REINSTATEMENT No2

[AnonymousBrother]

On 3/3/2016 at 8:14 AM, Ann O'Maly said:

OK.

I notice that you do not give specific references or quotes to support your point. This makes it harder to verify your claim. Perhaps you just threw out names hoping some might stick. It's appears you didn't bother to actually check what they said.

Barnes refers the reader of 2 John 7 to his notes on 1 John 4:2 where he says,

"It is quite probable that the apostle here refers to such sentiments as those which were held by the 'Docetae;' and that he meant to teach that it was indispensable to proper evidence that anyone came from God, that he should maintain that Jesus was truly a man, or that there was a real incarnation of the Son of God."

Verse 10: If there come any unto you - Any professed teacher of religion. There can be no doubt that she to whom this Epistle was written was accustomed to entertain such teachers.

And bring not this doctrine - This doctrine which Christ taught, or the true doctrine respecting him and his religion.

Quote

Alford neither agrees nor disagrees. He doesn't mention the Docetists in his commentary.

Exactly.

Quote

A.E. Brooks - The Johannine Epistles, I presume. While he questions whether John was specifically pinning down Docetism as the 'false teaching,' he does say that the "connection of the [first] Epistle with Gnostic ideas is quite apparent" (p. xliii). He also acknowledges that the recognized connection between John's First and Second Epistles with Docetism has had a long history and, while he finds it unfortunate that the term 'Docetism' has both a "wider and narrower signification," he says it can be applied in a more popular sense,

"to characterize all teaching which denied the reality of the Incarnation, and therefore the reality and completeness of the Lord's humanity." (p. xliv) 

This application is still pretty specific and again is not meant to be a catch-all for any infraction of an ecclesiastical authority's policies and teaching.

I guess you care to ignore all the preceding and succeeding pages?

Thus, if we may consider first the passages in which doctrinal 
errors are denounced apart from those which deal with moral 

§ 5.] THE FALSE TEACHERS xli 

dangers, the general impression left by these passages and by 
many individual expressions which occur in them, leads to the 
conclusion that the Epistle is directed against various forms of 
teaching. The writer sums up the different tendencies in them 
which seem to him most dangerous, and most characteristic of 
the times. He sets out clearly the corresponding truths which 
in his opinion will prove to be their safest antidote. At the 
same time his writing may have been occasioned by one special 
type of false teaching, or one special incident in the history of 
his Church in connection with it. 

We have seen, if the suggested interpretation of the Christo- 
logical passages is in the main correct, that the author is trying 
to strengthen his readers' defences against dangers which threaten 
from more than one quarter. As the Epistle proceeds, however, 
one particular danger becomes more prominent, and the passage 
in ch. v. contains clearer reference to one definite form of error 
than is probably to be found in the earlier chapters. Since the 
days when Polycarp told the story of John, the disciple of the 
Lord, and Cerinthus in the Baths of Ephesus, the view has been 
commonly held that the Johannine Epistles, if not the Gospel 
as well (cf. Jerome, In Joann.), were directed, at any rate in 
part, again the heresy of Cerinthus. This view has been 
seriously challenged by many writers. 

Quote

"The team at Intervarsity Press" - too vague. 

W Hall Harris - Are you referring to his book, 1, 2, 3 John - Comfort and Counsel for a Church in Crisis? P.211 - "There is no indisputable evidence for docetism in the Johannine letters." Well, that's one scholar so far.

The Pulpit Commentary:

"These seducers deny 'Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh,' or they deny 'Jesus as Christ coming in the flesh.' The present participle ἐρχόμενον seems to indicate exactly the position of some of the Gnostic teachers. ... The Gnostic denied that the Incarnation could take place: no such Person as the Christ coming in the flesh was possible; that the Infinite should become finite, that the Divine Word should become flesh, was inconceivable. The teacher who brings such doctrine as this 'is the deceiver and the antichrist' about whom the elder's children had been so frequently warned."

Docetism was a form of Gnosticism.

>>>>>>>> So were many other things: Conclusion Docetism not "particular" target.
 
FB Hole neither agrees nor disagrees with the idea that John was targeting Docetists because he doesn't mention them. He applies John's words to 'Modernism.'

>>>>>>>>> Again, my point. Docetism was a major issue, yet does not get mentioned: Colcusion: Docetism not "particular" target.

William Kelly -  neither agrees nor disagrees. He doesn't mention the Docetists but talks in generalities.

>>>>> Again, my point. Docetism was a major issue, yet does not get mentioned: Colcusion: Docetism not "particular" target.

J R Dummelow - his introduction to 2 John discusses the historical context of the letter and how the Docetist view, which denied Jesus' true nature, was a threat to the Christianity that John held dear. No disagreement from Drummelow.

Yet, his comments:

6. In it] ' better to make ' it ' refer not to 
the nearest noun, ' commandment,' but to 
' love.' 7. Are entered into the world] rather, 
' are gone out into the world': cp. RV; i.e. 
they were formerly members of the Church, 
but have apostatised: cp. 1 Jn2i9. To con- 
fess that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is 
with St. John the central fact of Christian 
belief. Not to recognise in Jesus the authentic 

1061 

2 JOHN— 3 JOHN 

14 

revelation of the infinite God and the highest 
ideal of humanity, can, in his opinion, imply 
only moral depravity. 

9. Whosoever, not transgresseth, but ' has 
erroneous ideas.' No claim of superior know- 
ledge can be allowed which sets aside what 
Christ taught. Doctrine in the NT. is never 
synonymous with ' dogma,' but means ' teaching.' 

10. ' This verse reminds us that the Gospel 
has its intolerance as well as tolerance ' (Bp. 
Alexander). Ordinary courtesy is not for- 
bidden, but to extend the right hand of fellow- 
ship would be to condone and further false 
doctrine and to share the guilt of disloyalty. 

Do not seem to support your "particularly" notion.

Leon Morris - did he do a discussion of John's letters? I cannot find one among his listed works.

James Macknight -  A New Literal Translation, from the Original Greek, of all the Apostolical Epistles, with a Commentary, and Notes, Philological, Critical, Explanatory, and Practical. To which is added, A History of the Life of the Apostle Paul, Vol VI - an old 18th century commentary. MacKnight says that the purpose of the 2nd epistle to John was 

"to confute the error of Basilides and his followers, who affirmed that Christ was not a real man, but only a man in appearance; consequently, that he neither did nor suffered what he appeared to do and suffer." (P. 134)

MacKnight was mistaken in attributing the heresy to Basilides as he lived after John's letter was supposed to have been written, but it's clear that MacKnight thought John was targeting Gnostic heresy.

>>>>>>>>>>>> But, again, not "particularly" Docetism, as you claim.

Coffman's commentaries:

"The heresy of the false deceivers was that of denying the Incarnation. Various scholars have identified such teachers as Docetists, Cerinthians, and Gnostics."

>>>>>>>>>>>> But, again, not "particularly" Docetism, as you claim.

Quote

Nah. Your "most scholars" that "disagree" John was targeting the Docetic heresy amount to ... let me get my calculator ... a grand total of ... one.

So basically, your statement was

Quote

This Scripture was particularly targeting the Docetists.

And I've gone and shown you *how* many that disagree on that "particularly"?

I would say I did just exactly as I said: Show you no such "particularly" exists. John was addressing more than a single heresy, covering multiple issues.

We can keep this up, but it leads all to the same thing: You don't agree with JW doctrine.

[Ann O'Maly]

AnonymousBrother, I asked you, "Which scholars disagree that John was targeting the Docetic heresies?"

You answered with a list of names. Only one of those names expressed a disagreement that John was targeting Docetic heresies. Your new post doesn't add to the tally.

2 hours ago, AnonymousBrother said:

[Re Alford's silence on Docetism] Exactly.

Huh?

1 hour ago, AnonymousBrother said:

[Ann re Brooke] This application is still pretty specific and again is not meant to be a catch-all for any infraction of an ecclesiastical authority's policies and teaching.

[AB]  I guess you care to ignore all the preceding and succeeding pages?

Again, not clearly referenced. The second Brooke quote ("We have seen ...") comes from p. xlv. I had already taken the preceding and succeeding pages into account before I summarized Brooke's argument. Both your reproduced excerpts, as is plain from the the references to 'ch.v' and 'earlier chapters' are talking about 'the Epistle,' namely, 1 John. We, however, are focusing on 2 John. Brooke supports more my argument than yours.

1 hour ago, AnonymousBrother said:

[Ann] Docetism was a form of Gnosticism.

[AB] So were many other things: Conclusion Docetism not "particular" target.

So I ask again, other than the gnostic Docetics, which other groups taught that Jesus did not come in the flesh but was an apparition?

2 hours ago, AnonymousBrother said:

[Re Hole's and Kelley's silence on Docetism] Again, my point. Docetism was a major issue, yet does not get mentioned: Colcusion: Docetism not "particular" target.

How in your head do you make a non-mention a 'disagreement'? Talk about 'knight-jump' reasoning!

2 hours ago, AnonymousBrother said:

Yet, his comments:

[..]

Do not seem to support your "particularly" notion.

He already supported them in his introductory comments to 2 John, as I already pointed out. You think he changed his mind between pages?

2 hours ago, AnonymousBrother said:

[Re MacKnight and Coffman] But, again, not "particularly" Docetism, as you claim.

Other than the gnostic Docetics, which other groups taught that Jesus did not come in the flesh but was an apparition?

Anyway, the tally of 'disagreeing scholars' from your list still comes to ...

One.

 

[Ann O'Maly]

2 hours ago, AnonymousBrother said:

We can keep this up, but it leads all to the same thing: You don't agree with JW doctrine.

I agree with their comment here:

*** w06 12/1 pp. 5-6 The Antichrist Exposed ***

"Ideas of a purely symbolic resurrection were later developed by a group called Gnostics. Believing that knowledge (gnoʹsis in Greek) could be derived in a mystical way, Gnostics combined brother Christianity with Greek philosophy and Oriental mysticism. For instance, they held that all physical matter is evil, and for that reason, Jesus did not come in the flesh but only seemed to have a human body—a belief called Docetism. As we have seen, this is precisely what the apostle John had warned against.—1 John 4:2, 3; 2 John 7."
 

Perhaps you don't, AB? 

[AnonymousBrother]

6 hours ago, Ann O'Maly said:

AnonymousBrother, I asked you, "Which scholars disagree that John was targeting the Docetic heresies?"

You answered with a list of names. Only one of those names expressed a disagreement that John was targeting Docetic heresies. Your new post doesn't add to the tally.

Huh?

Again, not clearly referenced. The second Brooke quote ("We have seen ...") comes from p. xlv. I had already taken the preceding and succeeding pages into account before I summarized Brooke's argument. Both your reproduced excerpts, as is plain from the the references to 'ch.v' and 'earlier chapters' are talking about 'the Epistle,' namely, 1 John. We, however, are focusing on 2 John. Brooke supports more my argument than yours.

So I ask again, other than the gnostic Docetics, which other groups taught that Jesus did not come in the flesh but was an apparition?

How in your head do you make a non-mention a 'disagreement'? Talk about 'knight-jump' reasoning!

He already supported them in his introductory comments to 2 John, as I already pointed out. You think he changed his mind between pages?

Other than the gnostic Docetics, which other groups taught that Jesus did not come in the flesh but was an apparition?

Anyway, the tally of 'disagreeing scholars' from your list still comes to ...

One.

 

You keep jumping around, so I will pin it down once more:

Quote

On 2/27/2016 at 8:58 PM, AnonymousBrother said:

2 John 9~11 (ESV)
Everyone who goes on ahead and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God. Whoever abides in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house or give him any greeting, for whoever greets him takes part in his wicked works.

2 John 10 explains not to associate with those who are basically wicked.

 

You replied:

Quote

 

This Scripture was particularly targeting the Docetists. Christians considered them heretics because they believed Jesus only appeared to have a human body but wasn't actually a physical being: therefore, Jesus didn't really suffer and die as a human but just gave the illusion that he did. The context of John's words makes it clear who he was warning about:

2 John 7 - "For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those not acknowledging Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist."

Those who promoted Docetist views were wicked, according to John. This is NOT a text about judicial action, disfellowshipping and all infractions of Bible principles as perceived by the JW organizational hierarchy.

 

You keep harping some point about 2 John 7, which I have demonstrated, is not an exclusive verse for Docetism as by that list I showed you, but could take time to find more. But the point still remains, not about 2 John 7, but about 2 John 9~11, which I have also shown you from the commentaries is not exclusive to 2 John 7, which is just one example of false teachings/teachers John was warning about, and that you cannot seem to agree with.

As to your "hints" I disagree with this particular doctrine:

w85 7/15

"Did 2 John 10, which says not to receive into one’s home or to greet certain ones, refer only to those who had promoted false doctrine?
In context this counsel concerned the “many deceivers” who had gone forth, “persons not confessing Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh.” (2 John 7) The apostle John offered directions on how Christians back there should treat one who denied that Jesus had existed or that he was the Christ and Ransomer. John directed: “If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, never receive him into your homes or say a greeting to him. For he that says a greeting to him is a sharer in his wicked works.” (2 John 10, 11) But the Bible elsewhere shows that this had a wider application."

w85 7/15 31

"John says: “Everyone that pushes ahead and does not remain in the teaching of the Christ does not have God. He that does remain in this teaching is the one that has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, never receive him into your homes or say a greeting to him.” (2 John 9, 10) Those words certainly would have applied to a person who became an brother by joining a false religion or by spreading false doctrine. (2 Timothy 2:17-19) But what about those who John said “went out from us”? While Christians in the first century would know that they should not associate with an expelled wrongdoer or with an active brother, did they act similarly toward someone who was not expelled but who willfully renounced the Christian way?"

w85 8/15 31

"How did Christians in the first century act toward someone who was not an expelled wrongdoer, but who willfully renounced the Christian way?
The apostle John gave counsel about persons who had ‘gone out from among us’ and about those who brought false teaching. (1 John 2:19) At 2 John 10 he advised that Christians were not to ‘receive such persons into their home’ or greet them. The word “apostasy” is from a Greek word that has the sense of ‘desertion, abandonment, or rebellion,’ and a person who had willfully and formally disassociated himself from the Christian congregation would have matched such a description. Loyal Christians would not have wanted to fellowship with such an brother.—7/15, page 31."

W62 6/15 380

"These repeated warnings were not amiss. Already in Timothy’s day Hymenaeus and Philetus led some away from the true faith by teaching that the resurrection had already occurred. (2 Tim. 2:17, 18) In the second and third centuries Gnostics who professed Christianity boasted that they alone had sounded the depths of knowledge. By a process of speculation they claimed to have discovered “deep things” unknown to the ordinary Christian. Unwilling to limit themselves to divinely revealed truth and asserting that it was impossible to arrive at the true teachings of Christ, they proceeded to introduce Oriental and Grecian philosophies, under the label of superior knowledge. Crude, man-made doctrines resulted, and many were turned aside to false stories. The apostle John’s statement proved correct: “Everyone that pushes ahead and does not remain in the teaching of the Christ does not have God.”—2 John 9."

And I can keep posting more WT articles, as well.

[Ann O'Maly]

10 hours ago, AnonymousBrother said:

You keep harping some point about 2 John 7, which I have demonstrated, is not an exclusive verse for Docetism as by that list I showed you

Huh?

It was demonstrated to you in great detail (as you had only provided names but no references) that the list showed your assertion to be false. 

10 hours ago, AnonymousBrother said:

But the point still remains, not about 2 John 7, but about 2 John 9~11, which I have also shown you from the commentaries is not exclusive to 2 John 7

But 2 John 9-11 follows on from 2 John 7's warning about Docetic heresy, doesn't it?

10 hours ago, AnonymousBrother said:

As to your "hints" I disagree with this particular doctrine:

[AB quotes Watchtowers applying 2 John 9-11 to anybody who leaves or is expelled from the congregation.]

Um ... so why are you defending it?

10 hours ago, AnonymousBrother said:

And I can keep posting more WT articles, as well.

Why?

[AnonymousBrother]

On 3/14/2016 at 9:52 PM, Ann O'Maly said:

Huh?

It was demonstrated to you in great detail (as you had only provided names but no references) that the list showed your assertion to be false. 

But 2 John 9-11 follows on from 2 John 7's warning about Docetic heresy, doesn't it?

Um ... so why are you defending it?

Why?

I have done what I said I would. Showed you many references do not support your assertions of exclusivity (BTW, "not mentioning" is *not* the same as "supporting" your position, as much as you would like otherwise).

And since many of those on that list you care to ignore definitely state verses 9-11 are not exclusive to the one specific example of verse 7, it casts even greater doubt that their "no comment" were an assertion of your position.

PS. What I do believe are grounds for DFing or policies thereof have no bearing on what is being discussed, unless you choose to cast them in that light (you obviously are). It is quite simple: Heretics are (ideally) DFd. Can't really help that the articles don't specify the cause of DF.

[Ann O'Maly]

9 hours ago, AnonymousBrother said:

I have done what I said I would. Showed you many references do not support your assertions of exclusivity (BTW, "not mentioning" is *not* the same as "supporting" your position, as much as you would like otherwise).

Stop trying to bend this around. You made the claim that 'most scholars disagreed' with the idea that John was targeting the Docetic heresies in 2 John. I asked you to support your claim. You could not. 'Not mentioning' does not support your assertion about disagreement either. Only one on your list expressed a disagreement. Shall we move on from this dead horse now?

And regarding heretics in the ever-changing JW organization: today's heresy can be tomorrow's truth. Besides, the majority of those disfellowshipped are guilty of some sexual sin. Where does this fit with 2 John's warning about not greeting false teachers?

[AnonymousBrother]

On 3/20/2016 at 7:21 PM, Ann O'Maly said:

Stop trying to bend this around. You made the claim that 'most scholars disagreed' with the idea that John was targeting the Docetic heresies in 2 John. I asked you to support your claim. You could not. 'Not mentioning' does not support your assertion about disagreement either. Only one on your list expressed a disagreement. Shall we move on from this dead horse now?

And regarding heretics in the ever-changing JW organization: today's heresy can be tomorrow's truth. Besides, the majority of those disfellowshipped are guilty of some sexual sin. Where does this fit with 2 John's warning about not greeting false teachers?

Perhaps I should have better stated "do not support your opinion". Pretty much the same thing, just stated differently. Or just "do not seem to echo your opinion," or "have not stated agreement with your opinions" since they did not mention your opinion, which you seem to believe is paramount to scriptural interpretations. Or do you have a larger list that do "actively" support your opinion?

Not to mention what I said was disagreeing with the view of exclusively dealing with Docetism to the exclusion of all else. You wrote:

But the 'wicked' in this context was specifically about a kind of Gnostic Christian who taught Jesus was not a flesh-and-blood person which went against the fundamentals of the Gospel. It wasn't a generic 'any who an ecclesiastical authority deems wicked, for any number of reasons, do not speak to them at all.' If we were to shun all 'basically wicked' people we wouldn't speak to anybody at all. Cp. Luke. 11:13 (Matt. 7:11). 

And that view of specificity is not supported with that list I showed you. And one of them *specifically* denied your point altogether. And that is on verse 7. But the point still remains, not about 2 John 7, but about 2 John 9~11 (which my initial comments was made from), which I have shown you from the commentaries is not exclusive to 2 John 7, which is just *one example* of false teachings/teachers John was warning about, and that you cannot seem to agree with.

Remember: When I started, I did not even mention 2 John 7 at all. Just 2 John 9~11. You came back with 2 John 7:

 

Quote

 

This Scripture was particularly targeting the Docetists. Christians considered them heretics because they believed Jesus only appeared to have a human body but wasn't actually a physical being: therefore, Jesus didn't really suffer and die as a human but just gave the illusion that he did. The context of John's words makes it clear who he was warning about:

2 John 7 - "For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those not acknowledging Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist."

Those who promoted Docetist views were wicked, according to John. This is NOT a text about judicial action, disfellowshipping and all infractions of Bible principles as perceived by the JW organizational hierarchy.

So, while verse 7 might perhaps maybe by some odd minuscule chance, yet which is not actively supported by that list of scholars I gave you, be targeting exclusively Docetism, verses 9~11 do not.

 

[Ann O'Maly]

Quote

 

On 3/24/2016 at 2:56 PM, AnonymousBrother said:

 

 

On 3/24/2016 at 2:56 PM, AnonymousBrother said:

So, while verse 7 might perhaps maybe by some odd minuscule chance, yet which is not actively supported by that list of scholars I gave you, be targeting exclusively Docetism, ...

Please review this post: 

http://forum.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/916-reinstatement-no2/?do=findComment&comment=2120

Out of the 11 scholars you named,

• 6 supported my view; 
• 1 did not support my view;
• the rest are invalid as they didn't offer comment one way or the other.

On 3/24/2016 at 2:56 PM, AnonymousBrother said:

 ... verses 9~11 do not.

On 3/13/2016 at 0:52 PM, Ann O'Maly said:

But 2 John 9-11 follows on from 2 John 7's warning about Docetic heresy, doesn't it?

 

[Manuel Boyet Enicola]

On 2/24/2016 at 4:03 AM, Γιαννης Διαμαντιδης said:

When the Prodigal Son in the parable of our Lord Jesus came back home the father accepted him. His brother didn't want him back but the father corrected the second son: “‘My son,’ the father said, ‘you are always with me, and everything I have is yours. But we had to celebrate and be glad, because this brother of yours was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found". -Luke 15:31.
Imagine the father question his first son's motives for coming back... imagine - instead of making a party - telling him "I will not speak to you till you will show proof of remorse" ... "you must come here every Wednesday and Sunday for at list a year, no body will talk to you but you must come here to prove you are not proud".
 

A person is disfellowshipped for NOT repenting his sins.  Ergo, anybody who REPENTS will be accepted back.  But how sure are the elders that this person has truly repented? The person needs to show "works that befit repentance." (Acts 26:20)  And these include, but are not limited to meeting attendance....  

In the case of the prodigal son, he acted by leaving his life of debauchery and walked back to his father, asking for forgiveness.    

[Γιαννης Διαμαντιδης]

On 27/5/2016 at 6:38 ΠΜ, Manuel Boyet Enicola said:

A person is disfellowshipped for NOT repenting his sins.  Ergo, anybody who REPENTS will be accepted back.  But how sure are the elders that this person has truly repented? The person needs to show "works that befit repentance." (Acts 26:20)  And these include, but are not limited to meeting attendance....  

In the case of the prodigal son, he acted by leaving his life of debauchery and walked back to his father, asking for forgiveness.

if you dont like the exaple of the case of prodigal son out of the mouth our Lord Jesus ... then you can read James 5:14:

"Is any one of you sick? He should call theelders of the church to pray over him and anoint him with oil in thename of the Lord. And the prayer offered in faith will restore the one who is sick. The Lord will raise him up. If he has sinned, he will be forgiven.…"

Let us read your scripture ...  Acts 26:20
"but declared both to them of Damascus first, and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the country of Judaea, and also to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, doing works worthy of repentance".

The bible here talks generally about people of the world (Gentiles) who "should repent and turn to God, doing works worthy of repentance".
This verse of the bible gives no excuse for the unscriptural use of disfellowship in the congregations of Jehovah's witnesses.
You say:
"A person is disfellowshipped for NOT repenting his sins".
You are wrong here... The penalty of disfellowshiping is applied also to those who don't agree with the uscriptural modern laws of the watchtower who are constantly changing ..  I will give the example of the organ transplant ... In 1967 according to watchtower was cannibalism ... In 1980 it was all OK without even a sorry. Vangelis a Greek brother who needed a kidney transplant in 1977 left the organization in order to do it and live and when he wanted to come back around 1985 they didn't accepted him back. They told him that he deeded to show "works that befit repentance".

WOE to YOU Jehovahs Witnesses  ... Children of Pharisees ... "You weigh men down with heavy burdens, but you yourselves will not lift a finger to lighten their load".

The wrath of God will be heavy on YOU JWORG on his day of vengeance.

 

[Anna]

So...how would you keep the congregations spiritually and morally clean Γιαννης Διαμαντιδης?  Taking into consideration how Jesus viewed congregations who were lacking in this regard: " ‘Nevertheless, I have a few things against you, that you have there those adhering to the teaching of Baʹlaam, who taught Baʹlak to put a stumbling block before the sons of Israel, to eat things sacrificed to idols and to commit sexual immorality. In the same way, you also have those adhering to the teaching of the sect of Nic·o·laʹus.So repent. If you do not, I am coming to you quickly, and I will war against them with the long sword of my mouth".

How do you imagine the Congregations of our time would look if  "those who are sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers,  men who practice homosexuality,thieves, greedy people, drunkards, revilers, and extortioners" were tolerated??

P.S. No one was ever disfellowshipped for organ transplants. The Greek brother who left to have an organ transplant, was he disfellowshipped?