Local Church Discussions - View Single Post

77150 · 01-03-2012, 10:54 AM

You may agree that Romans 16:17 should not be used as the authoritative verse for "marking" someone as divisive, and "avoiding" them. It could, apparently, be used with someone who is not a Christian. To use this verse to "discipline" a brother or sister will, in my opinion, leave you open to being the party causing division in the church. You may make a big mistake. It leaves you open to not loving a brother enough to try to rescue him, as mandated by other verses in the Bible.

Right, except in one situation. “As much as is possible be at peace with all men”. Suppose you have been ostracized from the LRC similar to testimonies several have shared. Suppose you diligently seek fellowship (again as some have testified to) but they refuse. Are you now in limbo? Are you now a slave to the verses that tell you to “love your brother” etc.? This is similar to a divorce and in this situation Paul says “we are called to freedom”, not to initiate a divorce but to say “amen” if the other party is irreconcilable.

Matthew 18:15-17 describes a clear process: 1. go to the offending brother alone; 2. go with one or two witnesses; 3. tell it to the church.

Right, except in a situation where the brother refuses to meet with you and have fellowship. The process in Matt 18 doesn’t work if the brother refuses to talk to you. Why would a brother do that, clearly they have “marked you out” for some reason and are “avoiding” you.

Romans 16:17 doesn't even require communication. Shouldn't you at least communicate with someone before you "mark and avoid" them? Romans 16:17 doesn't even require you to communicate AFTER you "mark and avoid".

Clearly this verse is a direct contradiction to Matt 18 and other NT principles. Therefore I think it must refer to a special case. I would argue Matt 18 trumps this verse in all cases unless you are unable to follow Matt 18 because the other person refuses to speak with you. In that case I believe it is in line with verses that tell us to be at peace.

What does "mark them which cause division and avoid them" tell us? Not much. It's vague. How does it help the "divisive" brother (whichever party that may turn out to be)? Is it even referring to a brother, or is it an unbeliever? What contrary teachings? What "learned" teachings?

I think the teachings are the ones you just referred to. If someone refuses to meet with you to discuss an offense according to Matt 18 that is “contrary to the teachings we have received”. If someone does not forgive their brother that is contrary to the teachings we have received. If someone does not love the brethren even as Jesus did, who died on the cross for our salvation. etc

John 13:34-35 A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. 35 By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.”

John 13:34-35 levels the playing field, don't you think? What does "As I have loved you" mean? Does it means He loves us all the same? "As I have loved you, so you must love one another." Even sounds like a command! Oh Wait! It IS a command!A new command: Love one another.

I always understood “as I have loved you” to mean that the Lord died on the cross therefore we also should pay a very high price to love the brethren.

1 Corinthians 13:1 If I speak in the tongues of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. 2 If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing.

Yes, true. Again, this is why I feel that Rom 16:17 could only be scriptural if Paul was saying to in effect “say amen, be at peace, and move on”.

01-03-2012, 10:54 AM	#25
77150 Member Join Date: Dec 2011 Posts: 115	Re: Absolute to truth or to "the brothers"? You may agree that Romans 16:17 should not be used as the authoritative verse for "marking" someone as divisive, and "avoiding" them. It could, apparently, be used with someone who is not a Christian. To use this verse to "discipline" a brother or sister will, in my opinion, leave you open to being the party causing division in the church. You may make a big mistake. It leaves you open to not loving a brother enough to try to rescue him, as mandated by other verses in the Bible. Right, except in one situation. “As much as is possible be at peace with all men”. Suppose you have been ostracized from the LRC similar to testimonies several have shared. Suppose you diligently seek fellowship (again as some have testified to) but they refuse. Are you now in limbo? Are you now a slave to the verses that tell you to “love your brother” etc.? This is similar to a divorce and in this situation Paul says “we are called to freedom”, not to initiate a divorce but to say “amen” if the other party is irreconcilable. Matthew 18:15-17 describes a clear process: 1. go to the offending brother alone; 2. go with one or two witnesses; 3. tell it to the church. Right, except in a situation where the brother refuses to meet with you and have fellowship. The process in Matt 18 doesn’t work if the brother refuses to talk to you. Why would a brother do that, clearly they have “marked you out” for some reason and are “avoiding” you. Romans 16:17 doesn't even require communication. Shouldn't you at least communicate with someone before you "mark and avoid" them? Romans 16:17 doesn't even require you to communicate AFTER you "mark and avoid". Clearly this verse is a direct contradiction to Matt 18 and other NT principles. Therefore I think it must refer to a special case. I would argue Matt 18 trumps this verse in all cases unless you are unable to follow Matt 18 because the other person refuses to speak with you. In that case I believe it is in line with verses that tell us to be at peace. What does "mark them which cause division and avoid them" tell us? Not much. It's vague. How does it help the "divisive" brother (whichever party that may turn out to be)? Is it even referring to a brother, or is it an unbeliever? What contrary teachings? What "learned" teachings? I think the teachings are the ones you just referred to. If someone refuses to meet with you to discuss an offense according to Matt 18 that is “contrary to the teachings we have received”. If someone does not forgive their brother that is contrary to the teachings we have received. If someone does not love the brethren even as Jesus did, who died on the cross for our salvation. etc John 13:34-35 A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. 35 By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” John 13:34-35 levels the playing field, don't you think? What does "As I have loved you" mean? Does it means He loves us all the same? "As I have loved you, so you must love one another." Even sounds like a command! Oh Wait! It IS a command!A new command: Love one another. I always understood “as I have loved you” to mean that the Lord died on the cross therefore we also should pay a very high price to love the brethren. 1 Corinthians 13:1 If I speak in the tongues of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. 2 If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. Yes, true. Again, this is why I feel that Rom 16:17 could only be scriptural if Paul was saying to in effect “say amen, be at peace, and move on”. __________________ PS 150 Let every thing that hath breath praise the LORD. Praise ye the LORD.