House church or excuse?

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

Note the "For" in Matthew 18:20. It is gar in Greek and is a preposition indicating causation, and can be and sometimes is translated "because". So, reading Matthew 18:20 as "Because where two or three are gathered together in my name, there I am in the midst of them" makes one realize that Matthew 18:20 is a conclusion on all the material that came before, and the material that came before is about church discipline, not a worship based communual meeting.

http://biblehub.com/interlinear/matthew/18-20.htm

http://biblehub.com/greek/1063.htm

So it's pretty clear Matthew 18:20 doesn't have anything to do with the saints getting together to praise the Lord and edify each other. Consider the following parable, which is all about forgiveness and reconciliation, and what happens when a brother doesn't forgive a brother. It's a reinforcement of the principle regarding church discipline.

There isn't any one Scripture that says how many it takes to qualify a meeting of the church. It could be two or three, it could be something else. But the Bible is silent on the matter, and Matthew 18:20 doesn't offer any additional insights, since it's not what the verse, or even passage, or even entire chapter, is about.

Bingo!! And bravo.

[votivesoul]

A family is certainly an ekklesia of God. Our time together under the headship of Christ is ordained of God.

A family can be as small as just a husband and wife, or two people.

[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?

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by mfblume

I studied this out in depth, and that doesn't mean I must be right, though. But I once agreed with you, but saw context refuting it. He is there in proxy. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. As I said, it would be redundant to say he actually is there in very presence, since the is everywhere and is with any given single believer, anyway.

How is he 'present' with any single believer, and this not be 'redundant', since he is omnipresent to begin with?

Perhaps when he said 'there am I in the midst' he was not speaking of omnipresence, but of being 'present in authority/power'. The Holy Ghost is most definitely 'present' at times and in places, and at other times and places is definitely NOT 'present'. Yet, God is omnipresent at all times, in all places whatsoever. Thus, 'present' has more than one meaning.

In the text before us, 'present' is not referring to omnipresence, as in 'God is present everywhere anyway'. Nor is he merely being 'present' in the SAME SENSE that he is present with every believer who has the Holy Ghost 'in them'. It remains that he is present in some other way. 'By proxy' I think is not the way, because 'by proxy' actually means 'not really present'. He did not say 'my authority is present', but 'there *I am* in the midst'.

So I believe there is a middle way between the extreme of 'this refers to his actual location' on the one hand, and the other extreme of 'he is not really there anyway, he just has his proxies there representing him' on the other hand.

While it is true that when we act in the name of Jesus Christ, we act as his 'proxy' in a sense, what does this actually mean? Does it not mean that we are his proxies because He is spiritually present in us? Just as Christ was and is God's proxy because God is in him and operating through him, as a vessel or channel of authority? So we, the Body of Christ, are the 'physical presence of Christ on the earth'. Howso? Because Christ is in us AS A BODY. One member is not the Body, they are a part of the Body. The Body itself is the BODY of Christ in this world. Therefore, the Lord is present IN HIS BODY (the church), so the CHURCH is the 'proxy' in regards to carrying out government Kingdom functions (such as church discipline) precisely because Christ is present in the BODY, corporately.

And this corporate 'presence' is only possible when the members themselves have Christ in them, individually. A group of unregenerate men gathering in the 'name of Christ' is not the Body, obviously...

So it seems to me we all here are arguing for each of our particular viewpoint along a spectrum. Let's not lose sight of the spectrum, though, as if my particular locus or your particular locus or somebody else's particular locus is all there is to the spectrum.

'So there's this elephant, and a bunch of blind men are touching the elephant and trying to describe it...'

(Not saying anyone here is blind, the blindness is simply a necessary accidental for the parable to even make sense...)

[votivesoul]

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.

[votivesoul]

This is what I read, when I read the passage:

Mat 18:15 Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.

Moreover: a Greek particle, de, often untranslated, indicating a continuation of the preceding thoughts, but from a different approach. This shows Christ wasn't bringing up some new idea foreign to the rest of the chapter. He was continuing His teaching, but in a new way.

http://biblehub.com/greek/1161.htm

And what are the preceding thoughts? Becoming like a little child to enter the kingdom (Matthew 18:1-5) offending such a child and the woe that accompanies the offense (Matthew 18:6-10), and the fact the Son of Man came to seek and save that which was lost (Matthew 18:11-14).

These three pericopes all directly lead into His teaching about brothers sinning against each other, and how the church should handle the matter. Note the matter should first not be brought to the entire church's attention. It's a one on one affair. Therefore, no assembly of a local church body, of whatever variety or for whatever purpose, is indicated or even called for.

Mat 18:16 But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.

The next step of escalation if two brothers cannot reconcile. Note no meeting of the church is yet required. Rather, only a couple of reliable witnesses from the church are required. But required for what? To establish "every word".

This is a direct reference to the following verses: Deuteronomy 17:6 and Deuteronomy 19:5, both of which have to do with legal code and punishment of criminals. Here, Christ is using the principle given in Deuteronomy to show how the church should function legally when someone has transgressed (i.e. committed a spiritually criminal act against the law; See 1 John 3:4).

Again, no other "meeting" is meant or intended. And it's not yet called a meeting of the church.

Mat 18:17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.

It isn't until this point that the whole local church Body is summoned to handle the unresolved offense. So note, when two offended brothers meet, it's not called the church. When the two offended brothers and a handful of other witnesses meet, it's not called the church. It's only after steps one and two have failed that suddenly, the ekklesia, as the governing body of believers, gets involved. Indeed, is even mentioned!

Also note how the entire church, assembled together, acts as one Body to dole out punishment, which, in this case, is ex-communication. The offending party, under discipline, but refusing to reconcile, is to be consider a heathen (i.e. outside of covenantal faith) and a publican (i.e. a hated tax-collector of the Romans, a betrayer to the Jewish people everywhere).

Mat 18:18 Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

The "you" here is in the Second Person Plural, meaning the binding and loosing is done by more than just one person. The entire assembly binds and or looses the injunction against the offending party. If the whole church agrees to ex-communication, it is bound in heaven. If the whole church agrees to rescind the punishment and allow the offending party to be renewed, it is likewise bound in heaven.

Mat 18:19 Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven.

Does this mean asking about or for anything? Or does it relate specifically to the matter at hand? Wouldn't it make more sense that the "two of you" refers to the original two brothers who became offended at each other? That if they agree on earth and ask for repentance, forgiveness, and reconciliation, it shall be done?

Mat 18:20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.

This goes back to the two or three summoned to be reliable witnesses, at step 2 of the process, either for or against the aggrieved or charged party. If, after meeting together, and step three still has to be done, and all the saints summoned, they, the two or three witnesses, present before the church their findings, and by their testimony, the mouths of two or three witnesses, the church, as a body, unites and acts as one, and castigates the offending party, up to and including, ex-communication.

Therefore, Matthew 18:20 is a promise made by the Lord that He will stand by the reliable testimony of the two or three "mouths" when they, because a resolution couldn't be attained, establish a "word" and convince a church to disfellowship one of its own (Note how the Greek word for "midst" is meso and is the root of the Greek word for "mediator", i.e. mesites. This indicates that it's not just a general "in the middle of" that is, right near by, but rather, that Christ is functioning in a legal sense, as the One who is having His way and His say, by using the reliable witnesses to cause the local church Body to exact punishment against the unrepentant offending party).

http://biblehub.com/greek/3319.htm

http://biblehub.com/greek/3316.htm

[shazeep]

i see that we still ultimately seek the law, even in matters of the Holy Spirit. I will tell you (whoever you is) that your definition of "church" is now deficient, possibly (surely), and that two or three might need to be gathered, even though Christ is in us, in order for the Holy Spirit to manifest, because "love one another" necessarily includes "another."

And wadr "church" has nothing to do with those people you spend an hour or three a week with, in that building we call "church." If you have a problem with a brother nowadays, let's be honest, you just blow him off, start a new "church" right down the street. See that "Church" is in the domain of the Holy Spirit, Who does not live or die on our definition of "church," and is alive and well--thriving, even; just not where we define it to be.

Prolly China, or wherever people are oppressed for showing love.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by mfblume

I studied this out in depth, and that doesn't mean I must be right, though. But I once agreed with you, but saw context refuting it. He is there in proxy. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. As I said, it would be redundant to say he actually is there in very presence, since the is everywhere and is with any given single believer, anyway.

There is an omnipresent aspect to God in Christ. However, there is God's "manifest presence". I believe that where ever two or more believers gather together for fellowship, Christ's manifest presence in body ministry can be experienced. I've experienced it myself.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

Note the "For" in Matthew 18:20. It is gar in Greek and is a preposition indicating causation, and can be and sometimes is translated "because". So, reading Matthew 18:20 as "Because where two or three are gathered together in my name, there I am in the midst of them" makes one realize that Matthew 18:20 is a conclusion on all the material that came before, and the material that came before is about church discipline, not a worship based communual meeting.

http://biblehub.com/interlinear/matthew/18-20.htm

http://biblehub.com/greek/1063.htm





So it's pretty clear Matthew 18:20 doesn't have anything to do with the saints getting together to praise the Lord and edify each other. Consider the following parable, which is all about forgiveness and reconciliation, and what happens when a brother doesn't forgive a brother. It's a reinforcement of the principle regarding church discipline.

There isn't any one Scripture that says how many it takes to qualify a meeting of the church. It could be two or three, it could be something else. But the Bible is silent on the matter, and Matthew 18:20 doesn't offer any additional insights, since it's not what the verse, or even passage, or even entire chapter, is about.

Is Christ's manifest presence for body ministry present only when two or more gather together for church discipline but not if they gather together for fellowship???

Sounds silly to me. If Christ is present for church discipline whenever two or three are gathered in His name, surely He's present if they gather to worship. Would you argue that He isn't???

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by good samaritan

What if two are three gathered in the name, but their intents where not what Jesus would have?

If I am sent as an ambassador to another country in the name of my king, I have the king's support to carry out his mission (his will). If I get off course (out of his will) than I would not be in the name of my king. I think this illustrates the authority given to the church when we are doing the will of God particularly in these verses regarding church discipline.

If you have been born again you are the church, and no number makes you the church. In order for their to be an assembling that would mean for the church to gather. It doesn't matter the building structure as long as it is in the will of God what you are doing. God is not the author of confusion.