Quote:
Originally Posted by Esaias
Is anyone here arguing that the passage in question is NOT about discipline? In fact, that was the very point I made, that Christ is identifying how church discipline is Divinely authorized and supported by the court of heaven.
But consider - church discipline cannot exist UNLESS THE CHURCH IS INVOLVED. There is no church discipline without the church. And Christ's presence (authorization) is the BASIS for valid church discipline... and it is guaranteed 'wherever two or three are gathered in my name'.
Look at this way:
Church discipline is ratified in heaven. Why? Because Jesus is 'there in the midst'. Why is Jesus there in the midst? Because 'wherever two or three are gathered together in my name...' Christ in the midst is the ground of valid and operative church discipline.
But what is the ground for Christ being in the midst, however or in whatever way one thinks 'being in the midst' is to be understood? The ground of Christ being in the midst is 'wherever two or three are gathered in my name'.
As for 'communal worship service', I am not sure how that even came into the discussion???? Perhaps we are still holding on to a paradigm that equates 'church' with 'communal worship service'? A view, inculcated by tradition, that makes 'church' practically synonymous with the worship service? A tradition whose effects are hard to shake off, so those effects pop up from time to time? Kind of like how 'holiness = dress code' has been taught to some folks for so long that, even after they have come to a greater more scriptural understanding of Bible holiness, yet when the subject of 'holiness' comes up they (perhaps unconsciously?) sort of slip back inadvertently into the old understanding? Like a bad habit, hard to break?
I just don't understand why some seem to be arguing 'the passage says nothing about promising Jesus will be with us in a church worship service'? Was that idea ever put forward in this thread as the point He was trying to make?
|
Look at Page 11, response #104. The strong indication of the post, as it relates to a house church (Church discipline had yet to be brought up) was that a church could be constituted as a church, or at least an assembling of a church, if only two or three are gathered, with
Matthew 18:20 given as the prooftext.
Mike Blume then objected, and I reinforced his objection with my own views.
So the original reason
Matthew 18:20 was brought up at all was as justification for saying a church can call a meeting (and in keeping with the flow of the entire post up until then, the meetings had to do with communal worship and fellowship, not discipline, whether in a building, or in homes) if only two or three are present, since the Lord is likewise present.
Hybrid Mode
