[soundofgrace] RE: [soundofgrace] Matthew 18:15-17

Message: < previous - next > : Reply : Subscribe : Cleanse
Home   : January 2004 : Group Archive : Group : All Groups

From: "Brown, Stanley" <SPBrown@...>
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 13:34:47 -0600
Sorry to use this link to start another thread but I didn't know how else to
do it.  I have a question.  When a presbyterian uses the phrase "ruling
elder," what is the scriptural basis for the word "ruling," and how is it
defined.  How would a baptist elder rule in this context versus a
presbyterian "ruling elder."  As a sovereign grace baptist who happens to
attend and am a member of a PCA church, I am having a hard time grasping the
differences and similarities (if there are any).   
Thanks, spb

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	James Beals [SMTP:jbeals@...]
> Sent:	Thursday, January 29, 2004 3:33 AM
> To:	soundofgrace@...
> Cc:	jclemens@...
> Subject:	[soundofgrace] Matthew 18:15-17
> 
> Friends:
> 
> As you can see from the subject, my question is related to the passage in 
> Matthew that we are all familiar with.
> --------------------------------------------------------
> 15 Moreover if your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault 
> between you and him alone. If he hears you, you have gained your brother.
> 16 But if he will not hear, take with you one or two more, that "by the 
> mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established."
> 17 And if he refuses to hear them, tell it to the church. But if he
> refuses 
> even to hear the church, let him be to you like a heathen and a tax
> collector.
>   - NKJV
> --------------------------------------------------------
> NB - Most of the translations seem to read very similar to the above.
> 
> I put it to you this way:
> I am aware of a situation where the first two "steps" of the "Matthew 18" 
> process have been followed without success.
> ... that being:
> 1.  Offended party goes to offending party and seeks reconciliation 
> (without success).
> 2.  Offended party goes to offending party "with one or two more" and
> seeks 
> reconciliation (without success).
> 
> In the event that the process is followed through to "step three",
> ... that being:
> 3.  Offended party "tells it the church".
> 
> My question is this:
> Is verse 17 above describing two distinct events or gatherings?
>   - One (the first) where the Offended party "tells it to the church" with
> 
> the Offending party ABSENT from that meeting... and
>   - Two (the second) where the church delivers their message to the 
> Offending party where he/she subsequently "refuses to hear".
> ----- OR -----
> Is verse 17 above describing a single event or gathering? where:
>   - the Offended party "tells it to the church" with the Offending party 
> PRESENT where he/she subsequently "refuses to hear".
> 
> 
> This as a practical question with practical implications so please be 
> practical in your advice / exigesis.
> I realize this may spawn more questions than answers, which in itself may 
> be useful, but right now I am looking for the "answers".
> My concern is for the truth and that the Scriptures be "rightly divided" 
> and applied and the Lord obeyed.
> 
> in Christ,
> Jamie Beals
> Ottawa
> 
> PS I will read your reply posts on the SOG chat group, but if you wish, 
> please also feel free to reply to me directly at jbeals@...
> PPS Here is a follow-up question:  Would you treat the situation any 
> differently if the Offending party was a pastor?  This, of course, has 
> implications with respect to the "removal of a pastor" in the same way
> that 
> it has implications with respect to the "removal of a member".
> 
> --
> Read the Sound of Grace pages at
> http://www.soundofgrace.com
> 
> To unsubscribe, send ANY message to:
> soundofgrace-unsubscribe@...
> 
> To view our online archive go to our web page at
> http://www.associate.com/groups/soundofgrace
> 
>