Submitted by michael_legna on Sun, 2009-03-29 18:44.
jq said,
WIthout the people there is no church. But I am not claiming the church has no authority. What I am saying is that a church can consist of two or three and in those cases, if I address your straw man specifically, they would be able to decide the matter among themselves.
ML said,
But they cannot always decide the matter among themselves otherwise there would be no reason to have a level of appeal above them, and they cannot be the Church, otherwise that level to which they appeal would not be called the Church - they would simply be called the Church in scripture - but they are NOT.
jq says,
Michael, you are viewing everything from a Catholic perspective. In the Protestant world a family can be a church unto themselves.
A church but not THE Church.
jqlogan said –
The father is the priest of the household. The family can gather and make decision which affect them without appealing to any source higher than themselves other than God.
But this is not the liturgical Priesthood. The father of a family cannot perform marriages or remit and retain sins, or perform laying on of hands or anointing with oil or any of the other sacraments of the Church proper.
jqlogan said –
What you are proposing is that if two or three Christians gathered together where no other Christians resided then they would not be church.
Don’t confuse a congregation with THE Church.
jqlogan said –
I say they would be the only church around and God would honor their worship and their decisions.
I disagree, because it is too simple for them to be in disagreement with the “church” over the hill and so God could not honor both their doctrines because God does not honor anything but the truth.
jqlogan said –
If two decided to expel the third then as far as that church is concerned the third is expelled. To whom will he appeal?
To THE Church which is identified by the succession of Apostles which is identified by a proper laying on of hands from one to the next.
jqlogan said –
If everything Jesus said to the apostles was intended just for them then how much of scripture would apply to the laity? Is there anything at all that was spoken to you or I? Then would you argue that Jesus said nothing to us?
Most of it applies to us, except where specific gifts of the Holy Spirit are referred to or where certain authorities are mentioned. It is these rare places where scripture is speaking to certain parts of the body which we must recognize to understand God’s word properly.
jqlogan said -
Or, nothing for us--being he didn't actually speak it in our hearing? If you consider that irrational then understand why I reject your argument regarding Matthew 18. But I understand why you must argue as you do. You must be faithful to the church's interpretation of scripture.
I argue as I do because it is what Scripture says when considered in its entirety.
The Church can be identified by Apostolic succession
jq said,
WIthout the people there is no church. But I am not claiming the church has no authority. What I am saying is that a church can consist of two or three and in those cases, if I address your straw man specifically, they would be able to decide the matter among themselves.
ML said,
But they cannot always decide the matter among themselves otherwise there would be no reason to have a level of appeal above them, and they cannot be the Church, otherwise that level to which they appeal would not be called the Church - they would simply be called the Church in scripture - but they are NOT.
jq says,
Michael, you are viewing everything from a Catholic perspective. In the Protestant world a family can be a church unto themselves.
A church but not THE Church.
jqlogan said –
The father is the priest of the household. The family can gather and make decision which affect them without appealing to any source higher than themselves other than God.
But this is not the liturgical Priesthood. The father of a family cannot perform marriages or remit and retain sins, or perform laying on of hands or anointing with oil or any of the other sacraments of the Church proper.
jqlogan said –
What you are proposing is that if two or three Christians gathered together where no other Christians resided then they would not be church.
Don’t confuse a congregation with THE Church.
jqlogan said –
I say they would be the only church around and God would honor their worship and their decisions.
I disagree, because it is too simple for them to be in disagreement with the “church” over the hill and so God could not honor both their doctrines because God does not honor anything but the truth.
jqlogan said –
If two decided to expel the third then as far as that church is concerned the third is expelled. To whom will he appeal?
To THE Church which is identified by the succession of Apostles which is identified by a proper laying on of hands from one to the next.
jqlogan said –
If everything Jesus said to the apostles was intended just for them then how much of scripture would apply to the laity? Is there anything at all that was spoken to you or I? Then would you argue that Jesus said nothing to us?
Most of it applies to us, except where specific gifts of the Holy Spirit are referred to or where certain authorities are mentioned. It is these rare places where scripture is speaking to certain parts of the body which we must recognize to understand God’s word properly.
jqlogan said -
Or, nothing for us--being he didn't actually speak it in our hearing? If you consider that irrational then understand why I reject your argument regarding Matthew 18. But I understand why you must argue as you do. You must be faithful to the church's interpretation of scripture.
I argue as I do because it is what Scripture says when considered in its entirety.