Auldsoul:<<<<Death to the Pixies: but he does lay out how the Church, when it comes to procedure, cannot necessarily support itself from scripture.
Oh boy, do I ever agree with you there. Any organized religion is unsupportable from the Scriptures—no matter how it is "structured"—if part of the structure includes any group of people being in a relatively SUPERIOR position to another group the group has instantly leapt from Scriptural basis to human organizational structure.>>>>
Reply: That is assuming a lot from my answer. I was discussing procedure and the ins and outs which are not directly covered. Also, I need to clarify because I am not sure if you understood the point of my Ehrman quote. It highlighted my contention that things have a biblcal basis, but are not directly handled in scripture. We could use "pornie" as an example, and your case about being spiritual head. All things canot be spelled out and maybe there is a simple reason an event or procedure did not make one of Paul's letters, like maybe the situation did not come up (or was disputed) in one of the letters that survived! So we must be careful not to hold too much weight in arguments from silence. They named a fallacy after it.
Auldsoul:<<<I submit the organizational structure as defined in the Bible:
1 Corinthians 2-4; 1 Corinthians 11:3; Galatians 1-6; Ephesians 5; Hebrews 2-5>>>
Reply: I would add Eph. 4 to the list which shows that growing into a mature spiritual man is not a solitary process, nor is it simply a process between you and the spirit; but you benefit from the spirit of truth by relying on the brotherhood and growing with them together as a unified movement.. In that, you have some as teachers, and assumingly have the bulk that submit to those qualified ones. (Hebrews 13:7) Question for Aulsold if I may: who would this apply to in your life?
Auldsoul:<<<Besides this, what else is needed? And if men are heads AS the Christ is head of the congregation then we will be alongside our wives, not over them. Just as Jesus invites his disciples under the yoke he himself bears and as he himself became "beside" his Father a master worker. (Matthew 11:28, 29; Proverbs 8:30)>>
Reply: Somewhat inventive, if there is a total equality in authority, then why does Paul call-out those who have a false authority, and who cause his authority problems? He, and the apostles in general, had an authority over teachings so the "ekklesia" would not be chasing every "wind of teaching". One cannot interpret Matthew 16:9 as applying to anybody but the apostles as a group (MAybe a rough read would have Peter alone). Every Christian is not being giving this individually.
You cannot "submit" to someone who has equal authority. You can submit to someone and be equal in nature, but not authority. As far as the "the master worker analogy" I believe you are reading more into this thought than is there. We know Jesus would never seize upon the Father and try to become "equal". (Phil. 2) Since the context is not nature (as the Son has the Fathers nature or form) it must be his superior authority.
Auldsoul:<<<<I especially applaud the direct response on question #7. That one affected me personally just recently, as my father (PO in my wife's congregation) informed her that since I am no longer one of Jehovah's Witnesses I am no longer to be considered her spiritual head. I dealt with it by allowing her 2 weeks to find a Scripture to demonstrate that. She could not, despite asking my father for help. She does not mind if I pray for my family (just the two of us, for now) or study with her. She still asks me questions on Bible topics frequently>>>
Reply: They would probably point out that when one is Ex-comm from the congregation, both in Jesus' words in Matthew 18, and in Pauls call-back to the OT (1 Cor. 5:13), this required a total lack of communication in regards to spiritual matters, and all communication except to help when in need. As Scholar Albert Barnes points out with regard to Matthew 18:
"The Jews gave the name “heathen” or “Gentile” to all other nations but themselves. With them they had no religious contact or communion."
This is how Jesus specified this, Whether or not this is applied directly to Husband/Wife situation is not dealt with specifically I believe. I could be wrong as I have not gone thru the OT in its entirety.
Auldsoul:<<<On question #3, you mention that a requirement to confess sins was implied "given how shunning occurred" and you mention specifically "apostasizing" and Hymenaeus. You didn't include any Scripture to demonstrate the implication, and I have seen nothing despite having read the whole thing numerous times, to imply a requirement on Christians to confess to men. Hymenaeus and Philetus were very vocal in their teaching that the Christ did not come in the flesh and that the resurrection had already occurred—which is the only thing regarded so severely as "apostasy" in the entire NT.>>>>
Reply: I think common sense suggests this, and it has historical backing. The Didache ( around 100-120 ce) confirms this implication of mine at 4:14:
"Confess your unlawful acts in church, and do not come to your prayer with an evil conscience. This is the path to life" (Ehrman's Translation)
While not being part of the canon, it does at least give us a glimpse at how this was understood by the Early Church. (See also BDAG under Ekklesia)
Auldsoul:<<<<<In answer to question #4 you wrote: "No, in the scriptural example, it is much more embarrassing and painful."
I agree. It is also Scriptural and public whereas the current method is in total darkness and secrecy, whether the accused wishes it so or not.
Despite what you wrote in response to question #6, the how of shunning is specifically laid out in the Bible. In detail, as a matter of fact. By Jesus himself. It is also clear—without need of inference or implication—that Jesus direction in this matter was still in effect under the Apostolic period. We have (1) a Scriptural example (as you noted) that is irrefutably clear cut and (2) a direction from Paul to Timothy that is equally clear cut.>>>>>
Reply: I will disagree with the "clear-cut"-ness you assign the matter. Jesus' words were spoken before the Jewish system was put to sleep. In this arrangment, older men/officials often decided judicial matters for the whole. (Ezra 10:4,Deut. 17:8,9) This is a possible understanding of Jesus' words. Even if we take a prophetic element to Jesus' use of "church" it is likewise not as clear cut as you may think. Again, Barnes for one sees an ambiguiuty in his statement:
"The church may here mean the whole assembly of believers, or it may mean those who are authorized to try such cases - the representatives of the church, or these who act for the church."
As far as Paul, in his letter back to the congregation after hearing of this problem, he quickly corrects the Church, and cleans up the mess. He tells them simply to remove the "evil man". This also goes to show, that even though the spirit may be operable, even in the 1st century, mistakes can happen. If the mistake can be made one way amongst a congregation, it can be made the other way too. We do not know how exactly the Church handled the problem initially (or failed to even a address it) ,other than they handled it poorly. And it also highlights my initial quote of Ehrman, which is there is nothing definitive in regards to all procedure directly. It is best not to be dogmatic IMO.
On Matthew 18, you offer this:
Auldsoul:In no place does Jesus indicate that certain persons should be chosen to accompany as the "one or two more" (as in, elders). In no place does Jesus indicate that "congregation" is euphemistic for "only those who are in a leadership role" but the word indeed means the congregated or gathered people.
Reply: It is not so much a euphemism we are looking for, as it is a fact if we take Jesus' words as being under the Jewish system. Officials represent the whole, so we can say "The United States has enacted the Patriot Act", but yet it was the elected officials that actually did this. Some individuals may agree with the act, some may not.
"Ekkelsia" can infer the Church as a whole, or a local church. In wider Greek thought it can mean simply a political body. But in this case, the defintion is not in dispute.
Auldsoul: 1 Timothy 5:20—Reprove before all onlookers persons who practice sin, that the rest also may have fear.Please demonstrate how this instruction is ambiguous. It does not say "announce the fact that reproving occurred" does it?
Reply: It simply says to reprove all-onookers. The CCJW does indeed do this. It does not in fact say "try the case before all on-lookers. I believe you are trying too hard to disagree.
Auldsoul:As to the "appeals" process you mentioned, they saw no need since they actually had God's holy spirit. The Bible never makes even an implied reference to any such arrangement.
Reply: True they "actually" had the spirit (I guess in conrast to the CCJW in your view), but having the spirit does not insure perfect judgement. Judgement errors are made by pretty much every key player in the OT. The example we have in 1 Cor. 5 has a **flawed** handling by a church. At best you are arguing from silence. Those who undestand imperfection, will use God-given common sense to cover that. (not to imply that anyone here does not have common sense, so please do not take it that way)
Auldsoul: One last point, on question #1 you mentioned you "believe that was held," and you failed to see the relevance of question #2. Here is the relevance: If Charles T. Russell was God's Channel of communication, of all people wouldn't HE know that? If all the corporate heads of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society comprised the Channel (at any time), shouldn't THEY, of all people, know that? And lastly, if—as is now held to be the case—ALL anointed are part of that Faithful and DIscreet Slave and always have been why didn't THEY, of all people, know that in 1919? I ask because that teaching wasn't firmed up until the early 1940s and was only hinted at during the '30s, with gradually increasing strength.
I would say, given the extraordinary claims of the organization relative to its professed unique relationship to God, this is an extremely relevant line of questioning. I am again curious about your thoughts on this point now that I have fleshed out the relevance.
Reply: Sorry, i do not believe you have fleshed out the relevence.You have given your opinion on how knowledge is to be recieved in this Post-apostolic period.
Regards,
Lynn
