How important is the Lord's Supper to you?

[thephnxman]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

I realize this may sound too Catholic for some, but I think one's salvation is tied to it, in a qualified sense.

The Lord's Supper doesn't save; the Gospel does, and the Gospel alone, being the power of God, is what saves.

But take note of what it means to be ex-communicated according to the Scriptures: it means to be "out of communion".

Someone who has legitimately been removed from the body of believers because of any of the sins listed in 1 Corinthians 5 (e.g. fornication, drunkenness, blasphemy, covetous idolatry, etc.) is turned over to Satan.

Consider then what Jesus said in John 6 and in Matthew 18. The bread and wine doesn't do the saving, but they are hallmarks that one is saved, and being denied access to the communal meal for legitimate reasons means one has not only lost their fellowship with the saints of the church, but also their fellowship with the head of the saints of the church.
There is no salvation outside the Body of Christ. And for a member to fall into grievous, unrepentant sin, and so be removed, not only from geographical proximity, but also from the meal of the Lord's Supper (a la Judas), means that, unless God grants them repentance, they are lost (just like the son of perdition).
Take into account the "spots on the feasts of charity" mentioned by Peter and Jude. Such people, if allowed to partake, actually ruin the supper and cause dangerous problems to the Body of Christ.

Hmm-m. We are advised not to eat with a brother who is a fornicator: but excommunicate? It sounds so permanent.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by thephnxman

Hmm-m. We are advised not to eat with a brother who is a fornicator: but excommunicate? It sounds so permanent.

Excommunicate means literally to put someone out of communion, ie to refuse to eat with them. It lasts until the person repents. See 2Cor for example.

Also it is not just "not eating with" them, it is "not EVEN to eat with such a one". It is disfellowshipping ie shunning.

[BrotherEastman]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Excommunicate means literally to put someone out of communion, ie to refuse to eat with them. It lasts until the person repents. See 2Cor for example.

Also it is not just "not eating with" them, it is "not EVEN to eat with such a one". It is disfellowshipping ie shunning.

I like your link about immortal souls. Good read.

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Excommunicate means literally to put someone out of communion, ie to refuse to eat with them. It lasts until the person repents. See 2Cor for example.

Also it is not just "not eating with" them, it is "not EVEN to eat with such a one". It is disfellowshipping ie shunning.

And that's the truth. And because it's the truth (i.e. put that wicked person away from you), something like ex-communication/disfellowship/shunning had better be for the right reasons only.

If there is no provable sin and yet a person is dismissed from fellowship by a personal grudge (or etc.) then the group doing the ex-communicating is in deep trouble with the Lord.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

And that's the truth. And because it's the truth (i.e. put that wicked person away from you), something like ex-communication/disfellowship/shunning had better be for the right reasons only.

If there is no provable sin and yet a person is dismissed from fellowship by a personal grudge (or etc.) then the group doing the ex-communicating is in deep trouble with the Lord.

Indeed. Cases of putting people out of the church for any reason other than provable sin seems to put that church at risk of being disfellowshipped by God himself...

[thephnxman]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

And that's the truth. And because it's the truth (i.e. put that wicked person away from you), something like ex-communication/disfellowship/shunning had better be for the right reasons only.
If there is no provable sin and yet a person is dismissed from fellowship by a personal grudge (or etc.) then the group doing the ex-communicating is in deep trouble with the Lord.

I like the first paragraph. I would add, in the proper manner (talk to brother alone; two witnesses or three; tell the congregation).

The second is a little vague: the "...group doing the ex-communicating..."; I believe you mean the entire Church is the group, right?
I can visualize one little group in Church ex-communicating another little group;
well...you know what I mean.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by thephnxman

I like the first paragraph. I would add, in the proper manner (talk to brother alone; two witnesses or three; tell the congregation).

The second is a little vague: the "...group doing the ex-communicating..."; I believe you mean the entire Church is the group, right?
I can visualize one little group in Church ex-communicating another little group;
well...you know what I mean.

I believe that should the issue not be resolved privately, or resolved after bringing witnesses, it should be told openly to the congregation or group. Then the entire body should have a voice as to if the person is to be ex-communicated, disciplined, or given more consideration. In our fellowship, we set aside a prayer meeting for it and then vote as a body.