Non-catholics, How do you "Tell it to the Church"

[JRKH]

I am interested in the “Protestant” take on the following passage. I posted it on a thread relating to OSAS and that is the context of the notes in orange.
But in general, I would like to know how non-catholic Christians, with their view of church being the “Body of believers led by the Holy Spirit” with “no heirachial authority”, understand this passage.
Remember please that, if a person within your own faith community were believed by you to be teaching false doctrine, he would be sinning against you by fomenting discord within the body of Christ.
I believe this to be compelling evidence for A Visible and Authoritative Church. What do you see?

Matthew 18: 15-18
15 "If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother.
(Note: Teaching False doctrine is a sin. We, as your Christian Bothers are compelled to tell you that it is a sin. We cannot just agree to disagree)
16 "But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that by the mouth of two or three witnesses every fact may be confirmed.
(Note: We have brought “2 or three others” just as you have done. There is no resolution. Therefore there is but one recourse left to ANY TRUE follower of Christ)
17 "If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church (Singular); and if he refuses to listen even to the church let him be as a tax collector. 18 "Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.
(So Christ recognized the need for earthly authority and instituted a Church that we are to listen to and obey because the Church has the power to “Bind and Loose - Whatever” in Heaven and On Earth.

(note: If I don’t respond quickly please don’t worry - I have family health issues that sometimes don’t allow me to read and post regularly)

Peace
James

 

[SpiritMeadow]

There need be no “Protestant” versus “Catholic” approach to this scripture. At the time that Jesus was speaking, there was no “church” other than the one they all attended, the synagogue and Temple. The church did not develop until after Jesus’ death, years later, by the travelings of Paul and other apostles who set up churches throughout the realm. After the crucifixion, Peter and James continued to preach in the synagogue. It was not until after 70AD when they were forcibly rejected from the synagogue that anything remotely resembling a “church” was set up in Jerusalem at least.

Jesus all his life preached in the synagogue and there quite obviously was trying to reform Judaism. This was clear quite obviously up to his trial by the Sanhedrin. He was a Jew teaching Jewish doctrine and interpreting the Torah. His statements to Peter reflect that most clearly it seems to me. Through Jesus’ teaching, his references were constantly to the Torah, his stories touched on themes in Deuterotomy and Isaiah over and over. Reconciliation between parties was always a part of Jewish life, one was not to approach the altar when one has a dispute ongoing. One was to solve it before hand

 

[JRKH]

There need be no “Protestant” versus “Catholic” approach to this scripture. At the time that Jesus was speaking, there was no “church” other than the one they all attended, the synagogue and Temple. The church did not develop until after Jesus’ death, years later, by the travelings of Paul and other apostles who set up churches throughout the realm. After the crucifixion, Peter and James continued to preach in the synagogue. It was not until after 70AD when they were forcibly rejected from the synagogue that anything remotely resembling a “church” was set up in Jerusalem at least.

Jesus all his life preached in the synagogue and there quite obviously was trying to reform Judaism. This was clear quite obviously up to his trial by the Sanhedrin. He was a Jew teaching Jewish doctrine and interpreting the Torah. His statements to Peter reflect that most clearly it seems to me. Through Jesus’ teaching, his references were constantly to the Torah, his stories touched on themes in Deuterotomy and Isaiah over and over. Reconciliation between parties was always a part of Jewish life, one was not to approach the altar when one has a dispute ongoing. One was to solve it before hand

Interesting take on things. So are you saying that we should “Tell it to the synagogue”?

Peace
James

 

[piperspop]

Try substituting “parish” for “church”.
See, it still works.
There was no hierarchical authority at the time Christ was speaking,
just the local body of believers as He went from place to place.

 

[Soutane]

The Catholic Church was born at Pentecost.The priesthood was established at the Last Supper at Christ’s command,"DO THIS…"Our Catholic identity and raison d’etre was indelibly linked to Christ’s confection of His Eucharist.The hierarchy of that coming Catholic Way was established when Christ made Simon,Peter.The Papacy was established before any other formal structure which flowed in toto from that act.Everything has an infancy.

2000 years later we(the Holy Catholic Church)are still the same.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Try substituting “parish” for “church”.
See, it still works.
There was no hierarchical authority at the time Christ was speaking,
just the local body of believers as He went from place to place.

Mat 23:1 Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to his disciples,
Mat 23:2 Saying: The scribes and the Pharisees have sitten on the chair of Moses.
Mat 23:3 All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do: but according to their works do ye not. For they say, and do not.

 

[SSTeacher]

I am interested in the “Protestant” take on the following passage. I posted it on a thread relating to OSAS and that is the context of the notes in orange.
But in general, I would like to know how non-catholic Christians, with their view of church being the “Body of believers led by the Holy Spirit” with “no heirachial authority”, understand this passage.
Remember please that, if a person within your own faith community were believed by you to be teaching false doctrine, he would be sinning against you by fomenting discord within the body of Christ.
I believe this to be compelling evidence for A Visible and Authoritative Church. What do you see?

Matthew 18: 15-18
15 "If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother.
(Note: Teaching False doctrine is a sin. We, as your Christian Bothers are compelled to tell you that it is a sin. We cannot just agree to disagree)
16 "But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that by the mouth of two or three witnesses every fact may be confirmed.
(Note: We have brought “2 or three others” just as you have done. There is no resolution. Therefore there is but one recourse left to ANY TRUE follower of Christ)
17 "If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church (Singular); and if he refuses to listen even to the church let him be as a tax collector. 18 "Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.
(So Christ recognized the need for earthly authority and instituted a Church that we are to listen to and obey because the Church has the power to “Bind and Loose - Whatever” in Heaven and On Earth.

(note: If I don’t respond quickly please don’t worry – I have family health issues that sometimes don’t allow me to read and post regularly)

Peace
James

Hi James,

At the time I ceased being an Evangelical (almost 35 hours ago ) my understanding of this passage was that “my brother” would be a fellow Evangelical with whom I had fairly close ties – perhaps somebody who was in the same small group as I was or a member of my Sunday school class. There would have to be a close relationship for the person to be able to sin against me. The idea of being sinned against because of a person teaching false doctrine would never have occurred to me. The “church” would be the local church of which I was a member and attended regularly.

I guess the interpretation on the non–Catholic side of the Reformation would depend upon which translation is used. Consider, for example, the New Revised Standard Version, which is favored by Methodists because it’s so gender–friendly. It renders Matthew 18:15:

If another member of the church sins against you, go and point out the fault when the two of you are alone. If the member listens to you, you have regained that one.

I’ve never seen the word “church” in this passage translated with a capital letter “C” although the footnotes in Catholic and Orthodox Bibles will obviously always capitalize the word, as those who look closely at such details will undoubtedly be aware.

Respectfully,
Mick

 

[sixofseven]

There need be no “Protestant” versus “Catholic” approach to this scripture. At the time that Jesus was speaking, there was no “church” other than the one they all attended, the synagogue and Temple. The church did not develop until after Jesus’ death, years later, by the travelings of Paul and other apostles who set up churches throughout the realm. After the crucifixion, Peter and James continued to preach in the synagogue. It was not until after 70AD when they were forcibly rejected from the synagogue that anything remotely resembling a “church” was set up in Jerusalem at least.

Jesus all his life preached in the synagogue and there quite obviously was trying to reform Judaism. This was clear quite obviously up to his trial by the Sanhedrin. He was a Jew teaching Jewish doctrine and interpreting the Torah. His statements to Peter reflect that most clearly it seems to me. Through Jesus’ teaching, his references were constantly to the Torah, his stories touched on themes in Deuterotomy and Isaiah over and over. Reconciliation between parties was always a part of Jewish life, one was not to approach the altar when one has a dispute ongoing. One was to solve it before hand

Hi SpiritMeadow,
If there was no ‘church’, then why did Jesus say “church”? Why not synagogue or temple? And we know that what Jesus says in Scripture applies to all, from the time it was said to this very day. Just as Jesus foretold of his death and resurrection, do you think he could be foretelling how the church would operate?

Why would Paul then refer to the church as the ‘pillar and foundation of truth’? Surely only the pillar and foundation of truth could settle such a matter as the teaching of faith and correcting false doctrine?

The instruction is simple - tell it to the church - so who do you tell it to and by what authority do they confirm/deny/correct/clarify?

 

[Peter_J]

Non-catholics, How do you “Tell it to the Church”

Didn’t we already have a thread with this title?

Oh wait. Never mind, the thread I’m thinking of was called “Non-prebyterians, How do you ‘Tell it to the Church’.”

 

[JamesRottnek]

Protestants who take the Bible literally would probably say that the ‘Church’ would mean the whole body of believers who are Christians (as they understand they term)

 

[JRKH]

Try substituting “parish” for “church”.
See, it still works.
There was no hierarchical authority at the time Christ was speaking,
just the local body of believers as He went from place to place.

hhhmmmmm

I’m not so sure that it “still works”. By your device here you are telling me that my parish can accept that the Host is the Real Body of Christ and the Parish 5 miles away can reject it and that is fine with Jesus.
Do you really think that is the kind of unity Christ intended for His Church when He gave it the Power to Bind and Loose?

Or to place it in biblical times, it would be fine for the church in Antioch not to require the keeping of the mosaic Law and the church in Corinth to require it.

Also, in regards to your last statement. Jesus said He would build His Church on Peter - Future tense - Jesus was on another mission at the time.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

Hi James,

At the time I ceased being an Evangelical (almost 35 hours ago ) my understanding of this passage was that “my brother” would be a fellow Evangelical with whom I had fairly close ties – perhaps somebody who was in the same small group as I was or a member of my Sunday school class. There would have to be a close relationship for the person to be able to sin against me. The idea of being sinned against because of a person teaching false doctrine would never have occurred to me. The “church” would be the local church of which I was a member and attended regularly.

I guess the interpretation on the non–Catholic side of the Reformation would depend upon which translation is used. Consider, for example, the New Revised Standard Version, which is favored by Methodists because it’s so gender–friendly. It renders Matthew 18:15:

If another member of the church sins against you, go and point out the fault when the two of you are alone. If the member listens to you, you have regained that one.

I’ve never seen the word “church” in this passage translated with a capital letter “C” although the footnotes in Catholic and Orthodox Bibles will obviously always capitalize the word, as those who look closely at such details will undoubtedly be aware.

Respectfully,
Mick

As Always SS you have great insight.
I think you are absolutely right that most everyone overlooks this passage because we think of “sin against (me)” as something more direct than the spreading of a false doctrine or teaching. I know I did for a long time.
Then I discovered that the word Church is used only twice in the Gospels. Both times by Jesus and Both times connected with conferring authority.

Also - Congrats on deciding to enter the Orthodox!! The angels are dancing today.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

Protestants who take the Bible literally would probably say that the ‘Church’ would mean the whole body of believers who are Christians (as they understand they term)

Then the obvious next question is - How does one “Tell it to the whole body of believers who are Christians”?

Peace
James

 

[sixofseven]

Then the obvious next question is - How does one “Tell it to the whole body of believers who are Christians”?

Peace
James

And who tells them they are right or wrong? :yup::nope:

 

[SSTeacher]

Congrats on deciding to enter the Orthodox!!

Peace
James

Thanks, James.

Appreciatively,
Mick

JamesRottnek;5133262:

Protestants who take the Bible literally would probably say that the ‘Church’ would mean the whole body of believers who are Christians (as they understand they term)

Then the obvious next question is - How does one “Tell it to the whole body of believers who are Christians”?

Peace
James

 

[SSTeacher]

JamesRottnek;5133262:

Protestants who take the Bible literally would probably say that the ‘Church’ would mean the whole body of believers who are Christians (as they understand they term)

Then the obvious next question is - How does one “Tell it to the whole body of believers who are Christians”?

Peace
James

James,

I think you might be on the wrong track. It seems highly doubtful to me that anybody who approaches this passage intending to take it literally would perceive the word “church” as meaning “the whole body of believers” since the word “church” is not capitalized within the text. By capitalizing the word “church,” and making it “Church” you are attempting to force onto the text a meaning it does not have. Evangelicals usually call this routine eisegesis. I understand the point you’re trying to make and agree that it’s a valid one but I’d suggest that this is definitely not the passage to use in order to substantiate it.

Respectfully,
Mick

 

[Peter_J]

I think I understand what you’re saying, SSTeacher, but it seems to me that there’s a more fundamental problem with this discussion. Namely the question “Non-catholics, How do you ‘Tell it to the Church’?” doesn’t really make sense. What sort of answer would you expect to receive from, for example, those non-Catholics who are Buddhist?

Incidentally, in the year or so that I’ve been on this forum, I seen quite a few thread titles that are questions directed to non-Catholics, but I don’t think I’ve ever seen a title-question directed to non-Anglicans. Have you?

 

[BornAgain11]

Protestants who take the Bible literally would probably say that the ‘Church’ would mean the whole body of believers who are Christians (as they understand they term)

Exactly!

 

[Contarini]

I am interested in the “Protestant” take on the following passage. I posted it on a thread relating to OSAS and that is the context of the notes in orange.
But in general, I would like to know how non-catholic Christians, with their view of church being the “Body of believers led by the Holy Spirit” with “no heirachial authority”, understand this passage.
Remember please that, if a person within your own faith community were believed by you to be teaching false doctrine, he would be sinning against you by fomenting discord within the body of Christ.
I believe this to be compelling evidence for A Visible and Authoritative Church. What do you see?

Matthew 18: 15-18
15 "If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother.
(Note: Teaching False doctrine is a sin. We, as your Christian Bothers are compelled to tell you that it is a sin. We cannot just agree to disagree)
16 "But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that by the mouth of two or three witnesses every fact may be confirmed.
(Note: We have brought “2 or three others” just as you have done. There is no resolution. Therefore there is but one recourse left to ANY TRUE follower of Christ)
17 "If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church (Singular); and if he refuses to listen even to the church let him be as a tax collector. 18 "Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.
(So Christ recognized the need for earthly authority and instituted a Church that we are to listen to and obey because the Church has the power to “Bind and Loose - Whatever” in Heaven and On Earth.

(note: If I don’t respond quickly please don’t worry - I have family health issues that sometimes don’t allow me to read and post regularly)

Peace
James

In context this pretty clearly refers to a local congregation. It is talking about a dispute among members of the congregation. I am not claiming that “ekklesia” always refers to a local congregation–in Ephesians and Colossians it clearly doesn’t. But the basic root meaning of the word is an assembly of people gathered in a particular place, and it seems quite clear that that’s the original meaning intended by Matthew. I do not dispute that in the light of Ephesians and Colossians, and of later Christian tradition, this passage may have a fuller meaning. But the basic, most literal meaning has to do with disputes within a local congregation.

That doesn’t get us off the hook, because it clearly presupposes that there is one local congregation to which the believers in a given place belong.

Edwin

 

[NDfan]

I am interested in the “Protestant” take on the following passage. I posted it on a thread relating to OSAS and that is the context of the notes in orange.
But in general, I would like to know how non-catholic Christians, with their view of church being the “Body of believers led by the Holy Spirit” with “no heirachial authority”, understand this passage.
Remember please that, if a person within your own faith community were believed by you to be teaching false doctrine, he would be sinning against you by fomenting discord within the body of Christ.
I believe this to be compelling evidence for A Visible and Authoritative Church. What do you see?

Matthew 18: 15-18
15 "If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother.
(Note: Teaching False doctrine is a sin. We, as your Christian Bothers are compelled to tell you that it is a sin. We cannot just agree to disagree)
16 "But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that by the mouth of two or three witnesses every fact may be confirmed.
(Note: We have brought “2 or three others” just as you have done. There is no resolution. Therefore there is but one recourse left to ANY TRUE follower of Christ)
17 "If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church (Singular); and if he refuses to listen even to the church let him be as a tax collector. 18 "Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.
(So Christ recognized the need for earthly authority and instituted a Church that we are to listen to and obey because the Church has the power to “Bind and Loose - Whatever” in Heaven and On Earth.

(note: If I don’t respond quickly please don’t worry - I have family health issues that sometimes don’t allow me to read and post regularly)

Peace
James

James good post. I believe Jesus is commanding us to take this to the visible church with authority. But the authority is not consolidated to Rome if you will. The church has spiritual leaders in it that are the authorities we should submit to. But the authority from which they derive is purely taken from scripture. So in essence all matters should be reconciled against what scripture teaches.

Let’s take an example of how a brother sins against us. I can give you a real life example of something that took place in our church and how it was handled. Someone within our small group started having an affair with the spouse of another individual within our small group. The individual who was being sinned against brought it to our attention seeing the small group in total as a part of the church and witnesses to the account. The small group tried to intervene and pleaded with the individuals to stop citing the fact they were living in grave sin. When they refused the matter was taken to the Elders of our church who insisted that they refrain from their behavior and undergo counseling. When they refused that they were asked to leave the church and they did. One of the individuals was in a leadership position and had to step down. Based on scriptural principals I think the church in this case handled it appropriately.

PEACE