WHAT DOES BINDING AND LOOSING MEAN IN MATT 18:18 ?

yeshuaslavejeff said:

It has nothing to do with dispensationalism as far as I know.

Click to expand...

Agreed

Dan Perez said:

Hi and I believe that it does and 2 Tim 2:15 proves that BINDING and LOOSING has nothing to do with the BODY of CHRIST and only to do with Israel , first in Jesus earthly ministry and finishes at the MILLENNIAL KINGDOM which many , call the NEAR VIEW and the FAR VIEW as John 20:23 and the verb tenses prove it !!

dan p

Click to expand...

The general dispensationalist answer regarding this topic is this

The 12 had special authority to decide for the believers on Earth, and heaven will back it up.

One prime example was the Jerusalem Council event recorded in Acts 15 and Galatians 2.

They decided that the Gentile believers were to be exempted from the Law of Moses but the Jewish believers are still to continue with it.
They decided that Paul and Barnabas had the sole guardianship of the Gentile believers while Peter, James and John have that for the Jewish believers.

Since they have agreed on that, and bound themselves to it, it is also decided by God in heaven, as scripture.

Dan Perez said:

Hi and I believe that it does and 2 Tim 2:15 proves that BINDING and LOOSING has nothing to do with the BODY of CHRIST and only to do with Israel , first in Jesus earthly ministry and finishes at the MILLENNIAL KINGDOM which many , call the NEAR VIEW and the FAR VIEW as John 20:23 and the verb tenses prove it !!

dan p

Click to expand...

Yep, turns out it does "have to do with Dispensationalism."

Might as well have asked "what does 2 Tim. 2:15-18 have to with Dispensationalism?"

Guojing said:

The general dispensationalist answer regarding this topic is this

The 12 had special authority to decide for the believers on Earth, and heaven will back it up.

One prime example was the Jerusalem Council event recorded in Acts 15 and Galatians 2.

They decided that the Gentile believers were to be exempted from the Law of Moses but the Jewish believers are still to continue with it.
They decided that Paul and Barnabas had the sole guardianship of the Gentile believers while Peter, James and John have that for the Jewish believers.

Since they have agreed on that, and bound themselves to it, it is also decided by God in heaven, as scripture.

Click to expand...

Yep again, turns out it does "have to do with Dispensationalism."

Might as well have asked "what does 2 Tim. 2:15-18 have to with Dispensationalism?"

nolidad said:

there is no "apostolic succession" as declared by the RCC. The apostles started appointing pastor-teachers, and then handed that down to local leaders. Titus was told by Paul to appoint elders in all the towns and Titus was not an apostle.

Once the original apostles died- the office of Apostle died as well. They were the foundation builders. The foundation has been laid. The apostles were handed the authority to instruct the church in doctrine. NOw we preserve, protect and pass on what was given. there is no new doctrine to be had.

Click to expand...

The RCC was excommunicated from the Catholic Church in 1054AD.

I await to see your historical analysis of this interesting piece of news! By 1054 the roman Catholic church held iron rule over nearly all of Europe and all other sects were miniscule and mostly underground.

nolidad said:

I await to see your historical analysis of this interesting piece of news! By 1054 the roman Catholic church held iron rule over nearly all of Europe and all other sects were miniscule and mostly underground.

Click to expand...

Are you familiar with the pentarchy? Of the 5 bishops of the pentarchy how many of them sided with Rome and how many sided against Rome and adopted the name Orthodox? That would be 4 of the 5 were against Rome and the only one in support of Rome was the bishop of Rome himself. Now the way I understand how a council works is the majority rules not the minority or a single representative. So can one member excommunicate all the others? No, can the majority of members excommunicate one member? Yes.

nolidad said:

I await to see your historical analysis of this interesting piece of news! By 1054 the roman Catholic church held iron rule over nearly all of Europe and all other sects were miniscule and mostly underground.

Click to expand...

Here’s my source. Notice it’s a secular organization with an impeccable reputation for only stating the facts. Being a secular organization they are not biased either towards or against either side of the argument.

https://www.britannica.com/eventSchism-of-1054


Pentarchy | Christianity

BNR32FAN said:

Here’s my source. Notice it’s a secular organization with an impeccable reputation for only stating the facts. Being a secular organization they are not biased either towards or against either side of the argument.

https://www.britannica.com/eventSchism-of-1054


Pentarchy | Christianity

Click to expand...

IOW the mutual excommunication between east and west! Both of these churches were steeped in heresy and apostasy by this date and both were responsible for grievous sins against the gospel and the people. The eastern orthodox churches were not the true church on earth. There big difference was on who was the pope! Not any big doctrinal issues.

BNR32FAN said:

Are you familiar with the pentarchy? Of the 5 bishops of the pentarchy how many of them sided with Rome and how many sided against Rome and adopted the name Orthodox? That would be 4 of the 5 were against Rome and the only one in support of Rome was the bishop of Rome himself. Now the way I understand how a council works is the majority rules not the minority or a single representative. So can one member excommunicate all the others? No, can the majority of members excommunicate one member? Yes.

Click to expand...

Except in the church when the Bible rules and not democracy!

And that pentarchy did not even constitute a quorum of bishops. It was designed as a kangaroo court. Not that I am on either side- for it was death excommunicating death!

nolidad said:

IOW the mutual excommunication between east and west! Both of these churches were steeped in heresy and apostasy by this date and both were responsible for grievous sins against the gospel and the people. The eastern orthodox churches were not the true church on earth. There big difference was on who was the pope! Not any big doctrinal issues.

Click to expand...

I’m curious what you mean by the Orthodox Church was responsible for sins against the people. I was unable to find any skeletons in the Orthodox closet so to speak. Can you please elaborate?

nolidad said:

IOW the mutual excommunication between east and west! Both of these churches were steeped in heresy and apostasy by this date and both were responsible for grievous sins against the gospel and the people. The eastern orthodox churches were not the true church on earth. There big difference was on who was the pope! Not any big doctrinal issues.

Click to expand...

If both churches were “steeped in heresy and apostasy” then all of Jesus’ churches had failed to do what He intended them to do and evil did prevail over His church. He said this would not happen.

BNR32FAN said:

If both churches were “steeped in heresy and apostasy” then all of Jesus’ churches had failed to do what He intended them to do and evil did prevail over His church. He said this would not happen.

Click to expand...

Perhaps this is better / to understand, if we realize that "His 'church' " is not a brick and mortar nor business of human origin, but rather EKKLESIA - called out ones, born again ones, set apart by the Father Himself for Himself, protected by Yahushua Jesus the Shepherd as His Word Clearly Says, not in the world's way , no, but His Way - "with the Mind of Christ" understood.... living in union daily with the Son and with the heavenly Father.... DOing as the Father Says Daily.

BNR32FAN said:

I’m curious what you mean by the Orthodox Church was responsible for sins against the people. I was unable to find any skeletons in the Orthodox closet so to speak. Can you please elaborate?

Click to expand...

Both were steeped in idolatry with statues and altered doctrine. By the time the Empire had split into two, the church of Rome (it was not formally the Roman Catholic Church yet) had become steeped in false doctrine.

The archtype of transubstantiation
Maryolatry
statues and prayer to dead saints
loss of salvation
to name a few.

The biggest reason for the split was over the supremacy of the pope if I remember correctly.

BNR32FAN said:

If both churches were “steeped in heresy and apostasy” then all of Jesus’ churches had failed to do what He intended them to do and evil did prevail over His church. He said this would not happen.

Click to expand...

Incorrect.

The church is not a denomination or organization, but a living breathing organism! And the gates of hell has not prevailed against it.

Their are believers in all denominations. Some believe in more heretical doctrines than others. all of us are heretics to a measure in the simple fact that none of us have perfect knowledge yet! I hope our heresies are out of ignorance and not willfulness.

Denominations rise and fall but the church will always live on, for it is a people and not an institution.

From a Biblical perspective, apostolic succession as an official function of the organized church is difficult to see. But even if it were true, the official decrees issued by one exercising the duties of the office would have to do so in agreement with the Scriptures. Given that we have the complete Bible and it's easy to obtain, it would seem the office would not be necessary anymore.

The main function of Christians is to go forth and make disciples. That should be the focus, which it sadly is not.

nolidad said:

Both were steeped in idolatry with statues and altered doctrine. By the time the Empire had split into two, the church of Rome (it was not formally the Roman Catholic Church yet) had become steeped in false doctrine.

The archtype of transubstantiation
Maryolatry
statues and prayer to dead saints
loss of salvation
to name a few.

The biggest reason for the split was over the supremacy of the pope if I remember correctly.

Click to expand...

Then I guess every church established by the apostles themselves had it wrong for the first 1600 years of Christianity? Even in the first 2 centuries the churches that had the closest teachings to the apostles fell to false doctrines? The men that Jesus hand picked failed to accomplish the task God had chosen for them to do? Jesus’ plan to establish a church to preach the gospel to all nations would teach a false gospel, that is until Martin Luther finally came along to set everyone straight? It’s truly amazing how all of these people who were taught by the apostles and those who learned from them who had devoted their lives to God’s assignment would accept these “false doctrines” without any evidence of resistance. That such a wide spread and complete falling away from the true gospel would be possible in such a huge number of devoted Christians in less than 150 years after the church was established.

BNR32FAN said:

Then I guess every church established by the apostles themselves had it wrong for the first 1600 years of Christianity? Even in the first 2 centuries the churches that had the closest teachings to the apostles fell to false doctrines? The men that Jesus hand picked failed to accomplish the task God had chosen for them to do? Jesus’ plan to establish a church to preach the gospel to all nations would teach a false gospel, that is until Martin Luther finally came along to set everyone straight? It’s truly amazing how all of these people who were taught by the apostles and those who learned from them who had devoted their lives to God’s assignment would accept these “false doctrines” without any evidence of resistance. That such a wide spread and complete falling away from the true gospel would be possible in such a huge number of devoted Christians in less than 150 years after the church was established.

Click to expand...

Apparently yes and actually in a sense they 2000 years later are getting at least some of it wrong.

If you doubt that the early church has some bad doctrine and/or bad behavior then you haven't read Revelation ch 2 and 3. And some of the NT epistles such as 2 Thessalonians.

thomas15 said:

Apparently yes and actually in a sense they 2000 years later are getting at least some of it wrong.

If you doubt that the early church has some bad doctrine and/or bad behavior then you haven't read Revelation ch 2 and 3. And some of the NT epistles such as 2 Thessalonians.

Click to expand...

There are no false doctrines in those churches. The only false doctrine that comes to mind would be from the Judaizers who were advocating the necessity of circumcision. Sure the 7 churches in Romans 2-3 had some faults but they were not doctrinal issues my friend.