i’m curious, though, as to why you’d suggest we need to be biblical since i think everyone on here would agree and is demonstrating a desire to do so. the problem revolves around determining exactly what the bible says about this matter. my suggestion for this conversation, again, is that we should only practice discipline (exclusion from fellowship) with sinful behaviors that are specifically mentioned as worthy of discipline in the bible, like divisiveness (tit. 3), sexual immorality (1 cor.), etc.

so, i agree we need the bible, and that it would behoove us to know what previous generations believed and articulated. i would probably say in disagreement (though respectfully) that we need a “strong basis” ONLY in the bible; that is, we need to be informed by historical study, but not co-based on it.

good words
.-= mike´s last blog ..my problem with review of biblical literature =-.

and there you have it! you have differentiated between minor and major sins, a move that has long been a tough issue for the church. although i think some sins are clearly more heinous than others, at the end of the day our subjectivity will ensure that everyone will have a different list of major and minor sins. sure, we might all agree that adultery is high on the list, but i guarantee you the sin of not helping the poor is all over the map, minor to some folks, major to others, and unfortunately a non-issue among baptists.

and so i’m back to where i started above. who’s to say what sins are major and minor? who’s to decided which sins are so little that we need to ignore them, as you suggest, and which sins are so major that we must discipline? we need to reserve discipline for specific sins mentioned as worthy of discipline in the bible. people may say that the NT isn’t always specific when it talks about discipline, but i would tell them to look at what i did with 2 thessalonians above: we must do the hard work and figure out what sins are being spoken of in context, or we must humbly admit we don’t know what they are and back down.

as far as rebuking being different than discipline (which i take as a exclusion, and therefore shame), sure, i’ll concede that point. the word “discipline” has the connotation these days of excluding people from fellowship/membership, right? and that seems to be what paul suggests so often, that we are to put people out, let them feel shame, exclude them from the body for certain behaviors.

like i said, though, once we start labeling things as minor and major, put your mouthpiece in – everyone in your church is going to have a different list!
.-= mike´s last blog ..some good, free sites for biblical studies =-.

Beyond minor sins, I believe we humbly, patiently, gently and lovingly discipline. Discipline taking many forms other than excommunication such as: private rebuke, public rebuke, pleading, warning, and shunning.

The Biblical evidence for rebuking a sinning brother is overwhelming. I suspect when you say discipline should be reserved for specific sins that you are not counting rebuke as a form of discipline?
.-= Jason Smathers´s last blog ..Church Discipline is not Limited to Specific Major Sins =-.

thanks for the response. i do think, though, that once we go the route of saying all sins are worthy of discipline, the tough part will be the fact that our churches still have people. what i mean is that all members sin, are sinners, and are repeat sinners. that is why i’m inclined to discipline the specific sins pointed out in scripture, like heresy, divisiveness, sexual immorality, refusal of reconciliation, etc.
.-= mike´s last blog ..some good, free sites for biblical studies =-.