Spotting Heretics

[Ferris Bueller]

I don’t understand why you erroneously believe that SIN is not a doctrinal issue.

READ THE PASSAGE, LOL! Why are you being so stubborn! Jesus is NOT talking about when a brother has a differing doctrinal position than you, lol. He plainly says it's about when a brother SINS AGAINST YOU. Don't you know what it means when someone sins against you???? A differing doctrinal belief is not a sin against someone else, lol. You're trying so hard to not be wrong about this! You're desperately grasping to not be exposed as being wrong. I can tell you can not stand to be wrong about something. Face it, you were wrong about Matthew 18:15-17 and I called you out. Deal with it! This isn't even up for honest debate. There's nothing to not understand here. You were wrong.

 

[Marymog]

Lol, all you have left is to nit-pick and find fault! The non-Catholic congregation belongs to the elders and pastor of that congregation. It's the part of the church that they are accountable for. They guide, guard, and instruct their congregation and control it's doings. They don't need 100% attendance of the born again believers every meeting to do what God has entrusted them to guide and instruct the body of Christ, the church, into.

Ferris….I am not trying to find fault. I am only trying to figure out what your men have taught you. And I dont understand your “non-Catholic congregation” theory but that is a discussion for another day.

Ok….your answer is kind of helpful. Your men have taught you that you don’t need 100% of the congregation present to fulfill Matthew 18:17.

Sooooo it sounds like if a simple majority (51%) of your born again believers are present they then vote if the person that committed the sin is to be treated as a pagan/tax collector? Is that vote binding on the 49% that wasn’t present to vote?

 

[Ferris Bueller]

Ferris….I am not trying to find fault. I am only trying to figure out what your men have taught you. And I dont understand your “non-Catholic congregation” theory but that is a discussion for another day.

Ok….your answer is kind of helpful. Your men have taught you that you don’t need 100% of the congregation present to fulfill Matthew 18:17.

Sooooo it sounds like if a simple majority (51%) of your born again believers are present they then vote if the person that committed the sin is to be treated as a pagan/tax collector? Is that vote binding on the 49% that wasn’t present to vote?

Stop being evasive, lol!
The well-being and protection of a congregation is the responsibility of the pastor and elders over that congregation.
What's good about non-Catholic meetings is if the leadership goes rogue (and they do) you don't have to blindly pretend they are sent by God and continue to submit to them like you Catholics have to do to your leaders.

 

[Marymog]

READ THE PASSAGE, LOL! Why are you being so stubborn! Jesus is NOT talking about when a brother has a differing doctrinal position than you, lol. He plainly says it's about when a brother SINS AGAINST YOU. Don't you know what it means when someone sins against you???? A differing doctrinal belief is not a sin against someone else, lol. You're trying so hard to not be wrong about this! You're desperately grasping to not be exposed as being wrong. I can tell you can not stand to be wrong about something. Face it, you were wrong about Matthew 18:15-17 and I called you out. Deal with it! This isn't even up for honest debate. There's nothing to not understand here. You were wrong.

No, I don’t not know what you have been taught about “what it means when someone sins against you”. Please give me your version.

Here my version: A person commits a sin that affects me. I call him out on that sin. He disagrees that what he did was a sin. We take it to The Church. The Church then decides that he did commit a sin against me. He disagrees with The Church on their doctrinal definition of a sin. He is to then be treated as a pagan/tax collector because he disagrees with the churches doctrine.

Definition of Sin: offense against a religious morale LAW
Definition of doctrine: Church teaching in matters of faith and morals

 

[Marymog]

I hear you Catholics say over and over and over again that we non-Catholics are leaderless, because we (supposedly) don't believe in leaders.

Have I ever made that allegation?

 

[Marymog]

Stop being evasive, lol!
The well-being and protection of a congregation is the responsibility of the pastor and elders over that congregation.
What's good about non-Catholic meetings is if the leadership goes rogue (and they do) you don't have to blindly pretend they are sent by God and continue to submit to them like you Catholics have to do to your leaders.

Your accusations make zero sense to me Ferris. EVASIVE?

You actually evaded my question: Sooooo it sounds like if a simple majority (51%) of your born again believers are present they then vote if the person that committed the sin is to be treated as a pagan/tax collector? Is that vote binding on the 49% that wasn’t present to vote?

 

[Wrangler]

They are to take the matter before the sum total of believers in the congregation, and if they still do not acknowledge their offending behavior he is to be treated by the church as a pagan or tax collector. What's so hard about this for you to understand?

2nd off, let's go with your "sum total of believers in the congregation" theory. Is that done by majority vote? If 51% agree that the person SINNED (not offended the other person) against his fellow believer, THEN they can be treated as a pagan or tax collector?

If I may interject ... Mary, you seem to suppose the whole congregation is deeply divided (51/49) over what constitutes sin. It seems the point Ferris Bueller is making about how to treat an unrepetent sinner in the body. So, from an outsiders perspective, it appears you to are having 2 different conversations.

1. How does any church govern themselves when deeply divided?
2. How to handle a beloved but unrepentant sinner?

I get Ferris Bueller's point but I'm not sure anyone can answer Mary's point. I pray no congregation is so deeply divided.

 

[Ferris Bueller]

You

Your accusations make zero sense to me Ferris. EVASIVE?

You actually evaded my question: Sooooo it sounds like if a simple majority (51%) of your born again believers are present they then vote if the person that committed the sin is to be treated as a pagan/tax collector? Is that vote binding on the 49% that wasn’t present to vote?

Where are you getting this voting crap from?
The pastor and elders direct the affairs of the congregation. And they do that transparently before the congregation.

 

[Ferris Bueller]

Have I ever made that allegation?

I think you have. And I don’t care if you personally have or not. Catholics are always accusing non-Catholics of being leaderless. Just because we reject your godless costumed hierarchy doesn’t mean we’re leaderless.

 

[Marymog]

I think you have. And I don’t care if you personally have or not. Catholics are always accusing non-Catholics of being leaderless. Just because we reject your godless costumed hierarchy doesn’t mean we’re leaderless.

Not playing that game Ferris. If you can’t give an example of me saying that then don’t lump me in with everyone else.

I have never accused you of being leaderless. The FACT is I have said on multiple occasions “what YOUR MEN have taught you”. That is NOT accusing you of being leaderless.

 

[Marymog]

You

Where are you getting this voting crap from?
The pastor and elders direct the affairs of the congregation. And they do that transparently before the congregation.

Ummmmm…..I am “getting this voting crap” from Matthew 18. If a person refuses to listen to 2-3 of their Christian brothers they take the difference to The Church. Sooooooooooo when 2-3 people make a decision they are casting a “vote” for who is right in that situation. Is that not true Ferris?

When they take their difference to The Church there is a VOTE as to who is right and who is wrong. YOU have even indicated that the elders (plural) of the congregation makes that decision. Sooooooooo that means they would VOTE on if the person is to be treated as a pagan or tax collector Ferris….

You are wearing me out kiddo…..

 

[Marymog]

If I may interject ... Mary, you seem to suppose the whole congregation is deeply divided (51/49) over what constitutes sin. It seems the point Ferris Bueller is making about how to treat an unrepetent sinner in the body. So, from an outsiders perspective, it appears you to are having 2 different conversations.

1. How does any church govern themselves when deeply divided?
2. How to handle a beloved but unrepentant sinner?

I get Ferris Bueller's point but I'm not sure anyone can answer Mary's point. I pray no congregation is so deeply divided.

Hey Wrangler.

I have no problem with your interjection if it helps me better understand what Ferris is saying. I think it is possible we are having 2 separate conversations. Let me see if I can be clearer:

I am NOT supposing the congregation is deeply divided. What I am asking is AFTER myself and 2 of my fellow church members tell the person they are wrong WHO do we go to so that we can fulfill Matthew 18:17? If there are 100 people in our church and 51 of them show up to vote and say my brother was wrong and I was right, does that fulfill Matthew 18:17? OR does it have to be a majority vote? OR do we go to the 12 elders of the church and they decide?

From what I understand Ferris to be saying is that he believes the “sum total of all believers” decides. I take that to mean if there are 100 members of the church and all 100 members of the church vote then the sum total would mean majority vote (51 votes) wins. The person is then treated as a pagan/tax collector.

But he has also suggested that the elders and pastor decides by “directing the affairs of the congregation”! What does that mean? Do the elders sit in on the meeting of the 100 and they discuss/debate it with the congregation to give them guidance on how to decide?

I don’t get Ferris’s point…maybe you can explain it to me?

 

[Wrangler]

am NOT supposing the congregation is deeply divided. What I am asking is AFTER myself and 2 of my fellow church members tell the person they are wrong WHO do we go to so that we can fulfill Matthew 18:17? If there are 100 people in our church and 51 of them show up to vote and say my brother was wrong and I was right, does that fulfill Matthew 18:17? OR does it have to be a majority vote? OR do we go to the 12 elders of the church and they decide?

You seem pre-occupied with the numbers.

I don't know anything about elders but the whole church seems pretty clear. And I would add for practicality, who is there at the time - provided to foul play.

For instance, my wife and I split between in person service and watching it on line. We may or may not be there for such a pivotal moment. My church recently voted on whether to allow a satellite congregation to branch off on their own. I was concerned about how the public discussion went. Still, we appealed to prayer. I believe the final vote was 78% in favor of what I thought was right. So, I don't think the numbers are anywhere near as much a concern in practice as you are presenting.

Hope this helps.

 

[Wrangler]

But he has also suggested that the elders and pastor decides by “directing the affairs of the congregation”! What does that mean?

Facilitators.

At work many meetings progress with me functioning as a facilitator. Like Christ, I serve as a natural bridge or gate. Dispassionate about the result, my concern is the be sure there is a logical progression to the discussion and all sides participate.

The relationship is more important than the outcome of the confrontation.

Being a facilitator is not like being a dictator or attempting to coerce people to go a certain way. As opposed to politics and majority rule, it is much more about building a consensus. It is much harder than straight up vote but worth it as no one is alienated in the process.

Hope this helps.

 

[Ferris Bueller]

I am “getting this voting crap” from Matthew 18. If a person refuses to listen to 2-3 of their Christian brothers they take the difference to The Church. ...when 2-3 people make a decision they are casting a “vote” for who is right in that situation. Is that not true Ferris?

No, that's not right.
If you'll read the passage, the intent is to get the one who sinned against you to repent and be forgiven, not determine guilt or innocence. This matter of the sinner being forgiven or remaining in the guilt of his transgression can be established by the two or three people showing him his fault. No popes or cardinals or bishops needed. The matter of forgiveness can be established before God between these people present. If the sinner doesn't listen then the matter is taken before the congregation. And not to vote on it, but to once again get this person to repent and be forgiven. And if he still doesn't, treat him as you would an unbeliever. For he is showing himself to not be a born again believer.

 

[Ferris Bueller]

it sounds like if a simple majority (51%) of your born again believers are present they then vote if the person that committed the sin is to be treated as a pagan/tax collector?

No. Whether or not the person repents and is forgiven is what determines if they get treated as a pagan or tax collector. There is no vote. The matter of guilt is not the issue. Whether or not the sinner, in the presence of the congregation, is going to repent and be forgiven is the issue. If they refuse to acknowledge their guilt, that is when they are treated as a pagan or a tax collector.

 

[Marymog]

No. Whether or not the person repents and is forgiven is what determines if they get treated as a pagan or tax collector. There is no vote. The matter of guilt is not the issue. Whether or not the sinner, in the presence of the congregation, is going to repent and be forgiven is the issue. If they refuse to acknowledge their guilt, that is when they are treated as a pagan or a tax collector.

We agree! If they do not repent and acknowledge their guilt they are to be treated as a pagan/tax collector.

WHO tells them that they are guilty Ferris? Let’s walk thru this according to what that passage says:

At first it is ME (that’s 1 vote)!
If they don’t listen to me I go get 1-2 others tell them they are guilty (that’s 2-3 votes against them). If they don’t listen to the 3 of us we take it to the church.
If there are 100 members of the church and all 100 beg them to acknowledge their guilt and they don’t acknowledge their guilt then the entire church votes to treat them as a pagan or tax collector.

Maybe you are stuck on the word VOTE? If it is not a VOTE of the church then what is it Ferris?

When the guilty person is in front of the congregation and they say “I refuse to acknowledge that what have done is a sin”, does someone stand up and announce you are now a pagan in the eyes of the church? There is no debate among the 100 as to if it is a sin? Soooooo every instance that comes in front of the church is clearly a sin? No debate? It is just a matter of the person acknowledging it???

 

[Marymog]

No, that's not right.
If you'll read the passage, the intent is to get the one who sinned against you to repent and be forgiven, not determine guilt or innocence. This matter of the sinner being forgiven or remaining in the guilt of his transgression can be established by the two or three people showing him his fault. No popes or cardinals or bishops needed. The matter of forgiveness can be established before God between these people present. If the sinner doesn't listen then the matter is taken before the congregation. And not to vote on it, but to once again get this person to repent and be forgiven. And if he still doesn't, treat him as you would an unbeliever. For he is showing himself to not be a born again believer.

OK…lets put your theory into practice:

I have decided that Ferris sinned against me.
You disagree with me.
I get 2 others to agree with me.
You refuse to listen to the 3 of us.
I get the entire congregation to agree with me.
You refuse to listen to the entire congregation.
The sin is sooooo obvious that there is no need to vote or debate as to who is right or wrong. The sin is just KNOWN by all to be against Scripture, except the 1 who refuses to acknowledge it, he dosn’t think it’s a violation of Scripture.
Someone from the congregation then announces (there is no vote) that the sin the person committed is bad enough for them to be treated as a pagan.
The congregation has NOT determined that the person is guilty or innocent of the sin (even though they have admitted to the sin) they have just determined that they are wrong about it being a sin. The person is treated as pagan UNLESS they admit it was a sin then they can come back to the church.
No need for 100 bishops or cardinals to do all this. All you need are100 members of the congregation to do all this .

 

[Marymog]

Facilitators.

At work many meetings progress with me functioning as a facilitator. Like Christ, I serve as a natural bridge or gate. Dispassionate about the result, my concern is the be sure there is a logical progression to the discussion and all sides participate.

The relationship is more important than the outcome of the confrontation.

Being a facilitator is not like being a dictator or attempting to coerce people to go a certain way. As opposed to politics and majority rule, it is much more about building a consensus. It is much harder than straight up vote but worth it as no one is alienated in the process.

Hope this helps.

It does help Wrangler….Thanks.

Being a facilitator at work where one is helping with the logical progression and making sure that there is participation on all sides is a bit different than deciding if a person has committed a sin according to Scripture. As a facilitator you at work you guide employees to think outside the box, listen to and consider all options and stay within policy, the law and budget. As a facilitator at a church meeting to determine if someone has committed a sin you have to guide the congregation into what is Gods law. Is it a sin or not! No budget questions. No policy debate. Policy can be debated and change….Gods law can’t! As a “facilitator” at a church meeting your ONLY option is to guide the members of the meeting to the Truth. Wouldn’t you agree?

What would you do if the congregation does not agree with the Truth you have guided them to as the facilitator?

Mary

 

[Marymog]

You seem pre-occupied with the numbers.

I don't know anything about elders but the whole church seems pretty clear. And I would add for practicality, who is there at the time - provided to foul play.

For instance, my wife and I split between in person service and watching it on line. We may or may not be there for such a pivotal moment. My church recently voted on whether to allow a satellite congregation to branch off on their own. I was concerned about how the public discussion went. Still, we appealed to prayer. I believe the final vote was 78% in favor of what I thought was right. So, I don't think the numbers are anywhere near as much a concern in practice as you are presenting.

Hope this helps.

Thanks Wrangler.

I do not think“the whole church” is pretty clear. Does that mean the WHOLE church; all 100 members have to be present AND come to the same conclusion? If 1 person is missing the decision to treat a person as a pagan can’t go forward? All 100 are present and 20 disagree with the other 80 does majority rule? After all we are talking about a person committing a sin of which sends them to hell for eternity. That is a little bit more important than a satellite congregation branching off on their own.

Based on your “numbers not being a concern” scenario what if it is an 80-20 vote concerning Scriptures clear violation of what a SIN is? Why couldn’t the 20 start their own church and declare it not a sin? Who would be right in that scenario? The 80 members of the original church or the 20 members of the new break away church?

Curious Mary