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

[BornAgain11]

[2 TIM 1:6 …stir up the GIFT OF GOD IN YOU BY THE PUTTING ON OF MY HANDS 7 GOD HAS GIVEN US the SPIRIT OF POWER. Titus 1:5 For this I left you in Crete that you should set in order …and ORDAIN ELDERS in EVERY CITY AS I APPOINTED YOU. ACTS 14:23 when they had ORDAINED elders IN EVERY CHURCH and prayed with fasting they commended them to the Lord on whom they believed. ACTS 20:28 Take heed of yourself, and the flock over which the HOLY SPIRIT has MADE you OVERSEERS TO FEED THE CHURCH OF GOD purchased with his own blood, 1 TIM 5:17 Let the elders that RULE well be counted worthy of DOUBLE HONOUR especially they who labour in the WORD AND DOCTRINE. 1 Tin 4:13 Till I come attend to READING to EXHORTATION to DOCTRINE 14 Do not neglect THE GIFT in you GIVEN you by prophecy WITH THE LAYING ON OF the HANDS of the presbytery 16 TAKE HEED to yourself TO THE DOCTRINE continue in them for in doing this you shalt both SAVE yourself and THOSE WHO HEAR YOU.] I cannot find a VALID minister in the New Covenant who was not ordained and SENT directly by Christ including Paul, or SENT by laying on of hands in the apostolic line, either by an apostle or one they ordained. [Except false teachers, who may even have been ordained by laying on of hands, but not SENT by the FELLOWSHIP. They go out on their own authority, I have no doubt they used and thought scripture supported their theology. Acts15:24 Forasmuch as we have heard that CERTAIN which WENT OUT FROM US have troubled you with words SUBVERTING YOUR SOULS saying Ye must be circumcised and keep the law: to whom WE GAVE NO SUCH COMMANDMENT Jer23:21 I DID NOT SEND these prophets, yet they have run with their message; I did not speak to them, yet they have prophesied [Those not sent are false teachers.] 1Jn 4:6 We are of God Whoever knows God LISTENS TO US and he who is not of God DOES NOT LISTEN TO US BY THIS WE KNOW the spirit of TRUTH and the spirit of ERROR

The Bishops of the world in union with the Bishop of Rome (the Pope) make up the Magisterium (that teaching authority sent by Christ Mt28:16-20 GO TEACH ALL NATIONS I AM WITH YOU TILL THE END). Their duty is to teach, sanctify and govern. Teach the Word of God, faith and morals, what we must believe and moral standards. Sanctify by preaching the Word of God and administering the sacraments, govern the Church for good order, Jn 17:21 THAT THEY MAY BE ONE as you Father are in me and I in you that they also may be one in us THAT THE WORLD MAY BELIEVE you SENT ME

The Catholic Church continues steadfastly in the apostles doctrine and fellowship, in breaking of bread and in prayers, ACTS 2:42. The one sent fellowship Christ sent to teach all he commanded, Mt 28:20, as he promised to sent the Holy Spirit to lead them in all truth (not part but all) Jn 16:13. He that hears you hears me, LK 10:16. If he neglect to hear the church treat him as a heathen, MT 18:17. I do not rely on my understanding nor on that of any man, no matter how learned, who in the last analysis gives only his own opinion, although he could be right at times. I prefer the assurance of those Christ SENT to lead in all truth, not hit and miss truth. to follow those, whom Christ has set over me, who have the gift of the Holy Spirit by laying on of hands in an unbroken line, to recall all Christ has taught, those to whom Christ promised the gates of hell shall never prevail against, Mt 16:18, the house of God, the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of truth, 1 TM 3:14. [Eph3:7 Whereof I was made A MINISTER, ACCORDING TO THE GIFT of the grace of God given unto me BY the effectual working OF HIS POWER. 8 Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ; 9 And TO MAKE ALL MEN SEE what is the fellowship of THE MYSTERY, which from the beginning of the world hath been HID IN GOD, who created all things by Jesus Christ: 10 To the intent THAT NOW unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places MIGHT BE KNOWN BY THE CHURCH the manifold wisdom of God,] CONTINUED:

Sorry–don’t have the time to read this…but no worries I’ll get back to you.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

First off I really didn’t read all of this. Sorry. Secondly we as Christians have the ability to read and understand the Bible!!! You have to ask for the gift of interpretation. Many athiests have read the Bible and have no understanding on what Christ was talking about. But when you ask and receive the gift to comprehend it sheds a whole new light. You look at it differently and with eyes wide open. Point-you do not have to have a Priest to read it for you and make you feel like you can’t understand it.

I find irony in a Bible believing Christian not reading a post that consists of mostly scriptures. Failing to read that post, seems to indicate a lack of desire to honestly discuss, and study, the Bible. Is there a concern a new perspective might shed some light that doesn’t agree with your theology?

Contrary to popular Protestant belief, the Church (not priests alone, as preachers might) offers interpretations of “some” scriptures, and it’s not a majority of scriptures. This leaves us to interpret some on our own, in light of other Church teachings. What do you do if your preacher tells you, you’ve interpreted a passage incorrectly?

Your priest comment seems to be out of line, in respect to the fact that a priest doesn’t have to read scriptures for me. I am providing scriptures for discussion and discussing scriptures you bring up, point by point, from my own understanding as guided by the Holy Spirit.

If we as Christians, have the ability to read and understand scriptures, why are there so many denominations, with slight to great differences in doctrines, based on someone’s private interpretation, all claiming Holy Spirit guidance? Again, I ask, is this being of the same mind and judgment? Is this being in FULL accord and ONE mind?

 

[JRKH]

First off I really didn’t read all of this. Sorry.

Secondly we as Christians have the ability to read and understand the Bible!!! You have to ask for the gift of interpretation.

Well I asked for the gift of interpretation and it led me back into the Catholic Church.
So - Have I correctly interpreted?

Many athiests have read the Bible and have no understanding on what Christ was talking about. But when you ask and receive the gift to comprehend it sheds a whole new light. You look at it differently and with eyes wide open. Point-you do not have to have a Priest to read it for you and make you feel like you can’t understand it.

If an individual who prays for and believes he has recieved the gift of comprehension of scripture disagrees with another person who has ALSO prayed for and believes he has recieved the gift of comprehension how do they resolve their differences.

If ALL the people who believe they are guided by the Holy Spirit really were, wouldn’t all of them agree on the meaning of Scripture?

Peace
James

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

Well I asked for the gift of interpretation and it led me back into the Catholic Church.
So - Have I correctly interpreted?

If an individual who prays for and believes he has recieved the gift of comprehension of scripture disagrees with another person who has ALSO prayed for and believes he has recieved the gift of comprehension how do they resolve their differences.

If ALL the people who believe they are guided by the Holy Spirit really were, wouldn’t all of them agree on the meaning of Scripture?

Peace
James

Oh joy, I cannot wait to hear about the “essential” and “non-essential” beliefs again…



God bless

 

[Peter_J]

The 1st century church was nonDenom

The early Church wasn’t denominational. Denominations came later.

Only Catholics believe that the Catholic Church is The Church other Christians do not believe that.

True, but it’s worth noting that the Eastern Orthodox believe that the Eastern Orthodox Church is ‘the Church’, and the Oriental Orthodox believe that the Oriental Orthodox Church is ‘the Church’. So why is it strange that Roman Catholics believe that the Roman Catholic Church is ‘the Church’?

 

[Peter_J]

Therefore when you “tell it to the church” you are also telling the Lord directly because he is dwelling there.

Amen.

 

[Peter_J]

Thanks, Peter. Authority issues like these grasp my attention, and I think it’s because of my line of work.

As an attorney, if I can’t cite cases that control in my jurisdiction, the judge will say “well that’s great that a judge in New Hampshire said that, but I’m really only interested in what the next highest court in our state has said.”

I’m reminded of Luke 7 …

6 Then Jesus went with them. And when he was now not far from the house, the centurion sent friends to him, saying unto him, Lord, trouble not thyself: for I am not worthy that thou shouldest enter under my roof:

7 Wherefore neither thought I myself worthy to come unto thee: but say in a word, and my servant shall be healed.

8 **For I also am a man set under authority, having under me soldiers, and I say unto one, Go, and he goeth; and to another, Come, and he cometh; and to my servant, Do this, and he doeth it. **

9 When Jesus heard these things, he marvelled at him, and turned him about, and said unto the people that followed him, I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

So, ‘tell it to the Church’ means that they take it to those with authority in their religious community. There was only one church that Jesus started and the apostles carried out and passed on, so the question ‘non-catholics, How do you “Tell it to the Church”’ almost needs an addition - ‘and where does your ‘church’ get authority to solve the matter’? If the answer is Scripture, you have just said we have no assurance that Jesus said what he said because it may have been mis-translated - what else could have been mis-translated then? And waht can be further mis-translated? If there is no assurance, how can we believe anything in Scripture? Furthermore, if by taking it to the church, you would take it to the elders - who are the elders? Who made them elders? Who gave them authority to be the teachers and guardians of faith?

I don’t mean this to be an attack, I’m trying to understand who, outside of the Catholic Church, has the authority to make decisions and judgements on faith matters, and where do they get that authority from?

AGain you presuppose that Jesus started a Christian based church. If you are asking today, what authority I cite, I admit that we have now developed Christendom, and clearly then each is called to “take it to their church” for resolution.

I am not a literalist in scripture. If you wish to operate on the theory that if any part is not correct none of it is worth believing in, then so be it. Most people don’t need to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Only fundamentalist type thinking leads to that.

Elders or bishops or priests are defined as such accordnig to age old traditions of apostolic succession. Some Protestants don’t believe that is necessary, i wouldn’t comment on their choice. My church is apostolic. You need not go into the song and dance about how the RCC doesn’t acknowledge it as such. They are not of course the final arbiters. But I would hazard that God is not so caught up in “the grouping of the right words” as your church seems to convey.

AGain,. we know what you believe and what your church requires you to believe. You don’t have to state it ad nauseum as is usually the case here. We get that. We don’t agree as you would rationally assume we would not.

No doubt you don’t agree with my assessment and that’s perfectly fine. It’s been a pleasure to converse with you.

Please don’t write within the quote box. It is very hard to reply…You said:

Precisely why the ‘Church’ protected Scripture, and precisely why it is only the ‘Church’ who can interpret it, inspired by the Holy Spirit.

What do you mean by this? By hiding stuff in vaults? Who? Church? is that the universal church or are you claiming that only the RCC can interpret? Why? All are inspired by the HS. It would be convenient if the RCC declares that only it can interpret anything involving sacred text, but you really can’t expect anyone else to accept that realistically.

(but He did say He would build one, He called it ‘my Church’, and said He would build it on Peter)it seems

If we are discussing the reliability of scripture, you cannot cite to scripture to rpove the truth of it. That is circular. I am disputing that Christ set out to “start a church.” I think it was a later church addition to scripture, added in view of what occurred. Goodness even a reading of Acts confirms that there was a dispute as to whether the new gentile converts must follow Jewish laws. Doesn’t this presuppose that they were still thinking of themselves as Jews? albeit Jewish Christians but still operating within the framework of Judaism. Jesus never stopped being a Jew, following the law and and preaching from the Torah and prophets and writings. He kept up the Passover just the day before his crucifixion. He was trying to reform Judaism, and this was reasonably the belief of those JC’s in Jerusalem. They remained in the Temple until ousted after 70CE.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

First off I really didn’t read all of this. Sorry. Secondly we as Christians have the ability to read and understand the Bible!!! You have to ask for the gift of interpretation. Many athiests have read the Bible and have no understanding on what Christ was talking about. But when you ask and receive the gift to comprehend it sheds a whole new light. You look at it differently and with eyes wide open. Point-you do not have to have a Priest to read it for you and make you feel like you can’t understand it.

Why do you think so many bible believing Christians draw different meanings from the same passage?

Is this God’s fault or man’s

Didn’t God give us a method for discerning the truth?

 

[Radical]

JRKH, please clarify a few things.

If Matt 18:15-18 applies to doctrinal error, how is that application playing out in these two particular cases involving prominent RCs? I understand Hans Kung has openly denied papal infallibility, yet remained a priest in good standing. I also understand that Gary Wills (in a New York Times bestseller nonetheless) also taught against papal infallibility, yet (as far as I know) he remains a RC who partakes in the Eucharist. The only sanction that I know about in these two cases is that the Vatican rescinded Kung’s authority to teach Catholic theology (or some such thing).

How do you explain these two cases? Is it that:

a) Kung and Wills are not teaching false doctrine wrt papal infallibility?

b) Kung and Wills are teaching false doctrine wrt papal infallibility, but the passage doesn’t apply to the teaching of false doctrine as you suggest?

c) Wills and Kung are guilty, the passage applies to teaching false doctrine, but “treating someone as a tax collector” amounts to no more than prohibiting one from officially teaching on behalf of the Church?

d) Wills and Kung are guilty, the passage applies to teaching false doctrine and “treating someone as a tax collector” amounts to something more than prohibiting one from officially teaching on behalf of the Church, but the RCC is refusing to follow Jesus’s direction or no RCs have told the Church as per Jesus’s direction?

e) something else?

If your answer is (a), I agree. If it is (b), I am inclined to agree. If your answer is (c), do you think that the RCC is achieving anything of significance above and beyond Protestant results? If your answer is (d), why do you think that the RCs and/or the RCC are sinning by failing to follow Jesus’s direction and when can we expect you to take this sinful matter (of their failing to follow Jesus’s direction) to the Church? If your answer is (e), please specify. Thank-you.

PEACE

 

[Peter_J]

JRKH, please clarify a few things.

If Matt 18:15-18 applies to doctrinal error, how is that application playing out in these two particular cases involving prominent RCs? I understand Hans Kung has openly denied papal infallibility, yet remained a priest in good standing. I also understand that Gary Wills (in a New York Times bestseller nonetheless) also taught against papal infallibility, yet (as far as I know) he remains a RC who partakes in the Eucharist. The only sanction that I know about in these two cases is that the Vatican rescinded Kung’s authority to teach Catholic theology (or some such thing).

Without commenting on those specific individuals, I would like to make a general remark that if/when an RC denies a defined dogma (e.g. Papal Infallibility) the Pope has the prerogative to excommunicate him/her, and he also has the prerogative to decide not to excommunicate him/her.

 

[JRKH]

JRKH, please clarify a few things.

If Matt 18:15-18 applies to doctrinal error, how is that application playing out in these two particular cases involving prominent RCs? I understand Hans Kung has openly denied papal infallibility, yet remained a priest in good standing. I also understand that Gary Wills (in a New York Times bestseller nonetheless) also taught against papal infallibility, yet (as far as I know) he remains a RC who partakes in the Eucharist. The only sanction that I know about in these two cases is that the Vatican rescinded Kung’s authority to teach Catholic theology (or some such thing).

How do you explain these two cases? Is it that:

a) Kung and Wills are not teaching false doctrine wrt papal infallibility?

b) Kung and Wills are teaching false doctrine wrt papal infallibility, but the passage doesn’t apply to the teaching of false doctrine as you suggest?

c) Wills and Kung are guilty, the passage applies to teaching false doctrine, but “treating someone as a tax collector” amounts to no more than prohibiting one from officially teaching on behalf of the Church?

d) Wills and Kung are guilty, the passage applies to teaching false doctrine and “treating someone as a tax collector” amounts to something more than prohibiting one from officially teaching on behalf of the Church, but the RCC is refusing to follow Jesus’s direction or no RCs have told the Church as per Jesus’s direction?

e) something else?

If your answer is (a), I agree. If it is (b), I am inclined to agree. If your answer is (c), do you think that the RCC is achieving anything of significance above and beyond Protestant results? If your answer is (d), why do you think that the RCs and/or the RCC are sinning by failing to follow Jesus’s direction and when can we expect you to take this sinful matter (of their failing to follow Jesus’s direction) to the Church? If your answer is (e), please specify. Thank-you.

PEACE

This is actually a very interesting question.
However I feel unqualified to answer since:
a) I am not familier with the particulars of either person or case
b) I don’t know the particulars of the investigation and
c) I don’t know if there are any further investigations or if other actions might be pending.

Of course what I CAN say is that the matter HAS been taken to the Church and the Church is dealing with it in a manner she feels is appropriate. As a Lay catholic I feel this is sufficient for me.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

So far, from the limited number of direct responses to the OP that site real examples/explanations of how different churches approach this passage, it appears that the most common approach is for a small group of elders, or a minister to handle the issue.

Contarini in post number 26 says that in his Communion it would likely be the priest to handle the issue.

NDfan in post 20 gives an example where the issue was referred to the Elders of his Communion.
NDfan also said in post number 31:
At our church the Elders are the ultimate authority we must submit too. So in your example our congregation would not be able to say “we” interpret scripture to be this so let’s move in that direction. The Elders set the beliefs for the church which they take directly from scripture.

BornAgain11, in Post number 71, also refers to the involvement of Elders in dealing with such matters.

Now in Contarini’s case, being Anglican, I am aware that there is a somewhat more involved hierarchy. However in the other two cases it appears that the “Elders” of the Church act really as a “Magisterium”, that is a teaching authority for the community. Would that seem a fair statement?

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

Radical,
I appreciate you taking the time to post above and would like to ask a favor.

Could you share with us how your church community approaches this passage?
I don’t know your particular faith tradion.
How would they approach someone teaching a false doctrine?

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

To All Posting,
Thanks for the lively discussion. I hope it continues in the constructive and Loving manner so far displayed.
Of course I am quite aware that we disagree on the issue of authority and it is not my intention in this thread to try and pounce on anyone. Of course we will all stand up for our beliefs.
I also hope that a few more NCC’s will stop by and share with us how their faith traditions see this passage and how they deal with such issues.

Peace
James

 

[sixofseven]

AGain you presuppose that Jesus started a Christian based church. If you are asking today, what authority I cite, I admit that we have now developed Christendom, and clearly then each is called to “take it to their church” for resolution.

Well I would say that He **did **start a Christian based Church - He is Christ and He said ‘Come follow me’, ‘No-one can come to the Father except through me’ , and most importantly ‘on this rock I will build my Church’.
Again, it doesn’t say ‘a’ church or ‘your’ church or ‘their’ church - it says ‘the’ church.

I am not a literalist in scripture. If you wish to operate on the theory that if any part is not correct none of it is worth believing in, then so be it. Most people don’t need to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Only fundamentalist type thinking leads to that.

Ok. That’s not how I operate. It was a reaction to you stating that the scripture verse wasn’t reliable because we have no assurance that that was what was said, and that it could have been misinterpreted. My logic applied that statement to the whole of Scripture.

Elders or bishops or priests are defined as such accordnig to age old traditions of apostolic succession. Some Protestants don’t believe that is necessary, i wouldn’t comment on their choice. My church is apostolic. You need not go into the song and dance about how the RCC doesn’t acknowledge it as such. They are not of course the final arbiters. But I would hazard that God is not so caught up in “the grouping of the right words” as your church seems to convey.

No song and dance then :dancing: (couldn’t resisit!). If the words aren’t said, interpreted, taught the right way then they can be taken the wrong way.

AGain,. we know what you believe and what your church requires you to believe. You don’t have to state it ad nauseum as is usually the case here. We get that. We don’t agree as you would rationally assume we would not.

Then back to the OP - tell me, how do you tell it to ‘the church’ and by what authority is it resolved?

No doubt you don’t agree with my assessment and that’s perfectly fine. It’s been a pleasure to converse with you.

Likewise.

Please don’t write within the quote box. It is very hard to reply…You said:

Hope this is better.

What do you mean by this? By hiding stuff in vaults? Who? Church? is that the universal church or are you claiming that only the RCC can interpret? Why? All are inspired by the HS. It would be convenient if the RCC declares that only it can interpret anything involving sacred text, but you really can’t expect anyone else to accept that realistically.

There was the only one Church, it produced the Bible, it deliberated what books were to be included, it translated Scripture, it protected Scripture so that the Word of God would not be misinterpreted. Isn’t there a passage that says we aren’t supposed to interpret Scripture for ourselves?

If we are discussing the reliability of scripture, you cannot cite to scripture to rpove the truth of it. That is circular.

Again, I was just reacting.

I am disputing that Christ set out to “start a church.” I think it was a later church addition to scripture, added in view of what occurred. Goodness even a reading of Acts confirms that there was a dispute as to whether the new gentile converts must follow Jewish laws. Doesn’t this presuppose that they were still thinking of themselves as Jews? albeit Jewish Christians but still operating within the framework of Judaism. Jesus never stopped being a Jew, following the law and and preaching from the Torah and prophets and writings. He kept up the Passover just the day before his crucifixion. He was trying to reform Judaism, and this was reasonably the belief of those JC’s in Jerusalem. They remained in the Temple until ousted after 70CE.

I have addressed Christ starting a Church above.

Imagine being a Jew at that time, knowing that the Messiah was coming and then there He was, turning the ‘law’ on its head. Of course there was disputes and I’m sure they still thought of themselves as Jews. All those Jews who had been circumcised now being told they didn’t need to???!!! I can’t begin to imagine what they experienced! BTW Christ completed the Passover on the Cross (it is finished).

I’m enjoying this thread and appreciate all the discussion - thanks everyone!

 

[Hisalone]

JL: Well at lest you have narrowed it from the OT to 36 chapters of 2Chronicles. Can you narrow that down to something more specific. I don’t have time to look for a needle in a hay stack, especially since there is no needle.

DT 17:8-12 8: If there arise a matter too hard for thee in judgment, between blood and blood, between plea and plea, and between stroke and stroke, being matters of controversy within thy gates: then shalt thou arise, and get thee up into the place which the LORD thy God shall choose; 9: And thou shalt come unto the priests the Levites, and unto the judge that shall be in those days, and inquire; and they shall shew thee the sentence of judgment: 10: And thou shalt do according to the sentence, which they of that place which the LORD shall choose shall shew thee; and thou shalt observe to do according to all that they inform thee: 11: According to the sentence of the law which they shall teach thee, and according to the judgment which they shall tell thee, thou shalt do: thou shalt not decline from the sentence which they shall shew thee, to the right hand, nor to the left. 12: And the man that will do presumptuously, and will not hearken unto the priest that standeth to minister there before the LORD thy God, or unto the judge, even that man shall die: and thou shalt put away the evil from Israel.
MT 18:17-18 17: And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican. 18: Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

The only thing I found in 2Chron was taking it to those appointed: 2Chron19:8 Moreover in Jerusalem did Jehoshaphat set of the Levites, and of the priests, and of the chief of the fathers of Israel, for the judgment of the LORD, and for controversies, when they returned to Jerusalem. 9 And he charged them, saying, Thus shall ye do in the fear of the LORD, faithfully, and with a perfect heart. 10 And what cause soever shall come to you of your brethren that dwell in your cities, between blood and blood, between law and commandment, statutes and judgments, ye shall even warn them that they trespass not against the LORD, and so wrath come upon you, and upon your brethren: this do, and ye shall not trespass. 11 And, behold, Amariah the chief priest is over you in all matters of the LORD; and Zebadiah the son of Ishmael, the ruler of the house of Judah, for all the king’s matters: also the Levites shall be officers before you. Deal courageously, and the LORD shall be with the good.

Jn 11:47 Then gathered the chief priests and the Pharisees a council, and said, What do we? for this man doeth many miracles. 48 If we let him thus alone, all men will believe on him: and the Romans shall come and take away both our place and nation. 49 And one of them, named Caiaphas, being the high priest that same year, said unto them, Ye know nothing at all, 50 Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not. 51 And this spake he not of himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation; 52 And not for that nation only, but that also he should gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad. 53 Then from that day forth they took counsel together for to put him to death.

2 chronicles 34:
18 Then Shaphan the scribe told the king, saying, “Hilkiah the priest has given me a book.” And Shaphan read it before the king.
19 Thus it happened, when the king heard the words of the Law, that he tore his clothes. 20 Then the king commanded Hilkiah, Ahikam the son of Shaphan, Abdon[c] the son of Micah, Shaphan the scribe, and Asaiah a servant of the king, saying, 21 “Go, inquire of the LORD for me, and for those who are left in Israel and Judah, concerning the words of the book that is found; for great is the wrath of the LORD that is poured out on us, because our fathers have not kept the word of the LORD, to do according to all that is written in this book.”

 

[JRKH]

Hisalone,
Did you see my Question in post number 64?
I’d really appreicate your take on this.

Thanks
James

 

[Hisalone]

Hisalone,
I guess I find it hard to understand because I do not see Christ telling us to “Tell it to A Church”.
I find it difficult because in order for The Church, The Body of Christ, to be One as He and the Father are one, we need to ALL believe the same things. That is what St Paul Exhorts us to when he says in in his letters to “Be of One Mind”.

That being said, the reason I posed this question the way I did was to have a friendly and Christian dialoge about how non-catholic Christians view this passage.
I appreciate what you say above about each taking it to their own church, but we can also see that defferent communities even within the same denomination can have different takes on things. So I am trying to discuss this on a “step by step” basis. If I recall correctly, you and I had a similar discussion some time back did we not?

Peace
James

I and nonCatholic Christians beleive we are part of “The Church”.
Remember ekklessia is better translated assembly or congregation than it is church.

 

[Hisalone]

This is interesting in light of the OP which is trying to deal with issues of teaching.

So, Hisalone, If you believed that a person from another non-denominational church was spreading a false teaching you would take the issue to the offenders church.
Once there you find out that his preacher is the one who taught your brother this interpretation of scripture. Everyone in that community agrees with him and they find that it is not their member who is misinformed but rather that you are.

So - Do you “Listen to The Church”, and abide by their decision?

You know that I am not trying to bait you. I am truly interested in your response to this as it speaks right to the heart of the matter of authority.

Peace
James

When I think of the scripture found in the OP I dont think of differences in doctrinal belief. I read if a brother cheats you on a business deal or made a pass at your wife or was seen drunk in public etc etc, this is the type of thing to be brought before the church. I think we today take it before the church through the media in doctinal issues.
Take the prosperity gospel it is criticised by public means and brought before the church, are they repenting , no but as God told Ezekial it is just our job to speak His word and if we dont it is on us if we do and they dont repent it is on them. The same can be said for the pope kissing the quaran. He should not have done it, Gods people spoke against it yet the many will defend or excuse it.