Simple One Question Poll

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: NOTurTypical

That is the biblical response, though we can't assume that hasn't already been done

We can't, but I have to go by what was said in the OP, ya know?

a reply to: NOTurTypical

But making an unwarranted assumption or inference from the OP is at least very hazardous to the truth.

a reply to: BO XIAN

Well, what do you want me to do? The OP asked a question, based on the details he gave us. I guess I shouldn't participate in the thread then? Should I say that I cannot address the poll question since I don't have every single detail? OP proposed a scenario, and I gave my subjective opinion of whether it was a Godly response or not, based on the method Jesus outlined in Matthew 18 for resolving problems between two believers I'm thinking that the plaintiff person in he OP handled the situation wrong. He should have met privately with the person he had fault with to reconcile their differences.

a reply to: BO XIAN

So I'll come clean. I do know some background information, since I asked the Minister at a later time.

But first, my intention was to allow the thread to go until someone actually quoted the Matthew 18 passage:

15Moreover 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. 16But 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. 17And 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.

But since you pretty much nailed it as an in group/out group issue, I should lay it out.

The Church was a University Church, sort of unique in that the majority of students did not see a need to have their names put on the register as members, since they saw themselves as merely passing through.

Also, being as large numbers of visitors attended the Church occasionally, it had been decided that Open Communion was most fitting. (No Excommunication in other words), and no one was excluded from services.

The Plaintiff's grievance involved official membership/non-membership status. That's it. The Church Board had already made its decision and wasn't likely to change it. Nothing was stopping the man from attending services or taking Communion. In most people's minds that would make the man's grievance a non-issue, since 95% of people attending the service were also non-members.

a reply to: NOTurTypical

The OP asked a question, based on the details he gave us. I guess I shouldn't participate in the thread then? Should I say that I cannot address the poll question since I don't have every single detail?

You did right. I gave as much info as I thought necessary to make a yes/no response. The other actual details should not have been a factor.

a reply to: pthena

This passage was also quickened to me in regards to people and their faults with others, this is always an acceptable approach someone can choose to do in all cases, from Colossians chapter 3:

12Therefore, as God’s chosen ones, holy and loved, clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, meekness, and patience. 13Be tolerant of one another and forgive each other if anyone has a complaint against another. Just as the Lord has forgiven you, you also should forgive. 14Above all, clothe yourselves with love, which ties everything together in unity. 15Let the peace of the Messiah also rule in your hearts, to which you were called in one body, and be thankful.

(ISV version)

a reply to: NOTurTypical

I thought the Minister was quite tolerant, but I was biased since he was also one of my Professors, and his son was the Minister of my home town Church.

How do like that! Kid leaves home and Church to go to the big bad University, only to discover his Minister's Dad is his new Professor!

originally posted by: pthena
a reply to: NOTurTypical

I thought the Minister was quite tolerant, but I was biased since he was also one of my Professors, and his son was the Minister of my home town Church.

How do like that! Kid leaves home and Church to go to the big bad University, only to discover his Minister's Dad is his new Professor!

You weren't safe were you? Word would get back to your minister if you were out of line. 😂

a reply to: Raggedyman

The Biblical response is, How does the teaching of the Kingdom that Jesus gives to the Jews line up with the teachings of Paul on reconciliation with a fellow Christian?

One problem is that Israel is not in the kingdom so they will not be able to apply the to themselves just now.

The second the altar is not in place for anyone to go to. So the whole idea of an altar has to be replaced with a spiritual altar, usually a persons heart. However this teaching of Jesus is not about a spiritual altar but the physical one. That would be wrong to spiritualize a kingdom teaching for the church today.

So that is why it has to be compared to Paul's teaching for the church today in the church writings.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

I'm at the point in my walk now where I just don't want any animosity in my heart towards anyone else, I'm just asking the Lord to give me the power to forgive everyone, regardless of whether or not the seek to apologize or not. I'm trying to just release them, and not let anyone offend me. It's just not worth it, the Lord will reveal anyone who I held anger toward, and by His power of the Holy Spirit we can just choose to not let them have any power over us.

I think that's an approach consistent with Jesus and the NT, at least that's how I feel in my spirit.

a reply to: NOTurTypical

LOL

That's why I tried to stay on good terms with both of them.

originally posted by: pthena
a reply to: NOTurTypical

LOL

That's why I tried to stay on good terms with both of them.

Maybe the Lord knew you needed extra supervision. 🤔😂😂

Quite an interesting question.

My additional thoughts were that it was an issue of power.

If, for instance, the grievance was something that the whole church might get behind (a cop stopping the service to accuse the minister of rape) then there would be a situation where the needs of the whole (a minister who acted within the bounds of the religion) was entirely on the side of the protestor. But something like church membership - an outsider attempting to break into a semi-closed circle will just bias the situation against himself because the needs of the community (a peaceful religious service that directs their minds toward worship) are being shattered by the needs of the one.

Interesting thought exercise.

a reply to: pthena

So it was a test to Christians, why do that
I could only assume that the initial meeting of one on one had already taken place and possibly the contact with a few other people
The church could have been a cult, a minister whomabused his authority.
I am at a loss how it could be a simple yes or no question with so few details

I am free to answer any question as I see fit

a reply to: Raggedyman

It was not a test to Christians specifically, many people who do not claim a hope in resurrection, or a place in the Kingdom of God, or a seat at The Banquet table still have a hope that people can work out issues between one other in an amicable way.

My purpose was to get a feel for whether the majority are inclined to make snap judgments. You do not seem to want to make snap judgments. That seems good to me.

Others made judgments based upon the details given, taking into account other verses and more. That also seems good to me.

I am free to answer any question as I see fit

I agree with you there.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

The second the altar is not in place for anyone to go to. So the whole idea of an altar has to be replaced with a spiritual altar, usually a persons heart. However this teaching of Jesus is not about a spiritual altar but the physical one. That would be wrong to spiritualize a kingdom teaching for the church today.

There is another thread currently hot which has an observation from a poster I'd like to quote.

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
From my experience, most believers in every major religion only follow the parts they personally agree with. In fact, it's generally only the clergy and religious leaders who follow (or know) everything their religion entails. And truthfully, many of them don't believe or follow everything that's written down either (hence the numerous contradicting denominations, fatwas, rulings, scholarly papers, etc).

I'm pointing this out because someone can easily accept some points in the Bible without accepting others. The same goes for every other religious text or set of texts. I'm not saying it's right or wrong; just pointing out that it's reality.

And as I stated to Raggedyman, there are those who place their hope in something other than Christian Resurrection and yet find value in the teachings of Jesus as stated in the Gospels. The reality is, some people would like to order their lives in such a way as if they were living in the Kingdom of God, as if this is as good as it will get, as if their actions and attitudes will benefit coming generations.

a reply to: pthena
I am not against reconciliation at all with ones brother in Christ (Jews were physical brother going to the altar). It is not that I am against the essence of the teaching of Christ, it is that it was directed at Israel as part of Jesus Preparing them to enter the Kingdom of promise which they have of God.

Where Christ teaching agree with the church teachings from Paul you will find a different reconciliation that has nothing to do with a physical temple and it offerings. As far as church brethren today they are to forgive whether or not anyone goes to the other just as Christ has forgiven you, freely.

Eph 4:32 And be ye kind one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ's sake hath forgiven you.
Col 3:13 Forbearing one another, and forgiving one another, if any man have a quarrel against any: even as Christ forgave you, so also [do] ye.

Again this is not about what I personally agree with it is clearly what the Bible says the church is to do when having issues with another. Forgive them freely, with no contact even, it is unconditional forgiveness. Reconciliation means there are condition for reconciliation.

a reply to: NOTurTypical

Now now.

No need to be silly.

I think you were merely a bit toooo emphatic about the bloke being unBiblical.

We don't know what transpired before the scene described.

I agreed with you in my post . . . while allowing for the lack of information to have cast it all in a different perspective.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

So you do see some overlap in Paul's teaching and in the teaching of Jesus, with regard to the Matthew 18 verses.

1 Corinthians 5 WEB

1It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and such sexual immorality as is not even named among the Gentiles, that one has his father's wife. 2You are puffed up, and didn't rather mourn, that he who had done this deed might be removed from among you.

3For I most certainly, as being absent in body but present in spirit, have already, as though I were present, judged him who has done this thing. 4In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, you being gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, 5are to deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.

6Your boasting is not good. Don't you know that a little yeast leavens the whole lump? 7Purge out the old yeast, that you may be a new lump, even as you are unleavened. For indeed Christ, our Passover, has been sacrificed in our place. 8Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old yeast, neither with the yeast of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.

Expel the Immoral Brother

9I wrote to you in my letter to have no company with sexual sinners; 10yet not at all meaning with the sexual sinners of this world, or with the covetous and extortioners, or with idolaters; for then you would have to leave the world. 11But as it is, I wrote to you not to associate with anyone who is called a brother who is a sexual sinner, or covetous, or an idolater, or a slanderer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner. Don't even eat with such a person. 12For what have I to do with also judging those who are outside? Don't you judge those who are within? 13But those who are outside, God judges. "Put away the wicked man from among yourselves."

Matthew 18:15"If your brother sins against you, go, show him his fault between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained back your brother. 16But if he doesn't listen, take one or two more with you, that at the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. 17If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the assembly. If he refuses to hear the assembly also, let him be to you as a Gentile or a tax collector.

But for people who are outside the Church Community, there is no restriction against them cherry picking whatever they find useful to themselves from the Bible or anything else as far as the Church is concerned. They are Gentiles, people of the World, over whom the Church has no jurisdiction.

Of course we on ATS are all peers, none exercising authority over the conscience of another. Therefore persuasion is most fitting. Thank you.

originally posted by: BO XIAN
a reply to: NOTurTypical

Now now.

No need to be silly.

I think you were merely a bit toooo emphatic about the bloke being unBiblical.

We don't know what transpired before the scene described.

I agreed with you in my post . . . while allowing for the lack of information to have cast it all in a different perspective.

I understand your point, but I think the wise way to handle the issue from the position of the plaintif in the op, is how Jesus said to do it in Matthew 18:5. Initially in a private, man to man setting, then if that doesn't resolve it, to take another believer with him and try again privately. Jesus said to leave our offering at the altar, or however offerings to God are offered in your particular setting or circumstances, and seek to reconcile ourselves to someone we have conscious knowledge of that we offended. In the OP it's unclear if the minister even knows he offended the plaintiff individual, and he might be totally unaware. It seemed to me that since he offered to meet with the guy in his office right after the service he understood he might have offended the person and been willing to hear him out and probably reconcile the offense.

I think it's wise in all instances to resolve something with someone in private, that's just the way I think it should be done. For the simple fact that people are more open to hearing you out and not getting defensive if they feel they are being made a public spectacle of.