Leolaia,
I tried to find the quote you used in the Battle for Armageddon book but was unable. I did however, find the quote in the book: The New Creation , 1904 (Studies in the Scriptures Volume VI). Unfortunately it definitely shows two circumstances; one which calls for complete shunning and the other for spiritual exclusion only. I highlighted the parts that show two different types of punishment. Tell me what you think.
While considering this phase of the subject, we might pause a moment to inquire the extent to
which the Church, directly or indirectly, or through its elders, is to exercise this duty of
admonishing the disorderly, and of eventually excluding them from the assembly. It is not within
the power of the Church to exclude permanently. The brother who, having offended either a
brother member or the whole Church body, returns again and says, "I repent of my wrong
course, and promise my best endeavors to do right in the future," or the equivalent of this, is to
be forgiven— fully, freely—as heartily as we hope the Lord will forgive the trespasses of all. No
one but the Lord has the power or authority to cut off any individual everlastingly—the power to
sever a branch from the Vine. We are informed that there is a sin unto death, for which it is
useless to pray (1 John 5:16); and we are to expect that such a wilful sin as would thus bring the
penalty of the Second Death would be so open, so flagrant, as to be readily discerned by those
who are in fellowship with the Lord. We are not to judge of any by what is in their hearts, for we
cannot read their hearts; but if they commit wilful sin unto death it will surely become manifest
outwardly—by their lips, if they are doctrinal transgressions, denying the precious blood of
atonement; or by their immoralities, if they have turned to walk after the flesh, "like the sow that
is washed, to her wallowing in the mire." It is respecting such as these, referred to in Heb. 6:4-8;
10:26-31, that the Apostle warns us to have no dealings whatever—not to eat with them, not to
receive them into our houses, and not to bid them Godspeed (2 John 9-11); because those who
would affiliate with them or bid them Godspeed would be accounted as taking
their places as enemies of God, and as partaking of the evil deeds or evil doctrines, as the case
might be.
But in respect to others, who "walk disorderly," the regulation is very different. Such an
excluded brother or sister should not be treated as an enemy, nor thought of as such; but as an
erring brother, as the Apostle says further on in this same epistle, "If any man obey not our word
by this epistle [if he be disorderly, unwilling to submit himself to sound reasoning and loving,
generous rules of order] note that man, and have no company with him, to the end that he may be
ashamed; yet count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother." (2 Thess. 3:14,15)
Such a case as this would imply some open, public opposition on the part of the brother to the
rules of order laid down by the Apostle, as the Lord’s mouthpiece; and such a public opposition
to right principles should be rebuked by the congregation, should they decide that the brother is
so out of order that he needs admonishing; and if he does not consent to the form of sound
words, sent us by our Lord through the Apostle, he should be considered as so out of accord as to
make it no longer proper that he should have the fellowship of the brethren until he would
consent to these reasonable requirements. He should not be passed by on the street unnoticed by
the brethren, but be treated courteously. The exclusion should be merely from the privileges of
the assembly and from any special brotherly associations, etc., peculiar to the faithful. This is
implied also in our Lord’s words, "Let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican." Our
Lord did not mean that we should do injury to a heathen man or a publican, nor treat either in
any manner unkindly; but merely that we should not fellowship such as
brethren, nor seek their
confidences, nor as New Creatures give them ours. The household of faith is to be cemented and
bound together with mutual love and sympathy, and expressions of these in various ways. It is
from the lack of these privileges and blessings that the excluded brother is caused to suffer, until
he feels that he must reform his ways and return to the family gathering.
From my take it certainly appears that there were written directions for complete shunning for someone who committed immorality, denied doctrinal value of christ's blood and had doctrinal transgressions. It also appears that the cong. wouldn't have judged them unless they condemned themselves by their own lips.