“This violates the role of the Church as the final arbiter in disputes in Matthew 18.”
How does “the word “church” as referring to the body of the faithful” violate Matthew 18? The passage deals with a personal disagreement between two people. The complainer is told to go, one on one, to resolve it. If the other party is intransigent then take a couple of witnesses. If that does not work then take the matter to the congregation to which both parties belong. If he is still obstinate them have the assembly put him out. He is an outcast of the assembly. The assembly’s judgment is binding.
There was no New Testament” church in existence when Jesus was speaking here. The only assembly was the Temple or synagogue congregation and to be an outcast there was to be no longer a religious Jew.
However, the “binding” principle is similar to Paul’s admonition to the church at Corinth where he advises the congregation to put the incestuous man out. The “loosing” principle comes in when in 2 Corinthians he tells the congregation to let the man back into fellowship. In neither case could “church” mean mean the “infallible teaching authority of councils, magesterium and popes” since they weren’t in existence at the time.
Jesus’ statement “Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them” defines His assembly, “the body of the faithful”.
“The quotes you put forward as an argument do not say so. 2 Tim. 3:15-17 calls the “man of God”, not the scripture “perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works”.”
I said that the scriptures are,
“able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.”
The word Paul uses for perfect vs. 17 is “exartizo”, which has to do with being fitted for a task. In the passages you cite use the Greek word “teleios” is used for perfect, (James 1:4, Matthew 19:21, or Colossians 1:28 and 4:12) which has reference to maturity or having reached a desired end.
In neither case could “church” mean mean the “infallible teaching authority of councils, magesterium and popes” since they weren’t in existence at the time.
Well, we'd say that there were all three, if only "in germ". Ww see a council in Jerusalem making what seems to be accepted by many as an authoritative decision about circumcision. Ww got old Peter. And we don't have a whole cunk of magisterial teaching — they hadn't had time yet, but there seems to me a notion of the REAL Gospel and a bunch of bogus ones and the need, at least in one instance, for Paul to go to Jerusalem to has stuff out.
The Scripture defines the Church as the mystical body of Christ, with a single head in Christ. With that in mind, Matthew 18 cannot establish solely the authority of the local congregation, but not a hierarchical authority of the complete body of Christ. Naturally, the precise organizational structure of the Church was not in existence when Christ spoke. However, the principle of the Church as final universal authority is established in Matthew 18. Surely you are not suggesting that the man anathemized in one local church per Mt 18:17 should just go find another local church and be welcomed there. Is the "heaven" in Mt 18:18 also a local heaven?
The word Paul uses for perfect vs. 17 is “exartizo”, which has to do with being fitted for a task
Ah, OK. You post look an awful lot like a claim of the Biblical character of the Sola Scriptura superstition. So you agree that it is the "man of God" that is fitted for every task and not the Scripture.