Does it make any difference if the word should be "ensnared" or "trapped",
rather than "found out"?  IOW, this isn't about discovery; this is about the
ensnared coming to the realization of being trapped in a sin and looking for
help.

If Galatians 6: 1&2 is "status quo" for our overall one-anothering, it's a
red flag when the brother/sister doesn't show some kind of willingness to
repent, even initially.  The pattern for one-anothering should be so
ingrained in the pew, even the reluctance to repent is viewed as abnormal.
If someone came to me with a grievance against me, if I don't at least have
the attitude of mutual submission (like... I don't see this, but you might
be right... let's pray... let's bring an elder alongside and maybe he'll
help us see this God's way... etc.), that's a problem.

Chad Bresson
Xenia, OH


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "H Dorrington" <hjdinfl@...>
To: <soundofgrace@...>
Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2004 1:27 PM
Subject: RE: [soundofgrace] Matthew 18:15-17


> Can you have Mt 18:15-17 without Gal 6:1&2?
> Galatians 6
> 1Brothers, if anyone is caught in any transgression, you who are spiritual
should restore him in a spirit of gentleness. Keep watch on yourself, lest
you too be tempted. 2Bear one another's burdens, and so fulfill the law of
Christ.
>
> Sometimes a person is so hurt, angry, and/or frustrated that repentance
isn't the first thing on his or her mind.  Sometimes it takes a while for a
person to look at what they have done and say they were wrong.  Yes
unrepentance requires disciplne but our goal should be restoration in a
spirit of gentleness according to Paul.
>
> Harry
>
> "Steve Fuchs (on MSN)" <SteveF_MS@...> wrote:
> Just to clarify;
>
> If the church representation attempts to meet, or set up a meeting with
the
> offender, and he refuses to comply, they have witnessed his/her
> unrepentance. He has refused to give the 'church' a listen on the matter.
> Refusing to hear advice is the same as ignoring advice given.
>
> By this stage, it isn't so much about the offense anymore as it is about
> repentance.
> The discipline that follows is all about the lack of repentance. The
> original offense is immaterial. The discipline is not for the offense. The
> only offense that's disciplined is unrepentance.
>
> Sin doesn't make a Christian a hypocrite, because perfection is not the
mark
> of a believer.
> Lack of repentance does indicate (possible) hypocrisy, because repentance
is
> a mark of the regenerate soul.
>
> The unregenerate soul will not properly repent. He cannot.
> If a brother/sister will not repent, he or she needs to be treated as
> unregenerate because that is exactly how they are behaving.....possibly
> because they are.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Steve Fuchs (on MSN) [mailto:SteveF_MS@...]
> Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2004 9:36 AM
> To: soundofgrace@...
> Subject: RE: [soundofgrace] Matthew 18:15-17
>
>
> I'm not a theologian, so I may be wrong, but the way the scripture reads
to
> me is that one must keep appealing to a larger band of (respected)
Christian
> witnesses. So the 'church' may be the entire body, or an appropriate
> representation of the body, such as all/most of the
elders/officers/whatever
> they are called. However, the purpose of the witnesses is always to
> objectively observe the interaction, making sure both parties are fair and
> respectable. Establishing that the accusation is true and merited (not
> trivial), and at the same time observing the heart of the offender.
>
> Considering all that, if a situation gets to step 3, it's often unlikely
the
> offender is willing to come to a church meeting where the whole
congregation
> is, and even taking a large enough representation (leaders, etc.) of the
> church to the person can be difficult. But somehow, the church
> representatives need to observe the tone and merit of the accusation, as
> well as the tone and sincerity of the response.
>
> It potentially could be done via a conference telephone call, (though it's
> not recommended). If the invitation and it's rejection is witnessed by the
> church representation so as to establish that the rejection is really
> unrepentance, then the church as a witness/advisor has done it's job.
>
> So, just like step 2 requires the offended to approach respectable
> 'witnesses' before bringing them, so step 3 requires the offended (and 2
or
> 3 witnesses) to approach an appropriate representation of the church to
set
> up the meeting.
>
> Otherwise, bringing it up by surprise would be 'blind-sighting' the
brother
> or sister. Proper, respectable, scriptural dealing with such matters is
why
> there are witnesses. If you blind-sight someone, you'll have become an
> offender yourself.
>
> The difference I think is that it's really 3 parts.
> A) Inform and coordinate with the church representation to raise the issue
> (and giving the offender proper notice that this is happening according to
> the scriptural instructions - it's hard for them to argue it when you just
> say 'You know what the book of Mat says I must do next')
> B) Confront the individual with appropriate representation of the 'church'
> as witnesses
> C) If the church representation agrees the accusation has merit, and the
> offender is unrepentant, then the exclusion from fellowship is
communicated
> to every last individual of the body.
>
> The follow-up question about the offender being a pastor is only different
> in that obtaining appropriate church representation is a littler more
> difficult and sticky. BUT, the importance of not blind-sighting the
> offender is even more obvious.
>
> I pray that helps.
> I've been through this with a good friend, and I know it's gut-wrenching
on
> everyone involved.
>
> Steve
> -----Original Message-----
> From: James Beals [mailto:jbeals@...]
> Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2004 1:33 AM
> To: soundofgrace@...
> Cc: jclemens@...
> Subject: [soundofgrace] Matthew 18:15-17
>
>
> Friends:
>
> As you can see from the subject, my question is related to the passage in
> Matthew that we are all familiar with.
> --------------------------------------------------------
> 15 Moreover if your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault
> between you and him alone. If he hears you, you have gained your brother.
16
> But if he will not hear, take with you one or two more, that "by the
> mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established." 17 And if
he
> refuses to hear them, tell it to the church. But if he refuses
> even to hear the church, let him be to you like a heathen and a tax
> collector.
> - NKJV
> --------------------------------------------------------
> NB - Most of the translations seem to read very similar to the above.
>
> I put it to you this way:
> I am aware of a situation where the first two "steps" of the "Matthew 18"
> process have been followed without success.
> ... that being:
> 1. Offended party goes to offending party and seeks reconciliation
> (without success).
> 2. Offended party goes to offending party "with one or two more" and seeks
> reconciliation (without success).
>
> In the event that the process is followed through to "step three", ...
that
> being: 3. Offended party "tells it the church".
>
> My question is this:
> Is verse 17 above describing two distinct events or gatherings?
> - One (the first) where the Offended party "tells it to the church" with
> the Offending party ABSENT from that meeting... and
> - Two (the second) where the church delivers their message to the
> Offending party where he/she subsequently "refuses to hear".
> ----- OR -----
> Is verse 17 above describing a single event or gathering? where:
> - the Offended party "tells it to the church" with the Offending party
> PRESENT where he/she subsequently "refuses to hear".
>
>
> This as a practical question with practical implications so please be
> practical in your advice / exigesis.
> I realize this may spawn more questions than answers, which in itself may
> be useful, but right now I am looking for the "answers".
> My concern is for the truth and that the Scriptures be "rightly divided"
> and applied and the Lord obeyed.
>
> in Christ,
> Jamie Beals
> Ottawa
>
> PS I will read your reply posts on the SOG chat group, but if you wish,
> please also feel free to reply to me directly at jbeals@... PPS
> Here is a follow-up question: Would you treat the situation any
> differently if the Offending party was a pastor? This, of course, has
> implications with respect to the "removal of a pastor" in the same way
that
> it has implications with respect to the "removal of a member".
>
> --
> Read the Sound of Grace pages at
> http://www.soundofgrace.com
>
> To unsubscribe, send ANY message to:
soundofgrace-unsubscribe@...
>
> To view our online archive go to our web page at
> http://www.associate.com/groups/soundofgrace
>
> --
> Read the Sound of Grace pages at
> http://www.soundofgrace.com
>
> To unsubscribe, send ANY message to:
soundofgrace-unsubscribe@...
>
> To view our online archive go to our web page at
> http://www.associate.com/groups/soundofgrace
>
> --
> Read the Sound of Grace pages at
> http://www.soundofgrace.com
>
> To unsubscribe, send ANY message to:
soundofgrace-unsubscribe@...
>
> To view our online archive go to our web page at
> http://www.associate.com/groups/soundofgrace
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it!
> --
> Read the Sound of Grace pages at
> http://www.soundofgrace.com
>
> To unsubscribe, send ANY message to:
soundofgrace-unsubscribe@...
>
> To view our online archive go to our web page at
> http://www.associate.com/groups/soundofgrace
>
>
>