When speaking on any issue concerning the church, the Bible must be our only guide. In discussing the fellowship issue, it is important to establish a baseline for exactly what we are talking about. In a previous article, I mentioned three concepts found in scripture that must govern how we view fellowship. Now I would like to list some important passages regarding the breaking of fellowship. These passages can help us understand when and why Christians should separate from a brother who is sinning, and should serve as the basis for a biblical understanding of fellowship.
- Matt. 18:15-17. This passages gives us the teaching of Jesus on conflict resolution among the people of God. Jesus said that if someone sins against you, go to him and tell him his fault. If he hears you, you have “gained your brother.” If he does not, there are further steps to be taken. First one or two witnesses are to be taken, and finally the matter is to be brought before the church. If no resolution is found, Jesus says, “let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector.” This means there would be a separation between the two, such as Jews had with heathen and tax collectors. In this way, someone walking in unrepentant sin is separated from other Christians.
- Romans 16:17-18. Paul writes here to “note those who cause divisions and offenses, contrary to the doctrine which you learned, and avoid them.” The definition of “divisions and offenses” will be key in understanding who Paul has in mind. Obviously, however, it would be teachings that were contrary to the teachings of the church.
- 1 Cor. 5:1-13. Having a man in their midst committing gross immorality, Paul tells the Corinthians to “deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh.” The apostle says he had written to them not to keep company with sexually immoral people (1 Cor. 5:9), but now he writes also that they should not keep company with “anyone who is named a brother, who is sexually immoral, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner—not even to eat with such a person” (1 Cor. 5:11).
- Eph. 5:11. Paul says here we are not to have fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather to expose them. What are “unfruitful works of darkness?” Is not anything contrary to the teachings of God “unfruitful” in His eyes? We will look closer at this passage, however.
- 2 Thess. 3:6-15. Some of the Thessalonians were in the habit of not working for their own keep. Paul said this casts a bad light on the church and is contrary to the teachings he had handed down to them. Therefore, he says, they were to withdraw from anyone who refuses to work for their own living.
- 1 Tim. 1:20 and 2 Tim. 2:17. The Holy Spirit here records that Paul had mentioned Hymenaeus and Alexander as being ones who had rejected “faith and a good conscience,” and suffered a “shipwreck” of faith (1 Tim. 1:19-20). Hymenaeus is mentioned again in 2 Tim. 2:17-18, where Paul says Hymenaeus and Philetus were teaching that the resurrection had already happened, and were destroying the faith of some. This is a clear indication of a false teacher being marked.
- 1 Tim. 6:1-5. There is much to discuss in this particular passage, but Paul gives a list of behaviors that indicate that a man who is not consenting to “wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which accords with godliness” should not be fellowshiped. Timothy was urged to separate from such men.
- Titus 3:10. Paul speaks here of rejecting a divisive man after the first and second admonition. Evidently, there is again the thought of unrepentant sinning being a cause for separation and withdrawal.
- 1 John 1:6-10. John writes that having “fellowship with one another” when we are “walking in the light.” The definition of walking in the light will be important to the discussion. John says God is light, and in Him is no darkness. If we practice things outside of Him (His will), then we are not walking in the light.
- 2 John 9-11. This passage clearly shows that there are teachers who are not to be heard or bid “godspeed.” These would certainly include those saying Christ did not come in the flesh (2 John 7), but also seems to include those not walking in His commandments (2 John 6). I will discuss this passage more in future writings.
This cursory overview of some fellowship passages will help direct my future study here. Using this as an outline, each of these passages will be discussed, and hopefully arrive at a conclusion of what sort of sins are causes for “disfellowship,” using the Bible as our only guide.
by Randal
27 Mar 2009 at 10:15
Looking forward to this, Matt. So little is written, and less practiced, on breaking fellowship. We just went through this last Sunday (see my blog) as we broke fellowship with a brother who, on returning to town, brought some false teaching with him.
by Matt Clifton
27 Mar 2009 at 10:31
Randal,
Thanks. It is unfortunate that it must be done from time to time. But even in the few times when it becomes necessary, there are few who will consistently follow the Bible’s directions in these matters. God bless you, and keep up the good work.
Matt
by Robert Prater
27 Mar 2009 at 15:50
Matt,
I’ve just recently discovered your blog in light of Todd’s new book on fellowship. I appreciate your stand for truth in a balanced and loving way and having no desire to run full stream and embrace the far left progressive view of truth (which in many instances demonstrates many are infected with postmodern thinking). I’ve recently been in a discussion with Jay Guin on his blog concerning instrumental music and fellowship. Its been very eyeing opening to see just how far down the road many in the church are. They seem to exalt and glory in their “doubts and diversity” in teachings and practice in the body of Christ and seem to think that little if any error will condemn souls. There really is a spiritualy “arrogance” demonstrated in their attitude I’ve noticed that somehow they’ve been “liberated” and “set free.” It’s very scary how much the words of Jude apply after he said to “contend earnestly for the faith” and “certain men whose condemnation was written about long ago have secretly slipped in among you. They are godless men, who change the grace of our GOd into a licesne for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord.”
We recently have Phil Sanders at Central in Shawnee, Ok where I preach. He was telling me about some of the “far left” liberal bloggers in the church and about attacks he’s gotten for standing for truth, and boy was he right:)!! Liberals really don’t like Christians with conviction and aren’t afraid to say that we can know the truth confidently.
Anyway, look forward to getting up with you through your blog, and espeically your review of Deaver’s book. When you’ve got the time, drop by my blog (www.preacherprater.blogspot.com) and say “hello.”
God bless,
Robert Prater
by Matt Clifton
27 Mar 2009 at 17:01
Robert,
Thanks for stopping by and giving encouragement, brother. It means a lot!
Phil is a good man, and is doing great work for the Lord. He was a great choice, in my opinion, to help with Mack Lyon’s work.
I, too, fear that postmodernism has infected many teachers in the church. The only thing we can do is pray hard, stand strong, and speak what the Bible speaks about truth. May God bless us all to those ends!
I will definitely stop by your site (already have, in fact, but did not post), and thanks for making contact. Keep in touch!
in Christ,
Matt
by Dell Kimberly
28 Mar 2009 at 15:27
I look forward to your attempt in tying this Scripture together in a way that is consistent. I would hope that you would also distiguish how Romans 14 fits into the equation with the above mentioned verses. In Christ, dell
by Matt Clifton
28 Mar 2009 at 18:51
Dell,
Hi! Thanks for coming by, brother. These scriptures are some of the most obvious in regard to fellowship. Romans 14 will come in later, but I think it mostly applies in areas of opinion. Sin is not open to opinion.
Thanks again!
Matt
by Dell Kimberly
28 Mar 2009 at 23:18
I am interested to see your approach. I disagree on Romans 14. I do not believe this is dealing with opinion, but then that is just an opinion. lol Thanks, dell
by Matt Clifton
30 Mar 2009 at 08:21
Dell,
I’ll talk more about this in a later section of the study, but Romans 14 must be about matters of opinion and doubtful things. If it is not, then Paul’s admonition to the Corinthians to separate from the immoral brother would make absolutely no sense. If Paul’s writing in Romans 14 addresses worship practices and moral issues (things which have been directly and plainly revealed in the NT), then we would be in the position of not being able to speak against sin of any type at all, and we certainly would have no business separating ourselves from an immoral brother, or even a false teacher of Hymenaeus’ ilk. Instead, Paul tells the Corinthians that there are matters that they must judge within the church (1 Cor. 6). Anyway, more on that when I get to that passage.
God bless you,
Matt
by Weylan Deaver
30 Mar 2009 at 15:31
Regarding Robert’s comment, I’ve also noticed there does seem to be something in the “progressive” water that breeds a lack of humility.
Having read Jay Guin’s work on the Holy Spirit back in 2001, I wrote on the last page, “This is a dangerous book.” Todd’s also is a dangerous book, and it does not tell the half of what he now believes.
God bless your work, Matt.
by Matt Clifton
30 Mar 2009 at 16:44
Weylan,
I picked up the pdf version of Jay’s book, and so far I’ve just glanced through it. The introductory material pretty much tells the story. When I get time, I’ll scan through it.
Thanks, Weylan!
Matt
by Dell Kimberly
30 Mar 2009 at 16:16
Matt I think you completely miss the point of both Romans 14 and the Corithian problem dealing with the rank sin in that church but I am anxious to hear your take on these and other Scriptures. God Speed dell
by Matt Clifton
30 Mar 2009 at 16:30
Dell,
Sure, he was dealing with rank sin. That is why he was writing openly about the issue. But there were other problems that caused the same sort of disfellowship, remember? Paul mentioned for them to also not to keep company with extortioners, idolaters, drunkards, revilers, etc. (1 Cor. 5:11). These were probably more “normal” cases, but Paul also said for them to separate from these as well.
Thanks!
Matt
by Zach Cox
31 Mar 2009 at 10:56
Randal,
Just curious what “false teaching” caused this brother to lose his fellowship with the church.
Matt,
I want to commend you for refusing to “sling mud” and use offensive words to describe those with whom you disagree. It doesn’t seem to help much.
Zach
by Matt Clifton
31 Mar 2009 at 11:02
Zach,
Thanks. I’ve never seen too much value in labels, especially when the purpose of the label is to distract from the actual issue at hand.
God bless you.
Matt
by Zach Cox
31 Mar 2009 at 11:09
Matt,
You wrote that “Romans 14 must be about matters of opinion and doubtful things.” Is Paul’s statement “nothing is unclean in itself” (Romans 14:14) a “matter of opinion” or a “doubtful thing” or a “doctrinal matter?”
Zach
by Matt Clifton
31 Mar 2009 at 11:36
Zach,
My understanding is that Romans 14:1 sets the context for this section: “Receive one who is weak in the faith, but not to disputes over doubtful things.” Then in verse 2 and 3, we see the specific thing to which Paul is referring: “For one believes he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats only vegetables. Let not him who eats despise him who does not eat, and let not him who does not eat judge him who eats; for God has received him.”
The context of the discussion in chapter 14 is avoiding disputes over doubtful things. Paul says in verse 4, “Who are you to judge another’s servant?” Then in verse 12 he writes, “Therefore let us not judge one another anymore, but rather resolve this, not to put a stumbling block or a cause to fall in our brother’s way.”
Now, this cannot be referring to commandments of God about holiness or worship. Why? Because Paul specifically told the Corinthians that they were to judge the behavior of their fellow Christians (1 Cor. 6), and to act accordingly if fellowship needed to be withheld (1 Cor. 5). Since Paul taught the same things in all the churches (1 Cor. 4:17), the Romans certainly would have the same guidelines as the Corinthians.
With this understanding, and remaining with the context, it seems clear that Paul’s use of “nothing unclean” is referring certainly to food, but also to other doubtful things that may come up in our personal lives. There is no mention of sinful behavior being a doubtful thing, nor about worship practices. Instead, Paul is talking harmless matters of preference that happen outside the assembly. Harmless, of course, unless they cause others to stumble.
In a sentence, “nothing is unclean in itself” is a doctrinal statement about a matter of opinion.
by Kenneth Sublett
22 May 2009 at 21:40
There is a lot of history about the religious sects in Rome at the time. What the believers would see would be in the marketplace where many locals took their meals: the Orphics and Dionysiacs were well documented in Rome and the wild, musical excesses which led to sexual excesses had been controlled by the Roman government for over a hundred years. “What they did in the dark” in Paul’s words was restricted to being done in the LIGHT. Paul would certainly not permit what the Civil government had been forced to control.
Doubtful Disputations are exactly the “diversities” that people conjur out of their own mind and the DIET and DAYS they showed up for would get the attention of those once in conflict. Paul speaks of DIET and DAYS and if you want to extend that then all of the sects were noted for their musical frenzies which would and does drive the infirm into the “spiritual anxiety” or laded burden Jesus died to remove. Medical science proves what the most ancients understood: music disables the rational or spiritual mind and lets false teachers slip in dogma without being noticed. It was well known that “people set their lies to melodies to deceive the simple.”
All of the sects would have at one time conducted rituals in and around the Agora or marketplace: you will remember that Jesus consigned the pipers, singers (lamenters) and dancers to the marketplace. In Athens, the ekklesia was far removed from the marketplace and was for information only: neither the ekklesia or Greek synagogue or Jewish synagogue permitted the members to make up their own material for discussion.
In chapter 15 Paul defines the functions of what he often calls “synagogue” which was devoted to “that which is written.”
I have reviewed Royce Ogle’s take on Romans 14 here:
http://www.piney.com/Romans.14.html
Only that which contributes to edification which in the synagogue context means education was allowed. The ARESKOS or self-pleasure also forbids people from taking a vote to decide whether they would like to add something for their own pleasure. It clearly means just the opposite of those who use Romans 14 to give them the authority to IMPOSE their doubtful opinions on the whole body.
Jay Guin proposes his doubtful disputations suggesting the Lord’s Supper be a PERFORMANCE thing and done quarterly or monthly. At the same time the SHOWING FORTH of the death of Christ has the same meaning as EVANGELISM: you begin to teach the death of Christ. Now, why one would try to put off teaching about Christ to a quarterly performance and give himself the right to preach his own “doubtful disputations” is something to worry about.
In another look at Ronnie Norman’s use of Romans to let him squeeze music out of silence.
http://www.piney.com/Norman.Romans.14.html