Steve,steve wrote:Popeman,
You wrote:
I am afraid you are the one missing the point, because Matthew 18 and Acts 15 have nothing to do with each other.It appears that Michelle still missed the point of Matt 18 (vis-à-vis ACTS 15)
Matthew 18 is about resolving relationship problems between brothers which have been caused by one sinning against the other, and restoring their relationships; Acts 15 was about making official declarations about Christian doctrine.
Matthew 18 talks about settling the relational difficulties within a congregation; Acts 15 deals with a decision by the gathered apostles affecting the very contents of the Gospel that shall be preached worldwide.
Matthew 18 results in church discipline of an unrepentant sinner; no sinners were identified, accused or excommunicated in Acts 15.
Since they have nothing in common, in terms of subject matter, can you tell me why I should accept this common Roman Catholic association of the two passages?
And while you are at it, could we prevail upon you to answer Homer's earlier questions (or any questions that you have been asked, for that matter?)?
Here's my post from the thread "Is the Catholic Church the Kingdom?", it may answer your observation of Matt 18 and Acts 15.
tom wrote:Okay, I can agree that Paul had revelation of the Gospel. And the issue of circumcision come up earlier in Acts 11. But it was not defined! You seem to brush off the fact that Paul and Barnabas didn't anathematize the false teachers that came from Judea to Antioch teaching false doctrine. Remember Matt 18:17, " But if he refuses even to hear the church, let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector." They had to go to the Church first. As you say Paul knew the new rules of the Gospel and knew they were teaching wrong doctrine.
This is the whole context of Acts 15. If Paul, no dummy to the revelation of the Gospel, knew, and he did, that circumcision was no longer required. Why not stop there?
Acts 15:6, "Now the apostles and elders came together to consider this matter." Sounds like this issue was still not quite worked out. Still not defined!
Acts 15:7, "And when there had been much dispute, Peter rose up..." Still seems to me the Apostles and elders were not totally sure if circumcision was necessary for saving of their souls!
Acts 15:23, " It is written to the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia. Greetings!" Not written to the false teachers! Obviously the Christians in Antioch must have had this question or when it was brought to their attention they would have said to themselves, 'well maybe we do have to be circumcised'.
Acts 15:24, "Since we have heard that some who went out from us have troubled you with words, unsettling your souls, saying, "[You must] be circumcised and keep the law"--to whom we gave no [such] commandment--". Why would they be unsettled if Paul had revelation from God on the Gospel. While I can see your point that they may have been unsettled that the Church in Jerusalem gave bad doctrine. In context, "ancient Jewish custom of circumcision taught by Moses, you cannot be saved." Their souls would be unsettled, could they maybe not be saved?! Would we have to be circumcised to save our souls?
Acts 15:28, "It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements:" Once again the way this is written the Christians in Antioch had to have legitimate questions about following the rite of circumcision. Not just the question of Peter and the Church being wrong.
Acts 15:28-29, "For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: that you abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell." Now we have some more things that need to be hashed out. Do we abstain from blood and strangled things? The Christians, including Paul and Barnabas, did not seem to object to these ancient rules. Why not? Because they had not yet been defined.
This is where I think your argument falls apart;
"Which church?" There is only one Church, under one Head. It is found wherever there are true followers of Jesus. Disputes can be brought before the segment of that church with which one is in regular contact. You might find this logistically impractical, or personally unacceptable, but you have never been able to show the scriptural defect in my reasoning.
If what you wrote is how Christians are to settle moral issues then they never should have left Antioch. The Church in Antioch sent Paul and Barnabas to another Church to get an answer.
I can see your view on the Antioch Church going to see if the Jerusalem Church was teaching false doctrine. I hope you can see my view mainly when we take it in light of Peter getting the keys, (Matt 16:19), and after we have exhausted our Christian options we are to take it to the Church, (Matt 18:17).
Tom