What does this Verse Mean to Non Catholics

[O.S.Luke]

I am totally lost. Sorry.

 

[onenow1]

Quote= onenow1, So Matt was preaching to christians about Jesus, before the Gospel was written ?

Quote=O.S. Luke, Sorry I’m lost.

I would be to! What I meant to say was before Pentecost, and crucifixion had happned.

Peace, onenow1

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

Mat 18

15 “Moreover if your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he hears you, you have gained your brother. 16 But if he will not hear, take with you one or two more, that ‘by the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.’** 17 And if he refuses to hear them, tell it to the church. But if he refuses even to hear the church, let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector.
18 “Assuredly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.
19 “Again I say[c] to you that if two of you agree on earth concerning anything that they ask, it will be done for them by My Father in heaven. 20 For where two or three are gathered together in My name, I am there in the midst of them.”

The context here is when a member of a church sins, and how to handle it. It cannot mean anything about a single institution because I obviously can’t bring the brother who sinned against me to Vatican. This is church discipline for local congregations.**

I believe all believers are brothers in Christ. This instruction is addressed to believers.

What would you propose this to mean for members of different denominations.

Would you agree that this makes more sense if we believe that Jesus founded one Church?

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

Not according to the verse you asked about, given what the Catholic bishop’s commentary says.

I disagree.

Whether you are referring to the local Church or the worldwide Church, there is a single authority for handling the dispute.

This would make no sense in a town with multiple denominations.

 

[O.S.Luke]

I disagree.

Whether you are referring to the local Church or the worldwide Church, there is a single authority for handling the dispute.

This would make no sense in a town with multiple denominations.

Then are you admitting that you disagree with the Catholic Bishops’ interpretation on Matt. 18.17?

Matt 18.17 was what your original post was about, correct?

 

[Gara3987]

In order for this passage to have any meaning, there must be an identifiable Church to appeal to.

I believe this makes an explicit case for a single, hiearchical Church.

Comments?

Matthew 18

17If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

You should also bring to the Attention of Non-Catholics:

But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth. [1 Tim. 3, 15]

And:

And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. [Matth. 16, 18]

At any rate what they need to look at is If Scriptures are clear to understand, why did Martin Luther and his imitators make new catechisms of Christian doctrine? Why do they fill the libraries with innumerable books of interpretations, explanations and commentaries? Above all, why have they any churches, where the Scriptures are explained, if the Scriptures are sufficient? And if there should be a church, why so many churches, of so many denominations, in every city and in every town? If there is a clear statement that in the Scriptures which all Christians should endeavor to put into execution, it is certainly the desire which Christ expressed in His prayer to the Eternal Father on the eve of His Passion and Death, “That they all may be one, as thou, Father, in me, and I in thee; that they also may be one in us; that the world may believe that thou hast sent me” (John 17, 21). What else do such words mean than that all Christ’s followers should first of all have the same faith?—“One Lord, one faith, one baptism.” (Eph. 4, 5).

      It is a historical fact that the Church of Rome was always considered the first, the most important, and the most powerful Church in Christiandom.  This was admitted in the first centuries and is so regarded today.   She saved civilization and the Scripture.  Her children outnumbered by far members of all other churches put together; and what is most important, they are bound in “One Faith,” as there can be but “one Lord, one faith, one baptism.”

“While they argue from the Scriptures, they make poor exhibition of the Scriptures… because truth cannot be found by those who do not know Tradition, for not through writing, but by the living voice, Tradition was delivered.” Saint Irenæus (born between 135 – 140 Anno Domini., Smyrna / died 202 Anno Domini., Lyons., disciple of Saint Polycarp)

 

[O.S.Luke]

Matthew 18.17 is talking about a local church or congregation. That is straight from the Catholic Bishop’s commentary. Are you disagreeing with the Catholic Bishops?

This thread was about Matthew 18:17. The original post:

In order for this passage to have any meaning, there must be an identifiable Church to appeal to.

I believe this makes an explicit case for a single, hiearchical Church.

Comments?

Matthew 18

17If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

This scripture verse does NOT make an explicit case for a single, hierarchical church, because the context of the scripture in question was talking about a local congregation - per the Catholic Bishop’s biblical commentary.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

This scripture verse does NOT make an explicit case for a single, hierarchical church, because the context of the scripture in question was talking about a local congregation - per the Catholic Bishop’s biblical commentary.

Yes it does, whether the Church is local or worldwide is irrelevant.

The Church has a specific meaning.

If there is no church, then the passge means nothing.

The Bishops comments have nothing to do with your point.

 

[O.S.Luke]

Yes it does, whether the Church is local or worldwide is irrelevant.

The Church has a specific meaning.

If there is no church, then the passge means nothing.

The Bishops comments have nothing to do with your point.

I’m going to assume your small “c” was a typo.

I think the “point” was that your point was disproved by the commentary of the Catholic bishops. The context of chapter 18 was different from the context of chapter 16; chapter 18 dealt with a local congregation/gathering, chapter 16 dealt with the larger Body of Christ.

If you want to make your point based on the 16th chapter of Matthew, I have no qualms whatsoever. But to use the 18th chapter to make your point is eisegesis at best. No Catholic NT scholar - nor it appears the Magisterium - backs your assertion regarding Chapter 18 - which is what the OP was about, correct? If you’re not careful, you will be guilty of prooftexting without context… a chapter borrowed from some Protestants, I believe.

Context is everything.

You’re welcome to have your assertion as far as I am concerned, but you would do so at variance with approved Catholic interpretation… which, by the way, agrees with most Protestant biblical scholarship re: Chapter 18.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

I’m going to assume your small “c” was a typo.

I think the “point” was that your point was disproved by the commentary of the Catholic bishops. The context of chapter 18 was different from the context of chapter 16; chapter 18 dealt with a local congregation/gathering, chapter 16 dealt with the larger Body of Christ.

 

[O.S.Luke]

We’re obviously not communicating. Peace be with you.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

We’re obviously not communicating. Peace be with you.

I disagree.

I think you understand quite well!

 

[O.S.Luke]

No. I really don’t. Sorry.

 

[hays1122]

I picked Baptist and Methodist randomly.

My point is this, and your response didn’t addres this:

If two believers disagree, Jesus tells them that they have a central authority to refer to.

If there is more than one authority, then this instruction is meaningless.

What if they claim two different authoritative Churches?

Again the bible states that the church is a body of believers:
Matthew 18:17
And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican.
Matt 16:18 And I say also to you, That you art Peter, (petros, a piece of rock) and upon this rock (petra, massive rock - Christ) I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Christ is building the church which is a collection of people who have true doctrines in common and through which Christ feeds and builds the Body. Apart from this true “church,” spiritual feeding is impossible.

The church IS comprised of physical human beings who are united in doctrine and beliefs, even though sin and carnality exist within it, as do tares. This group of physical people, the called out ones, are commanded to assemble together for Sabbath day worship as well as other of God’s Holy Days.
The word translated “church” is {ek-klay-see’-ah}, Greek, meaning “Called out ones.” In other words, the Bible defines “church” as an actual body of PEOPLE, not a building like we’ve come to know it.
1 Corinthians 12:12 “For as the body is one and has many members, but all the members of that one body, being many, are one body, so also [is] Christ.”
1 Corinthians 12:27 “Now you are the body of Christ, and members individually.”
It sounds to me like you are looking for “Catholic Church” to be assigned as the " central authority". Or are you looking for Pope as the central authority?
Catholic Church a body of believers, Catholics are Christians. A body of christian believers. And so are Methodists and Baptists.
Does this clear things up at all for you?

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

Again the bible states that the church is a body of believers:
Matthew 18:17

Is it THE Church, or A Church?

If it is THE Church,which is what my bible says, then it is not just A body of believers. Agreed?

And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican.
Matt 16:18 And I say also to you, That you art Peter, (petros, a piece of rock) and upon this rock (petra, massive rock - Christ) I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Jesus spoke Aramaic, not Greek, and there is a single word for Rock in Aramaic. Paul called Simon Cephas, by the way.

Christ is building the church which is a collection of people who have true doctrines in common and through which Christ feeds and builds the Body. Apart from this true “church,” spiritual feeding is impossible.

I agree.

Does this clear things up at all for you?

It reconfirms my current understanding that Jesus never intended to form multiple and competing bodies of believers.

 

[robgrassley]

That is irrelevant to my point.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

CHESTERTONRULES;4281911:

If it weren’t for the ‘sola scriptura’ issue this would easily be settled by what the early Church Fathers thought. If we look at there letters we see clearly what the intent of these overall teachings of the Apostles and Christ were. Regardless of this scripture passage or not. The ultimate consensus was ‘there is one Church and Rome is the head of it’.

True, but when debating protestants, we must use the sole authority they accept.

It works either way!

 

[robgrassley]

robgrassley;4285293:

True, but when debating protestants, we must use the sole authority they accept.

It works either way!

I heard a great quote the other day "for a Protestant to use the bible against a Catholic is like ripping a man’s arm off and beating him over the head with.
I heard a great debate between Scott Hahn and Protestant scholar named Robert Knudsen on Sola Scriptura. Needless to say Mr. Knudsen is still licking his wounds. If you don’t have a copy of these talks there definately worth tracking down.

 

[hays1122]

Is it THE Church, or A Church?

If it is THE Church,which is what my bible says, then it is not just A body of believers. Agreed?
What I read in my bible is that the Church is a body of believers.
Jesus is the head of the church.
THE Church is Christ,the body of believers make up His church on earth. Jesus said,“I am the VINE, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing.”
God gave, or appointed his Son to be, the source of blessings to man; that all grace descends through him; and that God takes care of all the branches of this vine–that is, of all who are by faith united to the Lord Jesus Christ. In Jesus and all his church he feels the deepest interest, and it is an object of great solicitude that his church should receive these blessings and bear much fruit.
Jesus referred to the church as his body. His followers are spiritually united with him and with each other.

Jesus spoke Aramaic, not Greek, and there is a single word for Rock in Aramaic. Paul called Simon Cephas, by the way.

I agree.

It reconfirms my current understanding that Jesus never intended to form multiple and competing bodies of believers.

 

[O.S.Luke]

Answer me this, Chesterton: do you agree with the Catholic Bishop’s commentary on Matthew 18? A simple yes or no will suffice.