Matthew 16 & 18 In Brief

From trekearth with saturation added

I present brief research and provide a short presentation motivated by a recent sermon I heard at Northview Community Church.

Matthew 18: 15-20

English Standard Version

“If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. 16 But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. 17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. 18 Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. 19 Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. 20 For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them.”

Matthew 16:19

English Standard Version 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed[a] in heaven.”

Footnotes: Matthew 16:19 Or shall have been bound… shall have been loosed

In basic agreement with the Northview sermon:

In regard to  Matthew 18: 19: From the Pastor Courson commentary

'Jesus is saying. "Church it's your job to bind sin. Sin is bound in heaven. Therefore you have authority to bind it on earth. Righteousness and holiness, mercy and forgiveness are released in heaven. Therefore you have been given authority to release them on earth." Binding and loosing speak of the authority the Church has in dealing with matters where sin is flagrantly, contently and obnoxiously practiced.' (146). The text also notes that church discipline is presented in like-manner in 1 Corinthians 5. Here is the story of the man in the Church delivered to Satan for discipline, because of sinful lifestyle. Following repentance, this is to lead to forgiveness and restoration. (146).

Notice, there is a distinct and definitive theological difference between, sin lifestyle as is being described in these texts, and the concept of each an every Christian being sinful or a sinner by nature (Romans, Hebrews). Until the resurrection and full human restoration (1 Corinthians 15, Revelation 21-22), those in Jesus Christ will be minimally tainted by sin. But this should be distinctly different than living a sinful, non-Biblical lifestyle. Even though the atonement and resurrection covers all in Christ, each believer is post-mortem, ultimately judged for works rendered in Christ (2 Corinthians 5, also Ephesians 2, James).

Pastor Courson in Matthew 16: 19, describes how the Church while binding sin, should be in harmony with heaven. (God, my add) (129). In regard to Peter, what I have heard Pastor Courson discuss online, is in basic agreement with William Barclay:

'There is no reason to doubt that Jesus gave to Peter a leading place, but this is the leading place expressed in terms of the church as an institution.' (65). And as the book of Acts forward, demonstrated, Peter was a key Apostle, although the Apostle Paul wrote more New Testament texts. Peter is key leader and Apostle, but not necessarily the preeminent leader and Apostle.

Based on the Northview sermon, Courson sermons and the texts referenced; I reason that those within the Church that flee church discipline, are risking rejecting the divinely sanctioned discipline of the Church.

Yes, church discipline can be in error and in the wrong spirit, but church discipline based in reasonable, contextual exegesis, guided by the Holy Spirit, to bind sinful, non-biblical, lifestyle, should be obeyed.

BARCLAY, WILLIAM (1966)(1975) Introduction to the First Three Gospel, Westminster Press, Philadelphia.

COURSON, JON (2005) Application Commentary, Thomas Nelson, Nashville.

Doppelganger & Division

trekearth

Doppelganger & Division

PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London

June 9

I stated:

Composition Fallacy/The Fallacy of Division

'The fallacy of composition occurs when it is claimed that what is true for individual members of a class is also true for the class considered as a unit.' (62). 'It is fallacious to suppose that what is true of the parts must also be true of the new entity they collectively make up.' (62). 'This must be a good orchestra because each of its members is a talented musician.' (62).
---

Division according to Pirie is:

'The doppelganger of the fallacy of composition is that of division. When we attribute to the individuals in a group something which is only true of the group as a unit, we fall into the fallacy of division.' (85).

'Both of these form a fallacy of equivocation.' (85). This occurs because of the ambiguity of collective nouns. (85). 'The gospels are four in number. St. Mark's is a gospel, so St. Mark's is four in number.' (85).

Something should not be attributed to an individual, only because it is often attributed to a group.

Chucky is German, Germany has won four World Cups and three Euros in football; therefore Chucky is very good at football.

There is a danger of 'typecasting people according to the groups from which they emanate.' (86).

Leroy is African American and is therefore a fast sprinter.

From the June 9 article:

Blackburn once again helpfully explains the converse fallacy, as he did with accident fallacy and its converse version, that I hopefully explained well in two articles. The fallacy of division is therefore stating: Corporate to individual C t I (my add):  'If something is true of a group, then it is also true of individuals belonging to it.' (71).

BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press. 

PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London

June 9 article

A confusing proposition?

Vancouver: Instagram

LANGER, SUSANNE K (1953)(1967) An Introduction to Symbolic Logic, Dover Publications, New York.

On page 90, under the header:

'Propositional Forms.'

Quote

'Every proposition in a formal context is either true or false. We may not know which it is; but we may rest assured that it is one or the other.

An expression like:

a fm b (90).

Here, a is the fellowman of b or a is in fellowship with b. 'This is true with one set of values and false with another...' (90).

r (Russ) is in fellowship with c (Chucky, my friend since 1989).

r fm c. This is true.

r (Russ) is in fellowship with c (Chucky, the murderous doll).

r fm c. This is false.

The author further explains that:

The expression "a fm b"...is neither true nor false. (90). It is not a proposition at all. 'It is only the empty form of a proposition.' (90). It has to be filled in with particular elements to be an actual proposition. (90).

In my above examples, I filled in with elements. I defined them.

Examples of propositions from my PhD, Wales.

God reveals himself in the Bible

The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are the same God

God is close to all persons

God is beyond his creation

God is in all things

I did not merely present, for example:

a reveals himself in b. By the text standards, that would not be a proposition.

Each question was followed by AS A NC D DS (Agree Strongly, Agree, Not Certain, Disagree, Disagree Strongly).

It is only when all its terms are fixed, it requires a truth value. It then becomes propositional, a proposition. (91).

If no values are assigned to terms, then it is not a proposition. It is an expression. (90).

Langer admits, 'The name is not very fortunate', as in these expressions are called 'propositional forms' even though they are not propositions! (91). This may add to the confusion for those trying to learn symbolic logic.

This type of communication would be at times technical, but appealing to the use of a textbook in the construction of propositions would be reasonable.

Ironic that this presentation was hung on the wall at the pub by our table, where we had our post-Bible study, theology talk. But strangely, almost everyone at the table took a photo.

Matthew 6:9-13

New American Standard Bible (NASB) 9 “Pray, then, in this way: ‘Our Father who is in heaven, Hallowed be Your name. 10 ‘Your kingdom come. Your will be done, On earth as it is in heaven. 11 ‘Give us this day [a]our daily bread. 12 ‘And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors. 13 ‘And do not lead us into temptation, but deliver us from [b]evil. [c][For Yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. Amen.’]

Footnotes:

a Matthew 6:11 Or our bread for tomorrow
b Matthew 6:13 Or the evil one
c Matthew 6:13 This clause not found in early mss

Sweeping generalizations

New Westminster Quay

New West Minster Quay

PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.

'Dicto simpliciter is the fallacy of sweeping generalization.' (83).

'All atheists are immoral.'

Does one know the ethical and moral views of each and every atheist?

'Religion is the cause of the evils of the world.'

Which religion? They are not all the same in worldview. Is not some evil caused from non-religious sources?

Pirie:

To insist that the generalization must apply to each and every case, regardless of individual differences, is to commit the fallacy of  Dicto simpliciter.  (83).

He further that many of our statements are not universals and that this because at times there are accidental features which makes something an exception. (83).

About Education

Definition

'Dicto Simpliciter is a fallacy in which a general rule or observation is treated as universally true regardless of the circumstances or the individuals concerned. Also known as the fallacy of sweeping generalization, unqualified generalization, a dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundum quid, and fallacy of the accident (fallacia accidentis).'

This site then quotes Blackburn from 2016, a new version of the text I use:

'A dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundum quid ("from the statement unqualified to the statement qualified") is the fallacy of arguing from a general to a particular case without recognizing qualifying factors: "If some snakes are harmless, then some snakes in this bag are harmless" (The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, 2016).'

This is another form of accident fallacy:

Composition fallacy June 9, 2016

Anecdote December 16, 2015

Accident fallacy November 29, 2015

Accident fallacy November 7, 2015