I don’t what you are talking about.
Well, let’s try again.
The passage in Matthew 18 talks about a case when I know someone has sinned. So suppose I do know that. So what should I do? The passage tells us that I should talk to that person and if that doesn’t help I should ask others to talk to him. If that doesn’t help I should send him to the church.
So what’s the purpose of all this? To correct the offender’s behavior so he would sin no more. Now, here is the problem. If this is really the reason then it doesn’t work under Sola Scriptura and a world without authority of one Church. Since there are many churches which disagree with each other on many things, sending someone to his church would imply that the point really isn’t that that offender learns the truth. There cannot be many truth so if churches disagree no more than one can be right.
So let’s say that I have a friend and I try to explain him his wrongdoing, but he doesn’t listen. I then talk to other people to talk to him as well. But my friend unfortunately doesn’t listen. So now I should tell it to the church (or I guess send my friend to the church). Which church? The one that agrees with me? The one that agrees with him? So, please explain me how in the world of SS and no authoritative church one can fulfill this and still make sure that what he is doing makes sense and is logical?
Well then, why did ask the question if you don’t care what my answer is? From this point on, I’ll ignore your questions.
Well, you misunderstood what I’m saying. The passage tells us to do X and I asked you to tell me how I fulfill that. You told me that you suggest that I do Y. But the problem is that I already have scripture that tells us what to do and therefore I require explanation of that verse not your personal opinion about what one should do.
That is what I said: he must be brought before that church to which he belongs.
Are you suggesting that the verse is one big nonsense?
Because if he is supposed to be brought before the church where he belongs so that he can be corrected then how does this passage make any sense if different churches hold different believes? Perhaps this guy’s church doesn’t view that certain behavior as sinful.
So if the purpose of this passage is to instruct us how to bring people to the truth then this passage doesn’t make any sense (in the presence of SS and absence of a authoritative church).
But the problem here is that the passage says THE church not a church. How can you bring your friend before THE church if you believe that THE church is invisible and composed of many churches. Or do you actually believe that?
To what church would suggest bringing an errant member of the What’s it called Baptist Church in Detroit? Would you bring him to the What’s it called RCC Church in New York, City, when that church has no authority over him?
Are you suggesting that all churches have authority over their members? If yes then you just opened a worm can filled with moral relativism. If church X says that member A can do this then he can do that? So where does authority lie?
What you are speaking of is not a civil matter, but a religious/spiritual matter; I can assure you that a Baptist will not submit to the authority of the RCC.
Well, it was never about simple obedience to your church. It is about obedience to the TRUTH. If in Protestantism you have many Churches that don’t agree with each other even on the fundamental doctrines such as baptism then most of them are wrong on a great number of things.
In religious and civil matters, one is not tried by the court that has no authority over him, but by the one that does; however, in religious matters, the one being tried must be willing to submit to that authority; otherwise, the authority is useless;
Fine, and where do I find this authority and how I know about it?
