The 17th commandment of Mosaic Law is to not embarrass others
Where in scripture?
Leviticus 19:17
Though you may have to reprove your fellow man, do not incur sin because of him.
In a previous post, we discussed how we are obligated to rebuke sinners, but we must not embarrass them in the process.
What if they don’t listen?
According to Jewish tradition, if a person who has been rebuked does not heed the admonition the first time, he should be continued to be rebuked as many times as necessary until he corrects his ways. Tradition says, “Even a hundred times.”
For Christians, the New Testament describes the steps that are to be taken when a rebuked sinner does not listen.
Matthew 18:15-17
If your brother sins (against you), go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have won over your brother. If he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, so that 'every fact may be established on the testimony of two or three witnesses.' If he refuses to listen to them, tell the church. If he refuses to listen even to the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector.
Therefore, scripture tells us that if we rebuke a sinner, and he refuses to listen, we should tell the church and let the church decide.
Let’s take an example and see how it works.
Suppose that a person actively supports gay marriage. Another person feels that gay marriage isn’t scriptural and rebukes the first person. The first person doesn’t listen so scripture tells us that they should tell the church and let the church decide.
….but which church?
For the sake of simplicity, let’s assume that both individuals are sola scriptura-believing Lutherans. Let’s also assume that the first person is a member of Evangelical Lutheran Church in America and the second person is a member of the Missouri Synod of the Lutheran Church.
The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America condones same-sex marriage. The Missouri Synod believes that “homosexual behavior is prohibited in the Old and New Testaments as contrary to the Creator’s design.”
The two people have a conundrum. Scripture is clear that Christ intended to found only one Christian church. However, we have about 30,000 protestant denominations.
The commonly-held belief that there is a single invisible universal Christian church is a myth. The fact that there isn’t a single Christian church is a myth is clearly demonstrated by the above example concerning same –sex marriage. This isn’t just a minor issue. It involves natural law, how scripture is interpreted (generally), and the nature of marriage.
Perhaps the two individuals could resolve their dispute by taking it to the church founded by Jesus Christ himself.
Matthew 16:18
And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, 13 and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.
As we know from Scripture, Paul received his authority from Peter and then proceeded to establish congregations throughout the Roman Empire.
For example, he established a church in Corinth. We know from scripture that there was some dissention within the Corinthian church (such as individuals placing too much value on speaking in tongues).
If you were a member of the church in Corinth, and Paul rebuked you because you valued speaking in tongues above all else, what would you do? Would you leave the church and start up a new church that emphasizes speaking in tongues? Or would you accept Paul’s apostolic authority. I have posed this question to many people (Catholic and protestant), and I have never heard anyone voice an opinion that it would be appropriate for anyone to split off from a church that Paul founded. They are also uncertain as to whether a person who split off from Paul’s church would even be considered a Christian.
I then ask whether it would be appropriate to split off from the Corinthian church once Paul died. Again, I have never heard anyone say that it would be appropriate.
I then ask whether it would be appropriate to split off from the Corinthian church after the priest that Paul appointed to lead it died. Once again, I have never heard anyone say that it would be appropriate.
I then ask whether it would be appropriate to split off from the church after the successor priest (appointed by the bishop, who was appointed by Paul, who in turn received his authority from Peter) died. At this point protestants usually don’t answer because they know where the line of questioning is going.
Would it be appropriate to split off from the church founded by Jesus Christ a generation later, or the generation after that? How about 200 years later? Or 1,000 years after that? Every Catholic and Orthodox priest of every church in the world (including the one in Corinth) was ordained by a bishop, who was appointed by a bishop, who was appointed by a bishop, who was appointed by a bishop, etc. – who was appointed by one of the 12 apostles.
Why are there now more than 30,000 protestant denominations when scripture is clear that Jesus established a single church and intended for there to be on single holy catholic and apostolic (apostolic succession) church?
No comments:
Post a Comment