Authority to Bind & Loose on earth

[Carlos Vigil]

From Matt. 16:18-19 ..."what ever you declare bound on earth shall be bound in heaven; what ever you declare loosed on earth shall be loosed in heaven"

Where and how do you see this AUTHORITY evident in the church from the beginning till now?

 

[ChrisB]

You cannot separate these two verses from the remainder of the chapter. Matthew 18 deals with the attitude the Church should have towards sinners - those who are repentant should be welcomed into the fold but the Church should disassociate itself from unrepentant sinners. Note that this does not give the Church as an organisation the right to judge people as it thinks fit. This must be always be done in accordance with God's will as expressed through Biblical authority.

The passage emphaticaly does not support the absolute right of a Church organisation to be judge and jury over every matter.

 

[BBAS 64]

From Matt. 16:18-19 ..."what ever you declare bound on earth shall be bound in heaven; what ever you declare loosed on earth shall be loosed in heaven"

Where and how do you see this AUTHORITY evident in the church from the beginning till now?

Good Day, Carlos

Edit** not relevant **

 

[InquisitorKind]

From Matt. 16:18-19 ..."what ever you declare bound on earth shall be bound in heaven; what ever you declare loosed on earth shall be loosed in heaven"

Where and how do you see this AUTHORITY evident in the church from the beginning till now?

Your question assumes that this aspect of the disciples' authority was passed on to their successors. I reject that assumption as false.

~Matt

 

[Carlos Vigil]

"The passage emphaticaly does not support the absolute right of a Church organisation to be judge and jury over every matter."[/QUOTE]



Dear ChrisB (Christian Brother?)

from that conclusion, doesn't 1Cor.6: 2,3,4. become
null and void ?
Besides that,
St. Paul wrote 1 Cor. LONG BEFORE THERE WAS A BIBLE.

 

[CryptoKnight]

From Matt. 16:18-19 ..."what ever you declare bound on earth shall be bound in heaven; what ever you declare loosed on earth shall be loosed in heaven"

Where and how do you see this AUTHORITY evident in the church from the beginning till now?

This is an interesting quote, and it is the very quote that gave me cause to seek out various literal translations of the Bible. Here's what I found ( Young's Literal Translation courtesy of www.crosswalk.com ...the ULTIMATE online Bible study for me!)

16:19 and I will give to thee the keys of the reign of the heavens, and whatever thou mayest bind upon the earth shall be having been bound in the heavens, and whatever thou mayest loose upon the earth shall be having been loosed in the heavens.' (emphasis added by Crypto)To me this puts a twist on it. Instead of the implied "Yeah, you do something on Earth, and it'll hold up in Heaven" it reads "In order for you to succeed at binding/loosing on Earth, it will have had to have come from the heavens". Big difference.

Therefore, I have no problem with the concept of "Apostolic succession" many churches claim (including my own Methodist), but I also do not believe that the work of the Spirit is limited to inheritance from the Apostles.

It also puts the Authority where it belongs...not with the church, but with the Church (i.e. in Heaven)

 

[Carlos Vigil]

Your question assumes that this aspect of the disciples' authority was passed on to their successors. I reject that assumption as false.

~Matt

"He who rejects you rejects ME..."

Do you presume that I assume?
I do not assume...I Believe.

If you cannot accept apostolic Authority beyond the original Apostles ,
then how do you accept
"The AUTHORITY that declared THE HOLY TRINITY in the 4th century and
"The AUTHORITY that declared THE HOLY BIBLE in the 4th century?

if there was no such AUTHORITY acting in the 4th century, then
The TRINITY is false, and
the HOLY BIBLE is false.

 

[Lotar]

"He who rejects you rejects ME..."
Do you presume that I assume?
I do not assume...I Believe.

If you cannot accept apostolic Authority beyond the original Apostles ,
then how do you accept
"The AUTHORITY that declared THE HOLY TRINITY in the 4th century and
"The AUTHORITY that declared THE HOLY BIBLE in the 4th century?

if there was no such AUTHORITY acting in the 4th century, then
The TRINITY is false, and
the HOLY BIBLE is false.

You might want to check the rules about debating.

The authority of the councils comes from the Church in conjunction with scripture. Apostolic succession was an invention, first to assert authority over the heretics and later to solidify their power.

 

[Carlos Vigil]

It also puts the Authority where it belongs...not with the church, but with the Church (i.e. in Heaven)[/QUOTE]


In verse :18...do you believe that JESUS IS BUILDING ONE CHURCH?
as He says;...."I will build MY Church?....... and do you believe that
"MY CHURCH" reaches across (two continents), Heaven and Earth?

and do you believe that HE has never removed the Authority?
..or do you believe that HE did remove the Authority?
if he did remove it, WHEN?

 

[SpiritPsalmist]

*MOD HAT ON*

THIS IS THE PROTESTANT/REFORMED/EVANGELICAL FORUM. THERE IS TO BE NO DEBATING FROM NON-PROTESTANT POSTERS.

 

[InquisitorKind]

"He who rejects you rejects ME..."

Do you presume that I assume?
I do not assume...I Believe.

It appears you believe without evidence. You should prove your assumption before basing your following argument off of it.

If you cannot accept apostolic Authority beyond the original Apostles ,
then how do you accept
"The AUTHORITY that declared THE HOLY TRINITY in the 4th century and
"The AUTHORITY that declared THE HOLY BIBLE in the 4th century?

You're still assuming that the said authority was passed on. I still reject that assertion as false.

if there was no such AUTHORITY acting in the 4th century, then
The TRINITY is false, and
the HOLY BIBLE is false.

Which authority told Athanasius the correct New Testament canon (Festal Letters 39:9)? Why would the absence of the Roman Catholic authority cause the "TRINITY" to be "false"? The fathers who referenced the Scriptures as solely sufficient for proving the Trinity seemed to believe that you didn't need an infallible church proclaiming what the Trinity was in order to know its truthfulness. Athanasius, a father you claim as a member of your denomination, wouldn't have argued like you do:

"Vainly then do they run about with the pretext that they have demanded Councils for the faith's sake; for divine Scripture is sufficient above all things; but if a Council be needed on the point, there are the proceedings of the Fathers, for the Nicene Bishops did not neglect this matter, but stated the doctrines so exactly, that persons reading their words honestly, cannot but be reminded by them of the religion towards Christ announced in divine Scripture" (De Synodis, 6).

~Matt

 

[theseed]

You're still assuming that the said authority was passed on. I still reject that assertion as false.

I agree, I don't see any evidence that said authority was passed on, but to the contrary (1 Cor. 3).

 

[Carlos Vigil]

*MOD HAT ON*

THIS IS THE PROTESTANT/REFORMED/EVANGELICAL FORUM. THERE IS TO BE NO DEBATING FROM NON-PROTESTANT POSTERS.

o-kay!...OKAY!
I'll go find the rules.
I did not want to start an argument, I only want to learn what you
DO BELIEVE concerning Apostolic Authority, not what you
DON'T believe.
I apologize if I offended any one.
Carlos

 

[tigersnare]

if there was no such AUTHORITY acting in the 4th century, then
The TRINITY is false, and
the HOLY BIBLE is false.

Right so before the 4th century there was no trinity, only because the Catholic Church in Rome recognized it as truth then, is it true now.

The one truth that was there in the beginning of the beginning would be false if the Church didn't recognize it?.....yeah that seems logical

Let me give you the benifit of the doubt and take it another direction

You base you entire beliefs and Christianity as a whole on rather or not Apostolic Succession is a reality as defined by your Church, and interpreted by your Church......so the bible and trinity rise and fall by your Church's word. EEEEKKKKK

 

[Carlos Vigil]

Your question assumes that this aspect of the disciples' authority was passed on to their successors. I reject that assumption as false.

~Matt

Hi, I'm back (on probation). my question is;
(but first,I promise you I will not debate.... I will only post fellowship posts.
I will only ask questions regarding protestant doctrines....if you suspect I am debating, I authorize you to reach across the web and slap my mouth!)

My question is; ( from your quote) ( AHEM!)
If Apostolic Authority was NOT passed on to their successors, then what was St. Paut doing to -with Timothy in
2 Tim. 2:2 ?... I'll shut up and listen. (I mean, read)

For the Love of Truth,Carlos

 

[Lotar]

Hi, I'm back (on probation). my question is;
(but first,I promise you I will not debate.... I will only post fellowship posts.
I will only ask questions regarding protestant doctrines....if you suspect I am debating, I authorize you to reach across the web and slap my mouth!)

My question is; ( from your quote) ( AHEM!)
If Apostolic Authority was NOT passed on to their successors, then what was St. Paut doing to -with Timothy in
1 Tim. 2:2 ?... I'll shut up and listen. (I mean, read)

For the Love of Truth,Carlos

1 Timothy 2:2
for kings and all who are in authority, so that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity.

 

[ChrisB]

from that conclusion, doesn't 1Cor.6: 2,3,4. become
null and void ?

Not at all - 1 Corinthians 2-4 refers to the resolution of disputes among Christians over earthly matters. It emphasises how relatively unimportant such things are when compared with the judgement to come.

 

[InquisitorKind]

If Apostolic Authority was NOT passed on to their successors, then what was St. Paut doing to -with Timothy in
1 Tim. 2:2 ?...

Did you mean 2 Timothy 2:2? 1 Timothy 2:2 is a prayer for rulers so that people may lead peaceful and godly lives. If you meant the former, why would apostolic succession be the reasonable or necessary interpretation of the passage?

2 Timothy 2:

2 The things which you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses, entrust these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.

I'll shut up and listen.

Rather, please explain your position more. Where do you see a succession of apostolic authority in 2 Timothy 2:2? Which element(s) in this passage is indicative of apostolic authority being passed on (Timothy entrusting, the quality of the men being passed on the teachings, etc.)?

~Matt

 

[A. believer]

Did you mean 2 Timothy 2:2? 1 Timothy 2:2 is a prayer for rulers so that people may lead peaceful and godly lives. If you meant the former, why would apostolic succession be the reasonable or necessary interpretation of the passage?

2 Timothy 2:

2 The things which you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses, entrust these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.


Rather, please explain your position more. Where do you see a succession of apostolic authority in 2 Timothy 2:2? Which element(s) in this passage is indicative of apostolic authority being passed on (Timothy entrusting, the quality of the men being passed on the teachings, etc.)?

~Matt

Hi Matt,

I think that if the original poster answers your question, he'll be cited again for debating. Perhaps you could invite him to take the discussion to another forum such as CARM or NTRMin.

 

[InquisitorKind]

Hi Matt,

I think that if the original poster answers your question, he'll be cited again for debating. Perhaps you could invite him to take the discussion to another forum such as CARM or NTRMin.

Hi A. believer,

I would have to agree with this. I'll invite Carlos Vigil to join ezboard and ask him where he would like to go to continue our discussion. I'll also ask him if he wants to do it through PM instead.

Thanks for your observation.

I hope you've been doing well!

~Matt