I did want to clarify one thing. Of course, Peter’s action is a part of the Apostolic word, but it is not what the Apostolic word “approves” of. Obviously, the example of Peter is given as an example for the church NOT to follow. So, what I am talking about is the church basing its beliefs and practices upon the “foundation” of what the apostolic word approves of.

And, of course, that is exactly what you see the church doing in Acts 2:42.

“I think you have to bring a lot to the text to arrive where you are suggesting.”

If I am bringing concepts that “go beyond” the New Testament, then that is one thing. However, since I am bringing in the broader context of the New Testament, then I think this is a justifiable move.

“In summary, it just seems to me that you’ve taken a personal conferral of authority that reads to me explicitly as Jesus authorizing people to act, and you’ve made it a personal authorization of nobody in particular, but instead to an abstract ‘apostolic word’ that is difficult to construct from the actual text.”

No, I am saying Jesus did authorize the Apostles “personally” to bind and loose and what they bound and loosed has been written down in concrete form–whether that be the Gospel of John, Ephesians, 1 Peter, etc.

I think you are basically viewing Matthew 16 through the lens of Matthew 18 whereas I think I am basically viewing Matthew 18 through the lens of Matthew 16. Accordingly, I think my view fits better with the entire N.T.

While I do believe that the local church has the authority to practice church discipline, I think your view gives way too much power to the local church so that the practical outworking of your view–despite your exception–presents these danger [as I see it]:

1. The temptation to rob the New Testament of its practical authority is much too great.

2. The local church becomes a sphere in which different groups engage in power politics in order to win a majority vote since THAT IS WHERE THE AUTHORITY PRACTICALLY IS.

3. The justification of what is right ends up being what the majority of the church says [period!] instead of what is rightly interpreted from the New Testament.

God Bless,

Benji

“2. The Matthew 18 reference simply cannot, by any grammatical gymnastics, be construed to refer to the apostles. Jesus could not more plainly have referred to the any two or three united by their gathering and agreement in the name of Jesus.”

That is not my point… the text was given by Christ directly to the Apostles, but the activities discussed are not exclusive to them. My point is that it is only individuals given the Spirit who can engage in the activities of the gathered church in earnest. ….So that the Holy Spirit, the life of Christ in the believer is at work to bring about restoration. The focus of the passage is not on the gathered (church),…the church as she gathers are used only as an instrument to bring the focus of restoration back to Christ and to His glory…. not to bring attention to themselves as if they have any authority or reason to boast concerning their power or control.

Blessings,
Chris

One correction needs to be made here.

While you were gone studyin’ up on how to become an English Sissy what happened between Dave Miller and Wes Kenney and their supporters was not a “dust-up.”

A “dust-up” is what happens when I have to get on to Tim R, Wes, Robin or Scott G. for missing the real story and going out chasing rabbits with a half-trained Beagle.

What happened between Dave, Wes and their supporters was a real live “Set-To.” And it was a pretty good one, I must say.

Your post here has all the makins’ of a fine “Set-To” of the first order. I just wish someone would call David Rogers’ attention to you post. Then the table would be set proper for a true, No-Holds-Barred, sure-nuff Set-To.

Bart, I trust you are not offended toward me for correcting you. My goal is to help you regain your “Southern Culture” so you will forget all about becoming an English Sissy.

I hope I have corrected you in time, else, I fear you might become a proponent of European-style, National Health Care.

cb

Tonight I lead an ordination council to consider a young man whom we are ordaining this week. Thus, delighted as I am to participate in this joyous task, I cannot say that I regret being unavailable. I can, however, announce that I will not be able to dialogue further at this time, for I must get ready for that event.

I am enjoying our dialogue as well.

I think you have to bring a lot to the text to arrive where you are suggesting. Between the two passages, one explicitly speaks individually to Peter (which I why I specifically mentioned his own actions), while another explicitly speaks to any two or three gathered and agreeing believers. A reference to the collective apostles or to the Bible must be construed here, mustn’t it?

Admittedly, I am construing the gathered local church into Matthew 16, but I am doing so out of what Matthew 18 explicitly says. To construe the collective apostles or the text of the New Testament upon these passages seems to me to be a construal from neither passage onto both.

In summary, it just seems to me that you’ve taken a personal conferral of authority that reads to me explicitly as Jesus authorizing people to act, and you’ve made it a personal authorization of nobody in particular, but instead to an abstract “apostolic word” that is difficult to construct from the actual text.

Finally, I did in fact take some photographs, but they are no substitute for making the journey yourself. Seeing James I will cost you £16 to travel through Westminster Abbey. The Nonconformists, still unappreciated even in their death, will cost you not a farthing to see them tucked away in the corner of a city park.

This is the kind of back and forth that I like by the way. Thanks for how you have been interacting.

“Simon Peter is the recipient of this apostolic authority if you and Gill are right, yet he apparently bound and loosed wrongly (Gal 2:11) at least sometimes. Peter trumps the New Testament, or the New Testament trumps Peter?”

No, no, no…Peter “acted” inconsistently with the Apostolic word that we now have in written form. In other words, Peter did not practice what the Apostles preached if you will.

Did ya take a picture of Gill’s grave that you could post up for us all to see?