The point of Matthew 18:17 is that there is such a thing called the Church that all Christians agree upon. Local or universal, it doesn’t really matter here. What is clear, however, is that this passage only makes sense if there is only one Church. Otherwise, this would not solve any problems. For example, if an Episcopalian and a Baptist disagreed, this would not help them solve their problem.
She need not fear for that on my account sir. :nope:I like the images. Let’s just not show my wife. She may start to wonder.
That’s universal authority, and nothing in that passage even remotely infers that it stops at a local level. Such a limitation is not found in the New Testament, nor in the verifiably historic writings of the early church…
The Greek word used for church that I have found is ἐκκλησία ekklēsia
Because we (the ones who don’t have to shut up) say so. :tsktsk:
It seems to me that it would be very possible that the truth could possibly be one answer in one “congregation” and the opposite in another.
No.
It only makes sense if the Chuch has a meaning as a single body and authority.
Again, we’re conflating definitions of church here. Certainly Jesus did not want only a single assembly of followers, so in that sense He definitely wanted there to be more than one church. At the same time, He desires that His Church be unified and without animosity or division. Yet look at the division to which Jesus is speaking in this passage. Is it one of structure or hierarchy? No, it is one of right relationship…of mending and forgiveness when one trespasses against another.
Well, considering you think that you don’t have to shutup, which implies you have the right to speak when others don’t, will probably result in my continued, heretical rebellion. I’ rather listen to someone who is willing to listen before they are willing to talk (i.e., tell the rest of us to shutup).
**Jesus told us that the Spirit would lead us into all truth. If Christians don’t agree about what the truth is, ALL TRUTH, are they being fully led by the spirit? **
I never saw it as a debate, and I’m certainly not out to “win” anything. I guess that points out how you view discussions with protestants. For some it’s a contest but not for me. And when you suggest I don’t want catholics to practice their faith you are showing how you are ignorant of my motive. I have never attacked catholics for being catholic and I never will. I disagree with some of what is said by catholics, but that doesn’t mean I have ill intentions. I learn more here from engaging in discussions than from arguements (example: Ralph and I almost always get into a deep and civil discussion where we tend to end up disagreeing, but I’d like to think that we both walk away a little more educated). I was saying that there is no reason for someone to shutup just because you don’t like what they have to say. Besides telling someone to shutup is for the playground. I would hope people could be bigger than that. Wouldn’t you agree?
Even Catholics do not agree on ALL TRUTH, as you’ve put it. The Catholic Church leaves a number of matters, for example the “how” of creation, or the many of the apparitions of Mary, to individual interpretation and conscience. So your line of reasoning doesn’t really make sense here, as the difference is not that Catholics are agreed on everything and Protestants are not, but rather in the scope of what topics require uniformity of belief.
^^ Dude, are you always this serious?
ah, gross generalizations…didn’t we have a topic on them recently?
Sorry for not taking you at face value. Your words didn’t come across as un-serious so I took them as how I thought they were coming across. Someone tells you to shutup and you tend to be offended. Sorry for upsetting you.