-— It was part of His discourse on dealing with an unrepentant brother, not to give any church absolute, totalitarian authority over every believer on the planet -—
Many conclusions follow from Jesus’ statement with logical necessity.
First, Jesus could have issued the command, “take it to Me.” But He chose to say, “take it to the church.” So this church must discipline, adjudicate and teach with His Authority.
Secondly, the church could only be His church, the Church that Christ founded.
This church must be visible, since one cannot take a dispute to an invisible church.
Fourth, this church cannot be any gathering of believers, since for a church to authoritatively settle disputes regarding sins amongst Christians, it must possess a unified, non-contradictory body of doctrine. Otherwise, disputes would never be settled, rendering Christ’s command void.
So we know that in Christ’s lifetime, His visible Church, possessing a non-contradictory body of doctrines, existed and taught with Christ’s Authority, apart from Him.
We must presume that this visible Church still exists, since history bears this out, and there is no evidence in Scripture that the gates of hell would prevail against it.
Finally, while the Church teaches with the authority of Christ, it does not possess the Mind of Christ, but it infallibly interprets divine revelation.
Christ's command is in scripture. When scripture isn't taken as the inerrant Word of God, anything is possible. Like doctrine and dogma without scriptural warrant. BUT, when convenient, look at the red letters, wait, that doesn't work for Jonah or Noah. Nevermind.
We must presume that this visible Church still exists, since history bears this out, and there is no evidence in Scripture that the gates of hell would prevail against it.
It did exist, and now exists as the invisible Church of believers in Christ. An examination of the church fathers vs current Catholic practice shows the drift. Trent's proclamation clearly is against Paul's teaching re: justification. Is Christ divided? No.
Finally, while the Church teaches with the authority of Christ, it does not possess the Mind of Christ, but it infallibly interprets divine revelation.
It doesn't even correctly interpret the books it claims to have written. It engages in 'makeadoctrine' or in the case of its Mariology 'makeadogma'. With the Catholic focus on Mary in general, it's amazing it took 1800 odd years to get around to her dogma. Pity the Catholics that didn't make it to heaven because they didn't follow a necessary dogma for salvation because it came after their deaths. There's always purgatory. Catholics assert they are the 'Church', fruit-wise says something different.
Your extrapolation effort to establish Rome as being the OTC is irretrievably fallacious.
He chose to say, “take it to the church.” So this church must discipline, adjudicate and teach with His Authority. Indeed, but which does not translate into a perpetual infallible magisterium, which Rome infallibly decrees she is, and as Scripture nowhere promises nor requires this, no matter how much effort RCs try to extrapolate it from such texts as Mt. 18, then a church which claims this cannot be the OTC, and in fact it is cultic.
In order argue otherwise you must establish from Scripture - that being the transcendent supreme material standard for Truth, as if abundantly evidenced , that such a magisterium was necessary for assurance of Truth, and to recognize and establish both writings as well as men of God as being so, thus those it rejects must be rejected.
Let me know when you want to try.
"Whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning," (Rm. 15:4) and Mt. 18:15-18 follows the OT model of judgment, in which Moses took "wise men, and understanding," as judges, and charged them as judges, "Hear the causes between your brethren, and judge righteously between every man and his brother, and the stranger that is with him." (see Deuteronomy 1:13-18) Matter too hard for them went to the supreme court if you will, with dissent from it being a capital crime. (Dt. 17:8-13) And it also was mandated that the king be given a copy of the Law to live and judge by. (Dt. 18:18.19)
And thus we see apostolic instruction for the local church to choose wise men from among themselves to judge temporal matters, (1Cor. 6:1-6) and wise men full of the Holy Spirit as deacons, (Acts 6:3) and the ecumenical council for larger issues. However, none of these required or inferred perpetual assured (conditional) infallibility of office, which Rome claims. And the manner in which God preserved Truth was to often raise up men from without the magisterium ("prophets, wise men, and scribes:" Mt. 23:34) to reprove it. And thus the church began in dissent from the Scribes and Pharisees, who likewise presumed of themselves a veracity above that which Scripture afforded them, while the church began upon Scriptural
Many conclusions follow from Jesus’ statement with logical necessity.
Your extrapolative effort to establish Rome as being the OTC is built upon false premises.
He chose to say, “take it to the church.” So this church must discipline, adjudicate and teach with His Authority.
Indeed, but which does not translate into a One True Church® with its perpetual infallible magisterium, which Rome infallibly decrees she is, but as Scripture nowhere promises nor requires this, no matter how much effort RCs try to extrapolate it from such texts as Mt. 18, then a church which claims this cannot be the OTC, and in fact it is cultic.
In addition, as God can raise up children unto Abraham, from stones, (Mt. 3:9) and the basis for authenticity is not historical dissent under the new covenant, but Abrahamic faith in the gospel, then God can raise up stones with the face of Peter and the divine Christ to continue to build the church, which is manifest in the world and and, various assemblies, ordaining elders, preaching the gospel, baptizing souls, exercising judgment and discipline, etc.
Rome herself is essentially one denomination, among others, for having lost her unScriptural secular power, and lacking the manifests apostolic power and character under which universal organizational unity was enabled in the New Testament — but in contrast to Rome — then she cannot exercise authority except on her own, despite her universal pretensions.
In order argue that the Roman Catholic magisterium is necessary you must establish from Scripture — that being the transcendent supreme material standard for Truth, as it is abundantly evidenced to be so — that such a magisterium was necessary for assurance of Truth, and to recognize and establish both writings as well as men of God as being so, thus those it rejects must be rejected.
Let me know when you want to try.
As regards Mt. 18:15-18, "Whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning," (Rm. 15:4) and Mt. 18:15-18 follows the OT model of judgment, in which Moses took "wise men, and understanding," and charged them as judges, "Hear the causes between your brethren, and judge righteously between every man and his brother, and the stranger that is with him." (see Deuteronomy 1:13-18) Matters too hard for them went to the “supreme court.” (Dt. 17:8-13) And it also was mandated that the king be given a copy of the Law to live and judge by. (Dt. 18:18.19)
And thus in the New Testament we see apostolic instruction for the local church to choose wise men from among themselves to judge temporal matters, (1Cor. 6:1-6) and wise men full of the Holy Spirit as deacons, (Acts 6:3) and the ecumenical council for larger issues. (Acts 15) However, the ferocity of the ruling therein rested upon scriptural warrant, and neither the Old Testament for the New Testament magisterial examples required or inferred perpetual assured (conditional) infallibility of office, which Rome claims. And therefore she cannot be the one true church.
Instead, the manner in which God preserved Truth was to often raise up men from without the magisterium ("prophets, wise men, and scribes:" Mt. 23:34) to reprove it. And thus the church began in dissent from the Scribes and Pharisees, who likewise presumed of themselves a veracity above that which Scripture afforded them, while the church began upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power. — not the premise of a perpetual assuredly infallible magisterium, regardless of Rome defining herself as having such.
Secondly, the church could only be His church, the Church that Christ founded.
Again, this is agreed, but which does not make Rome to be that church, and the premise that it does cannot be established.
This church must be visible, since one cannot take a dispute to an invisible church.
Again, this is agreed, and this is done in fundamental evangelical type churches, beginning on the local level and which can extend to higher authorities, while on a broader scope the evangelical moment arose due to a shared commitment to core truths and contention against those who denied them.
What is missing is a a centralized universal magisterium, which I affirm should be a goal, yet again, what we see in the New Testament was enabled by the unmistakable supernatural attestation of the apostles authority and their own purity, power and probity. (1Cor. 6:1-10) When was the last time somebody died because they lied to the Holy Spirit and congregation? Paul's warning of using a sword (1Cor. 4:19-21) was a real warning, but, which was not the sword of men that Rome made such use of and and ended up seeing her greatest scope of unity under, beginning with Damascus 1 in seeking to secure his papal seat.
Today churches within the body of Christ exists with varying degrees of divisions, some of which was and is necessary, for division because of truth is better than unity at the expense of it, with Rome's increasing doctrinal aberrations, immorality, impenitence and recalcitrance necessitating the Reformation, as imperfect as that was. Yet as a former Catholic who became born-again while still Catholic, I can say that the real unity of the spirit which I've known among evangelicals transcends “tribalism,” as it is a result of a shared conversion to Christ and Scripture-based relationship with him, which fellowship I rarely found with Catholics, despite it's greater size. “Better is a living dog than a dead lion.” (Eccl. 9:4) Instead, as out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh, Catholics mainly preach their church and Mary supposing this is preaching the gospel of Christ.
Meanwhile, organizational unity does not constitute validity, and in reality Catholicism exists in schism and sectarianism despite a common consent to a certain core truths, and with much disagreement both on what their church as well as what Scripture means, with the unity they do have being largely religiously institutional, and doctrinally a paper one and very limited. Multitudes of RCs, including clergy, believing differently on multitudes of things, all go to the same Mass, was perfunctory professions on basic things. And Rome treats even known public liberals as members in life and in death, thus manifesting what she really believes. (Ja. 2:18)
Moreover, the division with EOs begins with quite substantial things, no less than papal infallibility and jurisdiction, and extends to many other things besides.
Under both Sola Scriptura and sola ecclesia you have both unity and division, the difference being a matter of degrees and scope.
it must possess a unified, non-contradictory body of doctrine.
Which Rome imagines it has, despite many examples which are contrary to it, but, which is a claim to unity that is based upon the premise that Rome defines what a contradiction is.
It was the charge of the Reformers that the Catholic doctrines were not primitive, and their pretension was to revert to antiquity. But the appeal to antiquity is both a treason and a heresy. It is a treason because it rejects the Divine voice of the Church at this hour, and a heresy because it denies that voice to be Divine.... I may say in strict truth that the Church has no antiquity. It rests upon its own supernatural and perpetual consciousness. — Most Rev. Dr. Henry Edward Cardinal Manning, Lord Archbishop of Westminster, “The Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost: Or Reason and Revelation,” (New York: J.P. Kenedy & Sons, originally written 1865, reprinted with no date), pp. 227-228.
Therefore, we are back to the problem that an infallible magisterium was not the basis in Scripture upon which souls had assurance of truth and upon which the church was founded. A church which claims that is a more of a cult than a church.
Otherwise, disputes would never be settled, rendering Christ’s command void.
Rome herself abounds with disputes, while what is rendered void is the premise that the promise of Christ was that of complete doctrinal conformity, which is ever been a goal not realized. It certainly was not realized in the early centuries, nor is it now. There are disputes within Rome, such as the case of Congregatio de Auxiliis which were never resolved and so the Pope called a truce, therefore, preventing the very thing you seem to see as necessary to be the one true church, that of complete doctrinal unity.
However, the unity that Christ prayed for in John 17:21-23 , was most essentially that of Christ in believers and believers in Christ. And the organizational and spiritual unity of the New Testament church was not that of comprehensive doctrinal unity, but, primarily it was unity in core salvific doctrines, whereby one taste of that essential unity with Christ. .
And which is why evangelicals came to be called evangelical. You cannot share with you do not have, while Catholics show far less, or of other evidences of regeneration. After I became born again as a Catholic, I was wanted to share the truth of salvation by grace, but I would actually tell souls to go to a evangelical type church, if you find one, as Rcs were were dead (the best I could find was within the charismatic movement). Of course, I really didn't know that difference until I became born again.
And as said, fundamental evangelical type churches became a separate movement because of commitment to such basic truths, while allowing various degrees of disagreement in other things. And in reality Catholicism does likewise. Much, or perhaps most of what Roman Catholics believe in practice does not come from the supreme magisterium, and may allow a certain degree of dissent. Which you do not see much of because Catholics in general are not not doctrine intensive. And in fact, it is among those that are (such as with the sedevacantists) that you see the most division. In addition, RCs have a great liberty to variously interpret the Bible in order to support Rome.
As regards the Holy Spirit leading the church into all Truth, this is progressive, and it is abundantly shown by the Scriptures that Rome much lead and leads souls into darkness, by presuming supremacy over the Scriptures and channeling traditions of men out of her nebulous oral tradition, being not based upon scriptural substantiation, while is also abundantly manifest that since the time of the Reformation far more light has been given.
So we know that in Christ’s lifetime, His visible Church, possessing a non-contradictory body of doctrines, existed and taught with Christ’s Authority, apart from Him.
Which actually indicts Rome because her body of doctrines includes things that the New Testament church never manifestly taught, and is a church that taught in some centuries such unScriptural things as papal sanctioned torture and killing of theological opponents (“heretics”), and that there is no salvation for those outside the bosom of the Catholic Church and in submission to the Pope, only to reinvent herself later.
Regardless, doctrinal unity is most supremely seen among cults, and Rome is one church among many, whose unity is not necessarily greater than certain others, while what she does teach critically distinguishes her from the New Testament church and disallows her from climbing to be it.
We must presume that this visible Church still exists, since history bears this out, and there is no evidence in Scripture that the gates of hell would prevail against it.
This presumes that the church is one particular entity, which it is not. The church that Christ bought with His sinless shed own blood and is His bride (Acts 20:28; Eph. 5:25) does not consist of one particular church body, and visibly exists inorganic bodies today, preaching the gospel of grace, baptizing souls, placing them under pastoral care, exercising discipline, contending against error, including those of Rome, against which the gates of hell has not prevailed against. In contrast, rather than presuming that Rome is the church that the gates of hell have not prevailed against, the sad and tragic reality is Rome has actually become as the gates of hell multitudes, by fostering confidence in herself impossible merit for salvation. Which usually begins with a a morally incognizant infant being sprinkled with water in recognition of proxy faith, by which such possesses interior holiness making them fit for Heaven, and usually ends with suffering an indeterminate time in the fires of purgatory and on to become good enough to actually enter glory. The religious system, versus true regeneration by personal repentant faith in the risen Lord and Savior Jesus Christ to save by his sinless blood the damned and destitute sinner who places all his faith in Him to save him on Bis expense and righteousness, and who thus follows Him. Thanks be to God for so great salvation at so great a price to meet so great a need.
Finally, while the Church teaches with the authority of Christ, it does not possess the Mind of Christ, but it infallibly interprets divine revelation.
That is simply another argument by assertion. Rome has presumed to infallibly declare she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares. How can she go wrong with that? Cults do likewise.
>> First, Jesus could have issued the command, “take it to Me.” But He chose to say, “take it to the church.” <<
.
No! - He said “take it to the congregation/assembly.
There is no “church” in Yeshua’s words, only a congregation.
“The Church” is vaporware scripturally speaking.
Authority is Nicolaitanism; Yeshua condemned it.