

So when we disagree, we should think about Galations 5 and the two lists Paul sets before us. The one list is the fruit of the Spirit which includes love, peace, patience, and so forth. And then think about works of the flesh. Finally we should decide from which list are the characteristics we are display when we disagree.

Oh, Caday, what to say to benefit you, and how to say it!

"But I really wonder what is happening when non-Christians can disagree more gracefully and with respect while some Christians choose not to."-C5

I don't wonder, for the Word says the world will love its own (John 15:19), and in the OT that two must agree to walk together (Amos 3:3). It should be an awakening for you that the nonbeliever would agree with you. What should be of even more concern is that those who obviously know the Word throught the Spirit that reveals it, would DISAGREE with you.
This is where I say your pride comes into play. You've been to seminary, and you evidently have a following (from looking at your site), therefore you expect to be taken seriously based on YOUR merits. But it is not your merits that are important; as a matter of fact, it is your merits that are worthless, AS ARE MINE OWN(Phil 3:7).
It is only by the grace of God that we stand (Rom 5:2), and we can glory only that we know the Lord (Jer 9:23,24).

That you feel you have been roughly handled here, is evident, and I'll even admit it. I will not deny that you exasperate me, at times. A fleshy reaction? probably, though it is my own zeal for the Word that I feel you rouse. I believe you promise liberty, then deny it by your suppositions.
I have made reference to David in the past, how he could not bear to see the Philistine defy the Living God and His armies. He was incensed, and ready to do battle, though he too was accused of being prideful by his own brothers. Yet the Bible tells us that he was a man after God's own heart.

You say that we have not exhibited the Fruit of the Spirit, as if we should agree with your doctrine based on that alone. The Scriptures do tell us to recieve one another, but not to doubtful disputations (Rom 14:1); it does not say to recieve one another regardless. This is the view of the left, and it is not correct. Tolerance, they term it.
The Word, however, is full of examples of standing against sin, misrepresentations of the truth, and those who oppose themselves. The very subject of this article under which we post deals with this very matter, so to say you should be listened to and your views respected is not exactly accurate.
Your views are not represented as I assume you think they are in the Bible. If they were, we would have no problem. We are not going to rehash them now, either. If you want to, relook the comments that have been made to you about your doctrine since you've been posting here for examples.
You will find, that at the beginning, responses to you by all were cordial at the least; but as time wore on, and your doctrine became exposed, you were marked as one who would cause division.
Look recently how Valiant has handled Jesse; I have no doubt that we would disagree on some things but no one that I am aware of has taken his views headon to dismantle them. Instead meekness has been shown to him, and instruction is being attempted, but you will have none of it. You have counted our remarks to you as irrelevant, even unworthy of remarking on, dismissing them as misguided while continuing to hammer your leftist social justice gospel.

Btw, in case you didn't notice, Vft has even admonished me, albiet tactfully, for our discussions. He is correct of course, in his observation that nothing profitable is going on here with you. No doubt you will look at this post, and only see a personal attack.

You came here to bring your viewpoint. You've brought it, I reject it.

Still working away; not much time to study anything, though I have been ruminating on the parable also.

Continue in prayer for me and mine; I fear I can see myself in Peter. Ready to fight to the death for the Truth (Luke 22:33, John 18:10), yet, when sifted (Luke 22:31), failing miserably (Luke 22:61).

May God grant me such repentance in my failings.

The problem is that you assume that the non-Christian response is that of loving one's own. It is not the only possible explanation for the scenario I described and thus to automatically conclude that is is simply a fallacy.

So why is it that you refuse to demonstrate the fruit of the spirit in your remarks? It is odd that you quote the world will hate Christians while love its own because nowhere in the NT does it tell us to hate either non-Christians or Christians. If the Lord grieves at the death of a sinner, how can any of us delight in harshly talking down to anyone?

In addition, Romans 2 serves as a warning to those who view themselves as religious. For it tells us that that those who do not know God will sometimes do what is right because of their conscience to show how those who claim to know God are wrong. I think all of us should pay special attention to that chapter. Whatever it is, you have demonstrated nothing but an eagerness to jump to conclusions and condemn. And there are no NT scriptures that encourage you to do so.

So why is it that your responses show the demonstrate the works of the flesh rather than the fruit of the Spirit? My experiences of doing that tell me that when that occurs, it is because other issues, besides the Gospel or its implications, have become too important to me. That might or might not be an explanation why you struggle here.

Finally, again regarding the subject of our discussions, they are introduced by Valiant. I comment on them from a different perspective. The contention here does not consist of my comments or Valiant's views, but your reaction to a different perspective. I can say I was the same when I was your age--I am guessing late teens to early 30's. Realize that conservative Fundamentalist Christians from other countries do have different perspectives on America and capitalism than most conservative, fundamentalist American Christians do. In addition, a change is beginning to occur in younger, conservative, fundamentalist, American Christians who come from urban areas. They are beginning to take more politically moderate to liberal positions on some issues such as environmentalism, capitalism and militarism. I think that is also true of other religious conservatives from other religions.

The most important reason Tiller should have been excommunicated is not just to take away his voting rights, but also to keep him from the communion table. It is the duty of the Church to guard or fence the Lord’s Table. When this important duty is neglected, as the Heidelberg Catechism puts it, the wrath of God is kindled against the whole congregation.

Question 82. Are they also to be admitted to this supper, who, by confession and life, declare themselves unbelieving and ungodly?

Answer. No; for by this, the covenant of God would be profaned, and his wrath [k] kindled against the whole congregation; therefore it is the duty of the christian church, according to the appointment of [l] Christ and his apostles, to exclude such persons, by the keys of the kingdom of heaven, till they show amendment of life.

There may be young members of a Church who are deemed to be too young to properly examine themselves when participating in the Lord’s Table, and rightly so, they are kept from it. Yet, in many Churches today, the only fencing of the Table the Pastor does is to stand up and warn everyone to examine themselves before they participate. But are the ungodly any better suited to examine themselves than a young child? Can a man who doesn’t have the Holy Spirit, yet calls himself a Christian, properly examine himself? So it is the duty of the Elders, as much as in them lies, to make sure all members are sound in both doctrine and walk of life. Those who aren’t are put out of the Church until they amend their ways.

But it is not the duty of the Church to bar impenitent sinners from the hearing of the Word of God. Aurorawatcher’s Church did what was proper, in my opinion.

Gary Gordon

You believe, caday5, that we are not to judge others because of our total depravity, so you twisted 1Corinthians 6:2ff to mean we are to judge others ONLY in the world to come. I told you at the time that was Scripture twisting because you purposely overlooked verse 3. That’s one example.

It is also your opinion that men do not need a “love for God” in order for them to do “good;” in fact, you even say an ungodly man can have a Godly conscience, so you put the second table of the law ahead of the first and great command to "love God with all our heart," as if they’re somehow interchangeable. That’s a pretty big “twist,” and blatantly false. That’s two examples.

Gary Gordon

It really depends by what you mean by judging. Both Jesus and Paul are clear in saying that we are not to judge others. But why? We are not to judge others because we will condemn ourselves for we too are sinners. But what it means to judge can still be vague. Some in the world will want those passages to say that we cannot say what is right and wrong. Obviously, that is not scriptural.

But what I believe what it means is that we are not to look down on others for their sins. We are forbidden to condemn others while exonerating ourselves. That does not mean that we cannot say something is wrong. We just can't think we are better than others. So the question is can we disagree, that is if we do here, and still not view the other person doing something wrong. And is the fact that we are to judge others in the world to come mean we can judge them now too? What was the context of Paul's statement there?

With regards to a person doing good, I've always believed that it depends on the context in which good is defined. Good can be relative when we compare our works with others. But when we compare our works with God's standard, we can only see ourselves as sinners saved by Grace.

What you are contesting are my comments on Romans 2. My basic contention here is that Paul takes the religious to task for their sin. It is what Paul did to the non-religious in Romans 1. He finishes his statements in Romans 3 where he asks if those who had God's Word are better. He answers the question with an emphatic no because all are under sin.

What I stated from Romans 2 is that when the ungodly act according to a conscience guided by God, they show the sin of the religious.

So again, the question becomes do we simply disagree or am I twisting Scripture?

See, you wanted to prove that I twisted scriptures by paraphrasing me. You cannot prove anything that way because your paraphrase or even understanding of what I said can be faulty. Rather, quote me if you wish to prove I am saying anything wrong. And then show why it must be viewed as twisting scripture rather than a legitimate disagreement between believers.

Whenever we are commanded in the Bible “not to judge others” what you’ll find actually forbidden is the WRONG kind of judging. That is, hypocritical judging. So you’re right. Where I am judging from is key. Am I judging men from the throne of God? Up above him? Then I’m a hypocrite. But if I come off that throne and down to the judgment floor with the man I’m judging and say “You’re a sinner! I know because I’m one, too. You need to turn from your wicked ways.” Then I am right with God and have done my duty. I’m commanded to do that.

But your premise wasn’t that Jesus forbade just hypocritical judging. Your premise was that Jesus forbade ALL judging since total depravity rendered ALL judging hypocritical.

You said: “And Romans 2:1 as well as what Jesus said in the gospels, we (are) commanded not to judge others because our total depravity has led us to sin like those whom we would judge.”

Having a slightly different view on Scripture is not Scripture twisting.

Scripture twisting is turning a text in such a way so that it doesn’t say what it used to say, but rather, making it say something it didn’t say before. (I’m paraphrasing Pastor Angus Stewart).

You definitely did that with 1Corinthians 6:2ff. You twisted it to say that judging was ONLY in the world to come. Here are the quotes:

I said: “We are commanded to judge, 1 Corinthians 6:2ff; just NOT as hypocrites.”

You said: “In other words, we are not commanded to judge the world in I Cor 6:2. Rather, we are told that we will judge the world in the future.”

By limiting the text to just verse 2, you made it appear that we are not to judge in this world. But verse 3 clearly shows, not only are we to judge this world NOW, but it is our duty.

Gary Gordon

You also took the commandments and phrased them in such a way as to give priority to the love of one’s neighbor over and above the love of God.

You said: “All people are commanded to love their neighbor as themselves. They are not commanded to wait until they are saved (which is to love God-GG) to love their neighbor.”

The text says, “Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.”

God’s standard is the only standard that should be used when determining if a work is good or not. Any other standard is only vanity. Any other standard can only contradict the Word of God that there is none that does good.

Gary Gordon

Again, you are trying to find fault by paraphrasing. Please quote me where I said "Jesus forbade all judging. In fact, did I not say in my last note:

"But what I believe what it means is that we are not to look down on others for their sins. We are forbidden to condemn others while exonerating ourselves. That does not mean that we cannot say something is wrong."

As for I Cor 6, there is no commandment to judge the world. Rather, Paul declares that we WILL judge the world and the angels. What that entails is not explained, but when we judge is, it is in the future for both verses 2 and 3 (the future indicative is used). According to vs 3, we will judge matters of this life but we are to do that in the future. And the context of Paul's statement is that he told the Corinthians that members in the Church were taking each other to court. This shamed the Gospel according to Paul and thus he told the Corinthians why they should not do that.

So how is it that I have twisted I Cor 6:2f? Please answer since the word to judge has several shades of meaning includes to think and to determine. You seem eager to attach a negative reason why we disagreed. It seems to me that twisting scripture involves not just a wrong interpretation but includes malevolent self-serving reasons or twisting scripture occurs by at least one person each time two people disagree on what the scriptures say.

Finally, how have I twisted scriptures with regards to loving one's neighbor. I didn't change the meaning of it. I did say in the last note:

"With regards to a person doing good, I've always believed that it depends on the context in which good is defined. Good can be relative when we compare our works with others. But when we compare our works with God's standard, we can only see ourselves as sinners saved by Grace."

Doesn't my last statement recognize that we are to love the Lord with everything we have? For which of us have loved God with our whole being and thus have kept the law?

Now you’re changing again and you ask me to judge you by your latest comments. I hope you do change, caday5, but I can’t keep going over and over the same things all the time. Others can judge for themselves. I’ve brought it to your attention. You be the judge.

But most of all, I want you to judge this. There are things we are commanded NOT to judge.

“Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord come, who both will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts: and then shall every man have praise of God.” 1Corinthians 4:5

There are things we are commanded not to judge until Christ returns. They are things that are “hidden” from us. Things we cannot know how to judge, including “counsels of the hearts.” That is, secret purposes that might be in the hearts of men that we cannot possibly know about. But you do that constantly and that is my biggest gripe with you. Here is a quote from you that is typical.

You said: “Why do we Christians think that we are always more righteous than non-Christians especially when we are saved by faith and not by works.”

How do you know what Christians think, caday5? Where did you get this hidden insight?

What you are conveying to me by making statements like this, is that you know Christians pray like this, “God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican.”

You are the biggest judge of all on things we are specifically commanded not to judge.

Gary Gordon

Thanks for the visit, Valiant. Always a pleasure!

In answer to your question about what is the role of church discipline ...

Church discipline is something the church as a universal body has abused at both extremes for much of its history with, IMO, rather sad results for Christians. Churches should never white wash since and we should always be prepared, painful though it may be, to exercise discipline with members who have strayed from the path to an extent where they, the church or even outside observers might be damaged by prevention of the spread of the gospel. Unfortunately, the history of the church is spotty in this regard, both disciplining things that were not sin (like 4th century churches who embraced believer's baptism) and ignoring sin (like the Catholic sale of indulgences in the Middle Ages). That's a huge topic best reserved for another time.

Was George Tiller a Christian? I doubt it. And therein lies the problem with church discipline as we tend to conceive it. Church discipline is for Christians. It's meted out by the local church on members who refuse to repent of gross sin. It's not for unbelievers. Yet, far too often in church circles, we want to act like it pertains to people who really aren't going to be affected by our decisions. We can kick non-Christians out of the church and maybe that's going to get their attention, but probably they're just going to write us off as judgmental and go find another church that doesn't confront their sin. Do you see what I'm driving at?

I don't hold with churches that whitewash sin in order to fill their pews. Seeker-sensitive, I believe, is Holy Spirit insensitive. We could lump the Unitarian church in there, though I do think that's mixing apples (seeker-sensitive evangelicals with oranges (heretics), but both brand of whitewash churches do have a point that we need to consider.

Modern churches often act like private clubs to which no sinners need apply, so non-Christians view them as hypocritical and judgmental; therefore, they stay away. Yet, SBC data shows that the average adult who accepts Christ has attended church for two years prior to their decision. While churches should never whitewash sin, we must be careful not to apply the same standards to non-Christians who attend our churches as we do to Christians who know the truth and have strayed from it.

George Tiller needed to know Christ. Had he become a Christian, his abortion activities would have stopped fairly soon after because his Savior would have introduced him to his conscience. I cannot help but wonder if Tiller had attended other churches who disciplined him right out the door and that's why he ended up at a Unitarian church where sin is considered a figment of the imagination. Had he come to my church, he would have heard that abortion is killing babies. He'd have been free to disagree, but the message would not have changed. If he chose to hang around, his conscience would have been pricked. Who knows what would have happened under those conditions. Instead, he died in his sin and that should be a tragedy all Christians should mourn. I pray that he did hear the gospel in its fullest and chose to reject it in full knowledge of his error. At least that would be a tragedy of his own making rather than that of some Christian who presented judgment while failing to explain repentence and forgiveness.

I think you are reaching a bit here. And I will answer your question. A good indicator that a Christian thinks he/she is better than another person is seen in how they treat other people. If they talk down to them or do not treat them as an equal, it is a good indicator that they think they are more righteous than the other person.

So while you consider me the biggest judge of them all, you might want to look in the mirror and see why you insist on accusing me of something.

Thanks for your answer.

The way you finish up is what probably happened with Tiller. He shopped around until he found a church that would not challenge his open sin. Did you see Mr. Gordon’s comments regarding the Corinthian church and the supper?

You say that: “Church discipline is for Christians...It's not for unbelievers.”

How are new members admitted to the church? All we can do is examine them for a credible profession of faith. A man not willing to humble himself when confronted with sin reveals something about himself and raises the question of whether he knows the Lord. In this respect discipline may reveal an unbelieving heart and be the means of salvation.

The unbeliever under discipline will be offended by the truth and withdraw from fellowship. A real heart will respond in time and come to repentance. I know this from first hand knowledge of several cases of both kinds.

I agree with you that the church should treat the one under discipline as any other unbeliever in the church; that is with patience and godly counsel bathed in love. The idea of ‘shunning’ is error based on misinterpretation of 1 Corinthians 5.

To me, the issue isn't whether Churches discipline their own members, that should be a given. The issue is what discipline does the Church want to perform on those who are on the outside.

The models not to follow were provided by Calvin and Luther. Calvin as a leader in Geneva approved of burning people at the stake for heresy. Luther wanted a religious cleansing in Germany of Jews who would not believe the Gospel. In other words, the Church was not was not just removing members from its own lists, they were removing members from society for, what we consider today to be, noncriminal acts.

If the outside world criticizes the Church for a proper and gentle use of discipline on its own members, then there is nothing we need to say in response. But when the outside world criticizes the Church for disciplining members in society, then we need to seriously consider whether we have gone too far with the concept of discipline.

Whether you respond to c5 is up to you. Since this is my blog I will give you a warning based on first hand observation of his interaction with other posters. He is what the Bible describes as contentious; that which disqualifies a man from consideration as an officer in the church. And from such men we are to withdraw. [1 Timothy 6]

Or are you just circling the wagons? Here is an example:

You asked Jack and to leave the blog because we were "disparaging" Luther, someone I quoted from when he also said something good. What were our disparaging comments? We talked about how what Luther said about the Jews later in his life was so horrible. What Luther said is well documented and how he feels about the Jews is said explicitly.

On the other hand, you tolerate Gary's blind accusations about my Church even after I identified it as an Orthodox Presbyterian Church.

Now what contentious thing did I say to Aurora? I said I agree that Churches should discipline its members. I added that Church discipline should stop with its members and should not be extended to society.

There are plenty of items on which Christians who disagree should discuss but discuss while manifesting the fruit of the Spirit. What you have taken exception with are my views but you have said little about how people you agree with should discuss the issues.

This is why I said that perhaps you are circling the wagons. I hope that isn't the case but circling the wagons doesn't help evangelize the world especially when it is done within the Church since both of us are believers.