Also, old Andy Neckar appears to be a rather interesting fellow, but you might want to quote someone with a lttle more Biblical experience then: "My background in religious studies is a little over five years (1990-1996) of home study of the KJV Bible,( as much 20-30 hours a week) along with reading many Christian Newsletters and pamphlets." (from CVN's website).
Mat 18:15 is often abused by those who are pushing for ecumenical fellowship and union. They claim that this verse forbids men to expose the error of Christian leaders publicly unless one has first gone to that man and dealt with him privately. This is a misuse of the passage. Matthew 18 gives instructions for dealing with personal problems between Christians. It is not addressing how to deal with public teachings and actions by Christian leaders. The Apostle Paul, in the Pastoral Epistles, mentioned the names of compromisers and false teachers TEN times. Those letters obviously were not intended merely for Timothy and Titus. They were a part of the divine record and were intended for circulation to every preacher and church as a matter of public public record. Paul's motive was not slandering those men. He was not malicious. His motive was protecting godly preachers and sound churches.
Further, Matthew 18 is in the context of church discipline. Such can only be adhered to by members of one's own church. Those outside of their own assembly are not under its authoity and discipline and cannot, therefore, can not be dealt with after the manner of Matthew 18:15-17.
To warn of the error and compromise of men who are ministering publicly is Scriptural. If they are teaching error publicly, they should be exposed publicly.
Your dismissal of Neckar's commentary is essentially a second fallacial error known as Ignoratio Elenchi, which translated out of the Latin becomes "ignorance of refutation", and is a fallacy of ignorance where the ignorance involved is either ignorance of the conclusion to be refuted - even deliberately ignoring it - or ignorance of what constitutes a refutation, so that the attempt misses the mark.
[I]t is not what the man of science believes that distinguishes him, but how and why he believes it. His beliefs are tentative, not dogmatic; they are based on evidence, not on authority or intuition. - Bertrand RusselRebut Neckar on the merits of his argument (or lack thereof), not ad Hominem according to a perceived lack of expertise. Spiritual maturity and physical maturity are not congruent. I know many middle-aged individuals who can act like children. And in the converse I can cite Paul's exhortation of Timothy "let no one despise your youth" (1 Tim. 4:12), which was given some fifteen years after he joined Paul.
From the account in Acts and the allusions in the Pauline letters, Timothy seems to have been one of the most constant companions of the Apostle Paul. The first reference to Timothy is found in Acts 16:1-3 at the beginning of Paul's second missionary journey when he revisited Derbe and Lystra in Lycaonia. It seems probable that Paul had met Timothy earlier during his visit to this area on his first missionary journey (Acts 14). This young man made a good impression upon Paul and had a good reputation in Lystra and Iconium (16:2), suggesting that he was a resident of Lystra, rather than Derbe. Later Paul suggests that certain prophetic utterances confirmed Timothy's appointment (I Tim. 1:18; cf. 4:14). Concerning his parentage it is recorded that his father was a Greek and his mother a devout Christian Jewess (Acts 16:1) whose name was Eunice, and his grandmother was named Lois (2 Tim. 1:5), both having faithfully instructed their offspring (plural) in the Scriptures. Jewish boys formally began studying the scriptures when they reach five years of age. This is significant because from a Jewish perspective one's father can never be known with certitude, but one's mother is beyond doubt. And so, Timothy was considered to be a Jew (despite a pagan Greek father) and had been taught the Scriptures beginning at this age (cf Mar 9:21). Clearly, Tim 3:15 indicates that the Scriptures alone are sufficient to provide the necessary wisdom that leads to salvation through faith in Christ. Neither formal instruction, nor lettered tutors are implied, nor can be inferred.
Two points should necessarily be addressed at this time respecting II Tim 3:15, first, the apostle can ONLY be referring to scriptures of the Old Testament, as they would've been the only scriptures which Timothy had known from childhood (as the NT hadn't been written yet), and secondly, the apostle does not say that the scriptures were in and of themselves sufficient to make Timothy wise unto salvation (the Scriptures was not magical), but only that with faith that is in Christ Jesus were they sufficient for that end; how much more efficacious (and sufficient) must the scriptures be now with Old and New Testament together, when both testaments are accompanied with a faith that is in Jesus Christ, for that end? What faith in Jesus Christ could a Jew possibly have? What is it that saved the OT Jews in the first place? It is their faith in God's promise of a Messiah. And who is the Messiah? Of course that the Messiah was Jesus Christ was revealed by the time of Paul's ministry, but the Jews knew that a Messiah was coming (and it is this faith that saved them prior to Christ's crucifixion). When John the Baptist said, "Behold the Lamb of God" the Jews present knew exactly what he was talking about. And Jesus' discourse with Nicodemus in Jno 3 is emphatic that Nicodemus is utterly without excuse.
Furthermore, scriptures are a perfect rule (the writers of them were inspired, and consequently their writings are infallible), i.e. measure or guide (not as a law), and that they are a plain rule; otherwise they would be no rule at all, of no more use to direct our faith and practice than a sun-dial in a dark room is to tell us the hour of the day. A rule that is not plain, whatever it may be in itself, is of no use to us till it is made plain.
Acts 17:10-14 records Paul leaving Timothy at Berea with Silas (~ c. 51 A.D.), about a year after picking him up in Lystra, shouldering an incredible responsibility. At the time of Paul's first Pastoral Epistle, Timothy was at Ephesus, a city given over largely to the worship of a heathen goddess, Diana (also called Artemis), the love-goddess of the Greek world. It was Timothy's task to minister to the church that was opposing the blind idolatry, and pagan superstition of this darkened, heathen city -- a formidable task indeed. How formidible of a task was it? Well lets put it this way, in Revelation it is imputed to the Church at Ephasus that it would lose its candlestick. Now just what Church is there today? Oh, myh bad, there ISN'T one. But there is one in Corinth, and all the other Churches addressed in Revelations. That's how formidable of a task that young Timothy was give. Oh, sure you can argue that when you send a boy to do a man's job look what happens. Sure, you could argue that...
Neither physical (or spiritual) age, nor degree of formal training are qualitative benchmarks in ascertaining credibility concerning matters of doctrine. There's only one way to guage that: that which the Bereans did in Acts 17:11 (search the scripures to see if the things being taught are indeed true).