DA Carson on Abusing Matthew 18
- Thread starter lynnie
- Start date
- Status
discipulo
Puritan Board Junior
Carson is such a solid consistent biblical scholar. Does anyone know how far ior close does he stand from a confessional position?
I always hoped that "folks he hangs out with" like Beale or Keller (eventually Moo) would influence him on that.
Douglas Moo used to describe himself as somehow a conservative modified Lutheran, also not sure if he susbcribes a Confession and stands for Confessional Subscription.
Please correct me, but Carson is also credo-baptist right?
Appreciate if you clarify me or correct me on these. Didn't think it was worth to start a thread on this,
and btw thank you Lynnie for posting this, it is imporant to remember,
Often the 9th Com. or Mat 18 are used to throw rocks to one another in the blogosphere, this after folks have taken clear doctrinal stands and should therefore accept being criticized accordingly.
Bill The Baptist
Puritan Board Graduate
Osage Bluestem
Puritan Board Junior
Can we talk about Matthew 18 for a minute?
"Tell it to the Church"
Christ hadn't instituted the church yet at this time. I wonder if this is to mean what we modern people automatically think it means witha 2000 year history of the church or is it just that the same Greek word was used here and may mean something else entirely as the church as we know it wasn't even instituted yet?
"Tell it to the Church"
Christ hadn't instituted the church yet at this time. I wonder if this is to mean what we modern people automatically think it means witha 2000 year history of the church or is it just that the same Greek word was used here and may mean something else entirely as the church as we know it wasn't even instituted yet?
Josh, I don't appreciate you contacting me publicly over my questioning of you about whether or not you contacted Dr. Carson personally before posting a public criticism of him. I did contact you personally, because I addressed you at the beginning; but I would like to be contacted not only personally but privately if you have something against me. And furthermore, I think you should have your people talk to my people first to set up a pre-meeting.
Josh, I 'm absolutely horrified that you're still carrying on this way. You know perfectly well that a telegram, a herald, or a handwritten note delivered by pony express are the only adequate means for contacting me about anything you may have an issue with in my contacting of you over your questioning of how I contacted you on the issue of whether you had contacted Dr. Carson personally before posting a public criticism of him. Please cease immediately from these egregious violations of pre-communication etiquette.
ADMINISTRATORS!
Josh is posting public complaints about my behaviour but he hasn't contacted me privately first. Please change his avatar to the below image and revoke his editing priviliges until he sees the light and contacts my attorneys to set up a meeting where he can discuss with them the terms of a private apology to me for his failure to conduct this controversy with due discretion.
--- Edit ---
I'm sorry, Josh. After further review of my poor treatment of you, I am humbly asking your apologies, o Great Friend. I am not sure what came over me, but I repent for having been such a Bat toward you. I am leaving all of my remarks public so that the people here may see my true criminal character.
Josh is posting public complaints about my behaviour but he hasn't contacted me privately first. Please change his avatar to the below image and revoke his editing priviliges until he sees the light and contacts my attorneys to set up a meeting where he can discuss with them the terms of a private apology to me for his failure to conduct this controversy with due discretion.
--- Edit ---
I'm sorry, Josh. After further review of my poor treatment of you, I am humbly asking your apologies, o Great Friend. I am not sure what came over me, but I repent for having been such a Bat toward you. I am leaving all of my remarks public so that the people here may see my true criminal character.
Rom
Puritan Board Junior
Disclaimer: I am no language scholar!
But look up how the Septuagint translates qahal in the OT (Hebrew), to Greek. It usually uses the word ekklesia, which is "church" in Matthew 18.
But look up how the Septuagint translates qahal in the OT (Hebrew), to Greek. It usually uses the word ekklesia, which is "church" in Matthew 18.
Notthemama1984
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
That is Dispensational all the way.
Marrow Man
Drunk with Powder
Or the concept of "the church" has a far deeper history and richer meaning that simply limiting it to the last 2000 years that the artificial bifurcation of OT and NT (a very recent development in the history of the church) has taught us to do. For example, when Stephen references the assembly of Israel in Acts 7:38, he calls it the ekklesia -- the same word used by Jesus in Matthew 16 and 18 (the only place "church" appears in the gospels).
The thread, however, deals with Carson's view of the way the Matthew 18 passage is often abused. If you wish to discuss ecclesiology, I would suggest starting a thread in that forum.
Notthemama1984
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
David,
I would also add that your confession states:
Thus the LBCF sees that the "church" was instituted way before Christ came on the scene.
I would also add that your confession states:
Thus the LBCF sees that the "church" was instituted way before Christ came on the scene.
discipulo
Puritan Board Junior
Yes, I agree with Boliver. The Institutional Church starts with Abrahaam and the Sacrament of Circumcision,
check that in Acts 7:38 Luke uses the word Ekklesia for the Church under Moses.
This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness.
Marrow Man
Drunk with Powder
I'm offended that the Bat spelled behavior with a "u."
discipulo
Puritan Board Junior
Sorry, Pastor Phillips, for the redundance and the off topic dialogue. Yet, quite a discreet and relevant one, I may add, compared to other exchanges happening on this thread, wouldn't you say?
Osage Bluestem
Puritan Board Junior
Thanks. Just a thought.
---------- Post added at 10:29 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:26 AM ----------
Quick question, I hope it's on topic. Given that the same word was used in acts to speak of the people of Israel in their worship wouldn't that lead one to believe that Christ was talking about the assembly of Isarel in the synagogue of that time in Matthew 18 since he hadn't instituted the church yet?
I'm just saying what comes to my mind given the data at hand.
Marrow Man
Drunk with Powder
No problem at all. I think three of us were posting simultaneously.
Marrow Man
Drunk with Powder
No. From Matthew 16, the church is founded on Christ and it's confession of Him. I don't think you would find that in average synagogue at the time. And synagogue is actually a different Greek word from ekklesia.
Bill The Baptist
Puritan Board Graduate
One of the chief differences between Dispensational theology and Covenant theology is that Dispensationalism views Israel and the church as two separate entities, while Covenant theology sees the church as a continuation of Israel and thus there has always been only one "church".
Osage Bluestem
Puritan Board Junior
I see. However, I'm not talking about the synagogue as a building but the assembly of people within it. Since the word ecclesia is used to describe Moses and company then that leads me to believe that Jesus would understand it in that context at that time as he hadn't set up the church ordinances and commissions yet based on his provided atonement.
---------- Post added at 10:41 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:36 AM ----------
Well, I'm not attempting to discuss either of those concepts. I'm just curious about the meaning of the text based on the information at hand.
Notthemama1984
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
In reality you are. You are stating that church had not been instituted yet, but the LBCF and others on this board are saying that the church has always been. Your statements are dispensational, and the others are covenantal.
Marrow Man
Drunk with Powder
But even in the context of that statement about the church Jesus specifically mentions His death, burial, and resurrection. The Greek word ekklesia had a specific meaning in the NT. It originally referred to a political assembly (perhaps something akin to a town hall meeting) and meant something along the lines of "those called out." That is different from synagogue.
Osage Bluestem
Puritan Board Junior
So an authoritative assembly which at that time would have been the sanhedrin if one wasn't dealing with their local synagogue congregation. Interesting. Do you think that Jesus may have been talking about the sanhedrin?
---------- Post added at 12:40 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:30 PM ----------
No I'm not. It's common sense that all of the elect are part of the body of Christ because there is salvation only thorugh Christ, so in regards to the church being the body of Christ the confession is correct. No one is debating that so stop trying to nit pick and find something "unconfessional" to complain about.
It is also common sense that the chuch as it is was instituted by Jesus Christ who gave us the ordinances, who is our savior and through whom we approach God and observe our sabbath on Sunday the day of his resurrection did not exist as it does in that form until he instituted it and his followers worked to grow it. That is why we have a specific name "christian" and a specific history that begins with a begining in Christ.
So, the point of my question isn't to talk about different systematic theologies but to understand what the text means in regards to the man who spoke the words at the time. "tell it to the church" is indeed an interesting statement in light of the fact that the church as history understands it had not began so I thought it was a relevant question. Nevermind. I'll not ask another.
Marrow Man
Drunk with Powder
No. He was talking about the church. He names such things as confession of Christ (in Matthew 16) and the preaching of the gospel and apostolic leadership (in Matthew 18).
Marrow Man
Drunk with Powder
David, I really think you should start a different thread and explore the ecclesiology issue. Your question is not (in my opinion) a bad one. I think Boliver's caution is a good one (think through these issues covenantally and guard against Dispensational thinking -- it has a way of subtly burrowing its way in because of its prevalence in evangelical culture). But simply asking the question about the timing and insitution of the church in Matthew 16 and 18 is not off base. I think that question might be getting buried in this thread because it's a bit off topic, so everyone is not going to see it.
Osage Bluestem
Puritan Board Junior
Thanks.
I would post a new thread on a topic like this but honestly I just don't want to endure it. I feel like doing something else for awhile.
Bill The Baptist
Puritan Board Graduate
Osage Bluestem
Puritan Board Junior
Or jumping into a tank of jellyfish. Or walking barefoot through a field of thorns. Or letting loose a jar of chiggers in my underwear drawer.
Last edited:
- Status
