Results 1 - 6 of 6
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Jesus closes the door? | Matt 18:17 | bjanko | 1104 | ||
The Matthew verse says to treat them like Gentiles and tax collectors; in other words, they were to be excommunicated; this is plain because they were the lowest scoundrels in society. I agree with your point, but let me clarify. The only good tax collector was a repentant one, to borrow a phrase. The image of the tax collector is to emphasis that they should be put out of the church. The issue you are raising now is different? You seem to really be asking, "How should we treat the apostate, those who are excommunicated?" And here is where we agree: we should treat the excommunicated as Jesus did, offering the gift of God's free grace and inviting them into the Kingdom; however, the church officers cannot allow them into the kingdom until they are will to repentant and believe, which also implies coming under church authority. In excommunication, the door is always open for reconciliation and repentance. But only those who actually do repent and believe should be allowed back in through the door. |
||||||
2 | The church involved? | Matt 18:17 | charis | 1134 | ||
Good answer! Tell me, does the above scripture also say 1) what kind of sin is punishable by banishment? and 2)would the whole church be privy to the information leading to this judgment? I am not being petulant, it simply seems to me that the verse is fairly clear that this is 1) a pretty bad sin, and 2) the church should be made aware of the circumstances of their brother's demise. It appears that the whole point of going through 4 steps (vs.15-17) is to do whatever possible to 'win your brother,' but if it doesn't work, all must know why, in order to cleanse the church without causing division. It seems that this also works as a Biblical safeguard to protect the church from ministers who might abuse their authority to boot out someone they disliked for personal reasons. Your answer implies that 1) the person is apostate, outside the Kingdom (even salvation?), and 2) the church officers wield the authority of judgment, AND forgiveness, and that the congregation is not privy to the reasons. Thoughts? In Jesus' name. | ||||||
3 | The church involved? | Matt 18:17 | bjanko | 1140 | ||
Matt 18:15 "If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother. Matt 18:16 "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. Matt 18:17 "If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. Matt 18:18 "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. Matt 18:19 "Again I say to you, that if two of you agree on earth about anything that they may ask, it shall be done for them by My Father who is in heaven. Matt 18:20 "For where two or three have gathered together in My name, I am there in their midst." Matt 18:21 Then Peter came and said to Him, "Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me and I forgive him? Up to seven times?" Matt 18:22 Jesus *said to him, "I do not say to you, up to seven times, but up to seventy times seven. *********** This section covers all your concerns. 1) "if your brother sins against you" - it doesn't specify type of sin, it just says "sins" 2) the church should be informed about the matter -- maybe not every gory detail, but the main thrust of the issue; the verse explicitly says it should be made known to the church; I'm just inferring that the church not be told so much that it might lead to gossip or an ungodly disdain toward someone they ought all should desire to see come to repentance vv. 18-20 show clearly that there is an ecclesiastical authority; an authority the church leaders -- ministers and elders -- have that the laity does not have vv. 21-22 is paradoxical. Jesus tells Peter he should forgive the brother basically without any limit, (i.e., the hyperbole seventy times seven). I think this is resolved though by taking the view that while we might forgive the brother, we -- the church -- ought not let him profess to be a Christian if he lives in sin and will not repent. The excommunication is to cause him to desire repentance, just as the exile of Israel was meant to cause them to desire to return to their God. |
||||||
4 | Executive privilege? | Matt 18:17 | charis | 1144 | ||
Dear bjanko, thanks for your answer. I believe in the authority you described, but am not sure how vv. 18-20 "show clearly that there is an ecclesiastical authority; an authority the church leaders -- ministers and elders -- have that the laity does not have." Did your caps mean that the two or three witnesses are ministers? I very much agree that the congregation can be spared the 'gory details,' but how much can the leaders hold back? Men, even ministers, have a tendency to hold back that which implicates them. Understand that I am simply stating the caution needed to save the church from the abuse of 'executive privilege.' The reason I ask the sin is that apostate, or not of the Kingdom, is often equated as, "If you're not with us, you are against us. (and possibly in the enemy's grasp or even employ)" This is a pretty serious pronouncement, and cannot be made glibly. Also, with this kind of judgment, it doesn't seem that reconciliation and repentance are truly desired or hoped for. My point is that the church must be a place of great love and patience, and a sin leading to a situation of this magnitude must be truly heinous. Love in Christ Jesus. | ||||||
5 | Executive privilege? | Matt 18:17 | bjanko | 1147 | ||
I would not agree the sin must be particularly heinous; it simply must be repentant. The caps were in the NASB translation when I did a search for the verse. It was not my emphasis. They are in caps because they are words taken from the Mosaic Law in the O.T. and the NASB always caps those to indicate them. I don't know how many rules we can work out to come up with exact rules, which why we need leaders with wisdom living by God's rule. Ministers not ought hold back. If they do, then THEY should be disciplined by those over them. (Of course, many ministers have no one over them unless they are in a Reformed church.) vv. 18-20 are not verses merely about prayer, as is commonly misunderstood. Taken in context, they are referring to the prayers of two or three church authorities, binding and loosing, exercising authority over the church, with powers to admit into the church or to excommunicate. I believe the Scripture gives great authority to spiritual leaders and of course there's danger in that and men should be tested and examined very carefully before they are ordained. I'm not really sure what your main point or bottom line is, so I'm not really able to answer any more succinctly than this. I also agree that excommunication is not a glib or light thing or something that should be rushed into without first full and earnest pleading with the offender to repent. |
||||||
6 | Executive privilege? | Matt 18:17 | charis | 1149 | ||
Dear bjanko, You answered my main point, which was that the church should be aware and involved in church discipline, up to a point dictated by common sense. I agree that vv 18-20 are not just about prayer. Obviously they have something to do with the context. I am not sure I agree with your 'take' on them ('church authorities' speaks to me of a church hierarchy I am unfamiliar with), but neither do I 'violently' oppose it :-) I will look into it, and get back if I think it is worth discussion. As to examination prior to ordination, I think that post-ordination examination is also in order. I am sure you are aware of a lot of 'wonderful fellows' falling from their ministry. In some manner (not just finances or hierarchy) a minister should be accountable to his flock. It is for his protection. By heinous I meant something that would divide the church or weaken the already weak. Deception, violence, and infidelity also come to mind. That which causes the church or individuals to stumble? In effect, anything that isn't healed by your last statement. Thank you for a good discussion. I hope others were blessed as I was. In Christ Jesus. | ||||||