The Rule of faith and practice is not scripture "alone"

[jas3]

But in 1 Cor 14 we see the other judging and when all speak the secrets of men are judged as well in the spirit. So among the body there is the entire body ministering and dealing with issues, not just a one man pastor or priest over all.

This is referring to the judgment of a prophecy, not the case of a notorious sinner. Same for the "secrets of men," Paul writes that an unbeliever will be convicted if his secrets are revealed through prophecy, not a notorious sinner.

But, any believer and in the case with Paul as an apostle could hand someone over to Satan and pray with the body that this be done also.

No, Paul is exercising the authority Christ gave to the Apostles of binding and loosing (Matt. 18:18). We see that that authority is passed on by the laying on of hands (1 Tim. 4:14, 1 Tim. 5:22, 2 Tim. 1:6, etc.) - specifically, by ordination.

Paul had the ability, as all do to hand others over to satan and the whole body had this as well. I have personally done this and prayed with the body for this to happen and as far as we could see this did happen.

Nope, and for further evidence of this, see Eph. 4:11: "And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers..." the priesthood of all believers doesn't mean that all believers have the same authority. Similarly, the demon in Acts 19:15 recognizes a difference in authority between Paul and other believers: "Jesus I know, and Paul I know; but who are ye?" And again, the author of Hebrews references leaders with real, unique spiritual authority: "Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you."

"In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus." (1 Cor. 5:4,5 KJV)

You have left out verse 3, which is the beginning of the thought and crucial for understanding verses 4 and 5. Paul is not saying that the congregation just by nature of gathering together has that authority, he's saying that he has decided, being present among them in spirit, to deliver the man over to Satan.

also Jesus said that the whole church is to make decisions (concensus) not just one man.

He was using metonymy. Obviously He didn't mean that every single person in the church has to agree, like when Paul excommunicated the man in 1 Cor. 5. If so, then the Judaizers could have dissented from the decision of the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15) and kept on doing what they were doing. You're right that that doesn't necessarily mean that the decision falls to one man (although it did in the case we've talked about) but the decision falling to other lay members of the church is not the only alternative; we see in the example of the case against the Judaizers that the question went to a council of apostles and elders.

I speak according to that which is written and scripture is clear on these things.

And if so, then all of Christianity was living in complete error from the 1st century to the 16th, which would make our Lord a liar in Matt. 16:18. The alternative, that you are simply wrong, seems more likely to me.

Yes, elder will do much of the teaching, but all gifts can happen. I have seen this God given order for many years in home gatherings unto Christ.

I would encourage you strongly to read Fr. Seraphim Rose's book, Orthodoxy and the Religion of the Future. The presence of apparent gifts is not necessarily a sign that something is approved of by God.

Many within the so called "Roman Catholic church" have disagreed with each other for centuries. It is not just one man or a few bishops, who say what the church is and what they agree to. Also most of the Protestants were Roman catholic priest.

They did not disagree on such basic subjects as the existence of clergy or the fact that there should be a basic structure to the liturgy.

again you refer to way later than the written scriptures, again I refer you to verses like these

Yes, the Nicene Creed was written later than Scripture, but it was accepted universally by the Church and is the standard of Christianity used by this forum. My point is that if it's wrong, then the gates of Hades prevailed in AD 325.

 

[WarriorAngel]

No, only Martin Luther venerated Our Lady and taught the Real Presence in the Eucharist, and confessional Lutherans like our friend @MarkRohfrietsch still believe and teach that doctrine, which is why they are often called Evangelical Catholics.

Also those high church Anglicans known as Anglo Catholics embrace these doctrines.

That's why I didn't state Anglicans.

Only some Lutherans [they are divided] ascertain most original precepts.

 

[WarriorAngel]

This is referring to the judgment of a prophecy, not the case of a notorious sinner. Same for the "secrets of men," Paul writes that an unbeliever will be convicted if his secrets are revealed through prophecy, not a notorious sinner.
No, Paul is exercising the authority Christ gave to the Apostles of binding and loosing (Matt. 18:18). We see that that authority is passed on by the laying on of hands (1 Tim. 4:14, 1 Tim. 5:22, 2 Tim. 1:6, etc.) - specifically, by ordination.
Nope, and for further evidence of this, see Eph. 4:11: "And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers..." the priesthood of all believers doesn't mean that all believers have the same authority. Similarly, the demon in Acts 19:15 recognizes a difference in authority between Paul and other believers: "Jesus I know, and Paul I know; but who are ye?" And again, the author of Hebrews references leaders with real, unique spiritual authority: "Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you."


You have left out verse 3, which is the beginning of the thought and crucial for understanding verses 4 and 5. Paul is not saying that the congregation just by nature of gathering together has that authority, he's saying that he has decided, being present among them in spirit, to deliver the man over to Satan.
He was using metonymy. Obviously He didn't mean that every single person in the church has to agree, like when Paul excommunicated the man in 1 Cor. 5. If so, then the Judaizers could have dissented from the decision of the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15) and kept on doing what they were doing. You're right that that doesn't necessarily mean that the decision falls to one man (although it did in the case we've talked about) but the decision falling to other lay members of the church is not the only alternative; we see in the example of the case against the Judaizers that the question went to a council of apostles and elders.
And if so, then all of Christianity was living in complete error from the 1st century to the 16th, which would make our Lord a liar in Matt. 16:18. The alternative, that you are simply wrong, seems more likely to me.
I would encourage you strongly to read Fr. Seraphim Rose's book, Orthodoxy and the Religion of the Future. The presence of apparent gifts is not necessarily a sign that something is approved of by God.
They did not disagree on such basic subjects as the existence of clergy or the fact that there should be a basic structure to the liturgy.
Yes, the Nicene Creed was written later than Scripture, but it was accepted universally by the Church and is the standard of Christianity used by this forum. My point is that if it's wrong, then the gates of Hades prevailed in AD 325.

The Apostles could bind and loose sins.

Note: He told them twice about sins.
One to forgive those who personally sin against them 7 x 70...[or 77]
Which means forgiving til perfected because 7 is the perfect number.

Then He said whose sins you forgive are forgiven them and whose sins you hold bound are held bound.
He did not contradict Himself, He gave them the ministry to forgive sins.

That is unlike being Rock and upon His Church He will build.
And given the keys of authority.
Isaiah made it plain that the KING holds the keys and His steward.
Not stewards... not many because kingdoms do not have many Kings nor Stewards.

 

[LoveofTruth]

This is referring to the judgment of a prophecy, not the case of a notorious sinner.

In 1 Corinthians 14 we read about men judging if an other has anything revealed to them or we could say they are judging doctrine or something that is said that is either true or false. As far as "bringing the case of a grievance against a brother to the church,". This would be a grievance to the church as well. But in the case of Matthew 18 when a person was brought before the church in judgement, the main point I was making is that the church can as a body make judgements and deal with anything that relates to them. Tis would include all matters and doctrine and prophecy and daily issues if needed W se similar in this section

“For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within?” (1 Corinthians 5:12 KJV)

We see that they did not need Paul to make all judgements for them, he tells them that they should be able to do this as saints and we see also;

"Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters? 3 Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life? 4 If then ye have judgments of things pertaining to this life, set them to judge who are least esteemed in the church. 5 I speak to your shame. Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you? no, not one that shall be able to judge between his brethren?" (1 Corinthians 6:2-5 KJV)

Same for the "secrets of men," Paul writes that an unbeliever will be convicted

Not so, this section also applies to those "unlearned" as well as unbelievers. Study to shew thyself approved unto God, not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word and wait on the Lord walking in the rule and the leading of the Spirit according to holy scripture which is gven by the Spirit.

"But if all prophesy, and there come in one that believeth not, or one unlearned, he is convinced of all, he is judged of all: 25 And thus are the secrets of his heart made manifest; and so falling down on his face he will worship God, and report that God is in you of a truth." (1 Corinthians 14:24, 25 KJV)

if his secrets are revealed through prophecy, not a notorious sinner.

Obviously, the secrets of the unbelievers or the unlearned heart can be sin exposed. For they are "judged of all. This judgement is a spiritual conviction inwardly and it includes "all" things". You keep using this expression "notorious sinner", even in Matthew 18 the man was not repentant of the thing he did even when two others were talking to him. The entire church had to be involved. But there is a possibility that the man still was not in the wrong even though it may look like that. Some have been accused falsely and by others as well. Think of Paul having to deal with false brethren and even at times they thought he was there enemy even though he was not. The church can slo make error as a group at times. But as Long as God is able to speak through even one or two of the members there he can address the issue. We see this in Acts 15 and 21. Also we see the church had error about Paul in places.

This thou knowest, that all they which are in Asia be turned away from me; of whom are Phygellus and Hermogenes. 16The Lord give mercy unto the house of Onesiphorus; for he oft refreshed me, and was not ashamed of my chain:" (2 Timothy 1:15, 16 KJV)

“Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?” (1 Timothy 4:16 KJV)

"“In journeyings often, in perils of waters, in perils of robbers, in perils by mine own countrymen, in perils by the heathen, in perils in the city, in perils in the wilderness, in perils in the sea, in perils among false brethren;” (2 Cor. 11:26 KJV)

No, Paul is exercising the authority Christ gave to the Apostles of binding and loosing (Matt. 18:18).

Paul tells the church to "judge them that are within" and to set those to judge who are least esteemed in the church. He ask if there is not a wise man among them to judge. He says clearly that they should have not allowed this sin among them in the camp and says they are glorying in a false way and are puffed up. They should have not had to have Paul to address this matter. He directly tells them that they should have judged.

“It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father's wife. 2 And ye are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he that hath done this deed might be taken away from among you...12 For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within?” (1 Corinthians 5:1,2, 12 KJV).

Paul expected them to be able to do these things, not just to rely on him.

We see that that authority is passed on by the laying on of hands (1 Tim. 4:14, 1 Tim. 5:22, 2 Tim. 1:6, etc.)

Authority in Christ is a longer talk I can address this another time perhaps. But to clarify, the authority is only as a believer (and that includes any believers) speaks the word of God and is in Christ with a life reflecting the Spirit of God. Even a baby christian with the spirit and scriptures has more authority in Christ than a man who wears long robes and is put above all the church who tries to speak against scripture and says things in his own authority even though he may stand in front of others as the head of the church.

Or to put it another way the baby christian has more authority in the word and spirit in Christ than even the king of the land who may be an unbeliever Yet the king has authority, but not in spiritual matters.

We know that all believers can prophesy anything from God. When they do this they are in the spiritual authority from God ,even if they are a baby christian.

- specifically, by ordination.

To "ordain" is simply to recognize mature brothers for eldership. Elders to not lord over but watch over and help the body. They are not in a positional authority, but in a spiritual authority as only as they speak the word of God and have a life in Christ reflecting in their life. For example, if any man who claims to be in some great authority over the saints tells the body to do anything against the truth in Christ we can safely reject him and what he says. That authority is not pressing upon the believers if they are told to do anything against Christ. For example if a man is a false authority were to tell believers to bless a sexual union between men that would be against the truth in Christ and we need not accept or listen to that word. That man has no authority over the saints even though some might give it to him. In the Corinthians church they were accepting a man having sexual relations with his fathers wife and that was against the truth of God, no matter who accepted it among them, even if the elders accepted it..

continued...

 

[LoveofTruth]

Nope, and for further evidence of this, see Eph. 4:11: "And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers..." the priesthood of all believers doesn't mean that all believers have the same authority.

Nope, read further in the same chapter. That authority comes directly from Christ working in all the body. Yes, there are certain gifts that some have to help all. But all can edify and build up one another, and none can say to another part that they are not needed and vital to the body and edifying.

As we see in scripture.

But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ: 16 From whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love." (Ephesians 4:15,16 KJV).

We are even warned about any man that would spoil us ( rob us of our goods, spiritual goods as well) and through man made traditions and vanity etc. All believers are in Christ and he is the head, we are complete in him. God works in every believer to make us perfect unto all good works through Christ.

Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. 9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. 10 And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power:" (Colossians 2:8-10 KJV)

"Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant, 21 Make you perfect in every good work to do his will, working in you that which is wellpleasing in his sight, through Jesus Christ; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen." (Hebrews 13:20, 21 KJV)

Only in this life do any have "authority" Jesus gave all believers authority to cast out devils and many things.

Similarly, the demon in Acts 19:15 recognizes a difference in authority between Paul and other believers: "Jesus I know, and Paul I know; but who are ye?" And again, the author of Hebrews references leaders with real, unique spiritual authority:

Totally wrong here. The spiritual authority is different than the positional authority of the false men in that story. Jesus himself was question by what authority he did things. The spiritual authority that Paul had to cast out devils all believers have in Christ. But the unbelievers have no spiritual authority as the men in that story had none. It doesn't matter if they were in a positional authority. These men were not christians

“And there were seven sons of one Sceva, a Jew, and chief of the priests, which did so.”" (Acts 19:14 KJV)

A unbelieving policeman for example, cannot cast out devils in his authority, unless he was a believer in Christ and the power of the Lord. Then the authority he has is in Christ and from him.

"Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you."

You again misunderstand this verse. before this verse we read in the same chapter,

“Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God: whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation.” (\Hebrews 13:7 KJV)

So , firstly the ones who watch over the flock are to have spoken the word of God and their faith follows. They are an example in word and deed to others as Paul said to follow him as he follows Christ. But why wouldn't any believer want to listen to a mature brother who has spoken the word of God? But only if he is in Christ do we listen and be persuaded by it. But note that in the same chapter we read that all believers have God working in them to will and to do and to make them perfect unto EVERY food work. So when a christian, (if they are elders or not) speaks and walk in faith it is God working in them to make them perfect unto EVERY good work,as I already showed. So these men also are in that inner working that all are in, this is the "rule" of our life in Christ.

"Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant, 21 Make you perfect in every good work to do his will, working in you that which is wellpleasing in his sight, through Jesus Christ; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen." ( Hebrews 13:20, 21 KJV)

But back to the verse that is soo often wrongly used to press a authority over all in a wrong understanding.

The word "in Hebrews 13:17 "obey", does not mean the same word for children "obey" your parents. In Greek this word means to "allow yourself to be persuaded". It is the word of God and God working in them that they are to yield to and follow. Not man in some positional authority.

πείθω peíthō, pi'-tho; a primary verb; to convince (by argument, true or false); by analogy, to pacify or conciliate (by other fair means); reflexively or passively, to assent (to evidence or authority), to rely (by inward certainty):—agree, assure, believe, have confidence, be (wax) confident, make friend, obey, persuade, trust, yield.

1. Active;
a. to persuade, i. e. to induce one by words to believe: absolutely πείσας μετέστησεν ἱκανόν ὄχλον, Acts 19:26; τί, to cause belief in a thing (which one sets forth), Acts 19:8 R G T [cf. Buttmann, 150 (131) n.] (Sophocles O. C. 1442); τερί with the genitive of the thing, ibid. L Tr WH; τινά, one, Acts 18:4; τινά τι, one of a thing, Acts 28:23 Rec. (Herodotus 1, 163; Plato, Apology, p. 37 a., and elsewhere; [cf. Buttmann, as above]); τινὰ περἰ τινος, concerning a thing, ibid. G L T Tr WH.
b. as in classical Greek from Homer down, with an accusative of a person, to make friends of, win one's favor, gain one's good-will, Acts 12:20; or to seek to win one, strive to please one, 2 Corinthians 5:11; Galatians 1:10; to conciliate by persuasion, Matthew 28:14 [here T WH omit; Tr brackets αὐτόν]; Acts 14:19; equivalent to to tranquillize [A. V. assure], τὰς καρδίας ἡμῶν, 1 John 3:19.
c. to persuade unto i. e. move or induce one by persuasion to do something: τινά followed by an infinitive [B § 139, 46], Acts 13:43; Acts 26:28 (Xenophon, an. 1, 3, 19; Polybius 4, 64, 2; Diodorus 11, 15; 12, 39; Josephus, Antiquities 8, 10, 3); τινά followed by ἵνα [cf. Winers Grammar, 338 (317); Buttmann, § 139, 46], Matthew 27:20 [Plutarch, apoph. Alex. 21].

It is the anointing that teaches all things in Christ. We have no need that any man should teach us. Yes, God gives teachers , but they must also be in the anointing. So it is the Spirit working in any that we listen to.

“But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.” (1 John 2:27 KJV)

You have left out verse 3, which is the beginning of the thought and crucial for understanding verses 4 and 5. Paul is not saying that the congregation just by nature of gathering together has that authority, he's saying that he has decided, being present among them in spirit, to deliver the man over to Satan.

No, Paul did correct them for not judging that man. If they did so Paul would not have had to say what he did. But Paul also can minister as God leads him as all can. Every part does its part and we cannot say that one part is not needed (1 Cor 12)

“But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal...11 But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will. 12 For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ....21 And the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you. 22 Nay, much more those members of the body, which seem to be more feeble, are necessary:" ( 1 Cor. 12:7, 11, 12, 21, 22 KJV)

He was using metonymy. Obviously He didn't mean that every single person in the church has to agree,

again you are not correct, we should alway seek to speak and judge and believe the same things and have no division among us. Consensus is hard but needful. Because even if the whole body agrees to a thing yet one or two do not, if they are in the truth they need to hear. if they are not and proven not to be then we can still have consensus and disregard their input. But even one man can change a decision if the truth is spoken.

But consider the command,

“Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.” (1 Corinthians 1:10 KJV)

Continued...

 

[LoveofTruth]

And if so, then all of Christianity was living in complete error from the 1st century to the 16th,

I never said that and certainly not the word "complete".

which would make our Lord a liar in Matt. 16:18.

No, the church would not have the devil prevail against it. But this by no means says anything about issues and doctrinal error among them. We see many Jewish believers for many many many years who believed in Christ and were part of the church, still struggling wth the law and customs of the Jews and still sacrificing animals etc Acts 15, 21 etc. But the church was still there.

And we are not talking about numbers, but it doesn't matter if one hundred million people are wrong in their doctrine if even 1000 believers still are among them then the church has not been defeated. We see for example that many believers who were among the reformers started in the Catholic church and they were still part of Gods true church n spirit and yet they had to withdraw from the large group and walk in the light they had. This does not mean that the Lord was not speaking truth. He always has his church. And it is not about numbers but even if there were only 120 in the upper room of the thousands that heard Jesus speak, they were still the church. Jesus said broad is that way that leadeth unto destruction and narrow is the way that leadeth unto life and few there be that find it. So even if a few find it they are still the church. Even if the many go the broad way. We do not judge by outward observation, or according to appearance.

The alternative, that you are simply wrong, seems more likely to me.

no, so far I am in in line with scripture .

I would encourage you strongly to read Fr. Seraphim Rose's book, Orthodoxy and the Religion of the Future.

I would encourage you to wait on the Lord in the spirit and read the holy scripture with eyes that have been anointed and nt to go beyond that which is written

The presence of apparent gifts

you say "apparent: in a broad brush stroke, do you believe the gifts are still functioning to day as I do.

is not necessarily a sign that something is approved of by God.

But they can be as we read,

And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; 18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover. " (Mark 16:17,18 KJV)

They did not disagree on such basic subjects as the existence of clergy or the fact that there should be a basic structure to the liturgy.

No such things in God's order or the scriptures. The word "clergy" is not in scripture and does not mean what men made it. The "laos or laity" is simply the people, as in 1 Peter 2:9,10 "the people of God". The word "Clergy" comes from "Kleros" its root meaning "“a lot or an inheritance" 1 Peter 5:3 "“Neither as being lords over God's heritage, but being ensamples to the flock." we are all the inheritance or heritage of God. This false clery and laity distinction is not in scripture.

people - †λαός laós, lah-os'; apparently a primary word; a people (in general; thus differing from G1218, which denotes one's own populace):—people.

Heritage - κλῆρος klēros, klay'-ros; probably from G2806 (through the idea of using bits of wood, etc., for the purpose; a die (for drawing chances); by implication, a portion (as if so secured); by extension, an acquisition (especially a patrimony, figuratively):—heritage, inheritance, lot, part.

Yes, the Nicene Creed was written later than Scripture, but it was accepted universally by the Church

we are told not to go beyond that which is written, and if what Paul, Peter and John and others wrote goes against what was written later, then all should follow the holy scriptures, instead of mans words.

and is the standard of Christianity used by this forum. My point is that if it's wrong, then the gates of Hades prevailed in AD 325.

no, as i said the church has always been here, even if there were only 100 men, but I believe there were many many more all over. Yet the visible religious forms that had developed often caused confusion and went against the scriptures in many areas.

and about authority,

"But Jesus called them to him, and saith unto them, Ye know that they which are accounted to rule over the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and their great ones exercise authority upon them. 43 But so shall it not be among you: but whosoever will be great among you, shall be your minister: 44 And whosoever of you will be the chiefest, shall be servant of all." (Mark 10:42-44 KJV)

Jesus was showing that the way the church does things is not like the authority of the world. Authority is when believers speak the word of God and have a spiritual life in Christ reflecting in their walk. They seek to live and move in the rule of Christ in the new creation and according to the scriptures and the body.

 

[WilliamC]

The Apostles could bind and loose sins.

Not as pronounce judgement on another person, as only God has that prerogative.
John 5:22"-For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgement unto the Son". 27- "And hath given him authority to execute judgement also".

Only God can forgive sins.
Mt. 9:6- But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins...
Mk. 2:7- Why doth this man thus speak blasphemies? who can forgive sins but God alone?....10- "But that ye may kow that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins"..
Lk. 5:21- And the scribes and Pharisees began to reason, saying, Who is this which speaketh blasphemies? who can forgive sins, but God alone?... 24- "But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power upon earth to forgive sins"...

Bind and loose is nothing more than the disciples having the knowledge to loose someone from their sins by having the key... that Jesus alone can loose (forgive) them from their sins, as He alone paid the price and completed the Plan of Salvation... or they had the power to bind someone in their sins by not teaching, and holding back any aspect of the Plan of Salvation.
For anyone to think that God would give a God prerogative to any earthly creature in His Plan of Salvation is to commit Blasphemy!

Note: He told them twice about sins.
One to forgive those who personally sin against them 7 x 70...[or 77]
Which means forgiving til perfected because 7 is the perfect number.

This is about forgiving someone who personally sins against you. And we are to forgive them.
Mt. 6:14- "For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. 15- But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses".
Mt. 18:35- "So likewise shall my heavenly Father do also unto you, if ye from your hearts forgive not every one his brother their trespasses".

Then He said whose sins you forgive are forgiven them and whose sins you hold bound are held bound.
He did not contradict Himself, He gave them the ministry to forgive sins.

He gave them the key of knowledge to help sinners understand the Plan of Salvation. It's only through Jesus.

That is unlike being Rock and upon His Church He will build.
And given the keys of authority.
Isaiah made it plain that the KING holds the keys and His steward.
Not stewards... not many because kingdoms do not have many Kings nor Stewards.

There is no "keys" to govern the house of God. If your referring to the "key of David" only Jesus has it, as was intended to all along. (Rev. 3:7).

The RCC believes that Peter was given "keys" to the Kingdom, yet they expand it to mean "The key of David". What does Scripture REALLY reveal about the key of David? The RCC uses Is. 22:22 to try and prop up their belief it somehow means ultimate authority given to Peter. (keys to the Kingdom).
Not the same.
We start in Rev. 3:7, which tells us that Jesus has "the key of David".... and He opens and no man shuts, shuts and no man opens.
This leaves Peter out as having the key of David, because Jesus has it.
Oh, but then what is the key of David? Why does Jesus have it? And how come Peter can't have it? It was God's covenant made with David.
In II Sam. 7:12,13,16, God tells David that He will set up David's seed and establish his kingdom. His seed will build a house (Solomon) and God would establish the throne of his kingdom (David's)(Judah) FOREVER. (Solomon does not live forever, so there is further implication here.)
(16) "And thine house and kingdom (David, Judah) shall be established forever...thy throne... Forever".
Psalms 89:2,3,20,28,29,36 reinforces the Davidic covenant. David's lineage and the tribe of Judah.
Peter, speaks at Pentecost in Acts 2:29,30 that God swore an oath to David that the fruit of his loins, Christ, was the one to sit upon his throne. (Forever).
Jeremiah 33 goes as far to say that this "Branch" of David (15), the Lord (16) was the forever person talked about. No man needed to sit upon the throne of the house (17), and EVEN further, that no man was needed any further as a priest like the Levites (18) . Jesus is the forever man. No man has this prerogative of living forever!
Isaiah 9:6,7 "For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, the everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgement and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the Lord of hosts will perform this".
Point? Peter was not from the tribe Judah, nor could he continue forever. . These were prerequisites. Peter does NOT have the key of David... nor any supposed successors, ONLY Jesus does.
To reconcile. What a concept, you should try it sometime.
You do not prove your brand... you just take one verse and try to prop up your authority. Still trying to take a prerogative of God away again.
You have been led astray by those men who have told you what to believe about God's Holy Word!
Not buying it.

 

[jas3]

Not as pronounce judgement on another person, as only God has that prerogative.
John 5:22"-For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgement unto the Son". 27- "And hath given him authority to execute judgement also".

Only God can forgive sins.
Mt. 9:6- But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins...
Mk. 2:7- Why doth this man thus speak blasphemies? who can forgive sins but God alone?....10- "But that ye may kow that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins"..
Lk. 5:21- And the scribes and Pharisees began to reason, saying, Who is this which speaketh blasphemies? who can forgive sins, but God alone?... 24- "But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power upon earth to forgive sins"...

John 20:23: "If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you withhold forgiveness from any, it is withheld."

For anyone to think that God would give a God prerogative to any earthly creature in His Plan of Salvation is to commit Blasphemy!

You have ignored me before when I asked you this, so I'll ask one more time: Do you think John 20:23 is blasphemy?

 

[WilliamC]

John 20:23: "If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you withhold forgiveness from any, it is withheld."

You have ignored me before when I asked you this, so I'll ask one more time: Do you think John 20:23 is blasphemy?

I will make myself clear,...... I think John 20:23 is not about the disciples being given the "authority" to forgive sins or not to forgive sins. Only God knows the heart, and only He is in the capable position to declare otherwise. I believe the verse is sadly misinterpreted to try and prop up the believe that the RCC has authority to forgive sins. The RCC only wishes it had it. The binding and loosing are about having the keys of knowledge that will open the sinner to understanding forgiveness of sins ONLY found through Jesus Christ. Their mission was to preach the knowledge they had learned about Christ and His successful mission. Christ and Him crucified. I hope that's clear enough for you.
It would indeed be Blasphemy if Jesus believed He could ever give a God prerogative to sinner men and blasphemy on the part of man to think that they had such authority.

 

[Valletta]

I will make myself clear,...... I think John 20:23 is not about the disciples being given the "authority" to forgive sins or not to forgive sins. Only God knows the heart, and only He is in the capable position to declare otherwise. I believe the verse is sadly misinterpreted to try and prop up the believe that the RCC has authority to forgive sins. The RCC only wishes it had it. The binding and loosing are about having the keys of knowledge that will open the sinner to understanding forgiveness of sins ONLY found through Jesus Christ. Their mission was to preach the knowledge they had learned about Christ and His successful mission. Christ and Him crucified. I hope that's clear enough for you.
It would indeed be Blasphemy if Jesus believed He could ever give a God prerogative to sinner men and blasphemy on the part of man to think that they had such authority.

Jesus forgives. When the Apostles went out to heal people realize that power came from God. It was not blasphemy for them to heal the sick or cast out demons.

John 20:19-23 On the evening of that day, the first day of the week, the doors being shut where the disciples were, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said to them, “Peace be with you.” When he had said this, he showed them his hands and his side. Then the disciples were glad when they saw the Lord. Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.” And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.” RSVCE

James 5:14–16 Is any among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; and the prayer of faith will save the sick man, and the Lord will raise him up; and if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven. Therefore confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous man has great power in its effects. RSVCE

 

[WarriorAngel]

Not as pronounce judgement on another person, as only God has that prerogative.
John 5:22"-For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgement unto the Son". 27- "And hath given him authority to execute judgement also".

Only God can forgive sins.
Mt. 9:6- But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins...
Mk. 2:7- Why doth this man thus speak blasphemies? who can forgive sins but God alone?....10- "But that ye may kow that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins"..
Lk. 5:21- And the scribes and Pharisees began to reason, saying, Who is this which speaketh blasphemies? who can forgive sins, but God alone?... 24- "But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power upon earth to forgive sins"...

Bind and loose is nothing more than the disciples having the knowledge to loose someone from their sins by having the key... that Jesus alone can loose (forgive) them from their sins, as He alone paid the price and completed the Plan of Salvation... or they had the power to bind someone in their sins by not teaching, and holding back any aspect of the Plan of Salvation.
For anyone to think that God would give a God prerogative to any earthly creature in His Plan of Salvation is to commit Blasphemy!

This is about forgiving someone who personally sins against you. And we are to forgive them.
Mt. 6:14- "For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. 15- But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses".
Mt. 18:35- "So likewise shall my heavenly Father do also unto you, if ye from your hearts forgive not every one his brother their trespasses".

He gave them the key of knowledge to help sinners understand the Plan of Salvation. It's only through Jesus.

There is no "keys" to govern the house of God. If your referring to the "key of David" only Jesus has it, as was intended to all along. (Rev. 3:7).

The RCC believes that Peter was given "keys" to the Kingdom, yet they expand it to mean "The key of David". What does Scripture REALLY reveal about the key of David? The RCC uses Is. 22:22 to try and prop up their belief it somehow means ultimate authority given to Peter. (keys to the Kingdom).
Not the same.
We start in Rev. 3:7, which tells us that Jesus has "the key of David".... and He opens and no man shuts, shuts and no man opens.
This leaves Peter out as having the key of David, because Jesus has it.
Oh, but then what is the key of David? Why does Jesus have it? And how come Peter can't have it? It was God's covenant made with David.
In II Sam. 7:12,13,16, God tells David that He will set up David's seed and establish his kingdom. His seed will build a house (Solomon) and God would establish the throne of his kingdom (David's)(Judah) FOREVER. (Solomon does not live forever, so there is further implication here.)
(16) "And thine house and kingdom (David, Judah) shall be established forever...thy throne... Forever".
Psalms 89:2,3,20,28,29,36 reinforces the Davidic covenant. David's lineage and the tribe of Judah.
Peter, speaks at Pentecost in Acts 2:29,30 that God swore an oath to David that the fruit of his loins, Christ, was the one to sit upon his throne. (Forever).
Jeremiah 33 goes as far to say that this "Branch" of David (15), the Lord (16) was the forever person talked about. No man needed to sit upon the throne of the house (17), and EVEN further, that no man was needed any further as a priest like the Levites (18) . Jesus is the forever man. No man has this prerogative of living forever!
Isaiah 9:6,7 "For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, the everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgement and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the Lord of hosts will perform this".
Point? Peter was not from the tribe Judah, nor could he continue forever. . These were prerequisites. Peter does NOT have the key of David... nor any supposed successors, ONLY Jesus does.
To reconcile. What a concept, you should try it sometime.
You do not prove your brand... you just take one verse and try to prop up your authority. Still trying to take a prerogative of God away again.
You have been led astray by those men who have told you what to believe about God's Holy Word!
Not buying it.

Bind - unforgiven
Loosed - forgiven.

But Jesus was quite specific - as they proclaim so shall it be in Heaven.

Matthew 18:18
“Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.


Matthew 16
18- And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it [Matthew 16:18] 19 And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

 

[WilliamC]

Bind - unforgiven
Loosed - forgiven.

But Jesus was quite specific - as they proclaim so shall it be in Heaven.

Jesus does not take a back seat to any man. He is not waiting for their ruling to base His upon. The New Covenant, and Plan of Salvation is dependent upon what Jesus does, not any man' involvement. The RCC just wishes it did.
Ex. 34: 10- And he said, Behold, I make a covenant before all thy people I will do marvels, such as have not been done in all the earth, nor in any nation: and all the people among which thou art shall see the work of the Lord: for it is a terrible thing that I will do with thee.
Heb. 8:6- But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.
Man's involvement in the Old Covenant Sanctuary system is now made defunct with Jesus as the anti-type. Man's role was an inferior type...
Heb. 8:5- Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount.
Jesus is all parts in the New Covenant.. Sacrifice, Priest, High Priest, Intercessor, Mediator, Judge...
A blasphemous usurper is described in Daniel and Revelation who tries to sit as God, magnifying himself equal with God, and disrupting the Sacrificial system. This sounds about right concerning those who claim to stand in the place of God trying to forgive sins.

Matthew 18:18
“Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

Matthew 16
18- And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it

Jesus is the Rock all throughout Scripture. The Church is built upon Peter's confession that Jesus is the Rock, the Son of God. And no... the gates of hell (death) will not prevail over the church as Jesus has overcome death and can save from forever death.

[Matthew 16:18] 19 And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

And what keys are you referring to? It doesn't say key of David, which Jesus has, as I previously shown. It doesn't imply that Peter had all "authority", nor does it state that Peter had all power to forgive men their sins, or deny them. That would be blasphemy.

 

[jas3]

I will make myself clear,...... I think John 20:23 is not about the disciples being given the "authority" to forgive sins or not to forgive sins. Only God knows the heart, and only He is in the capable position to declare otherwise. I believe the verse is sadly misinterpreted to try and prop up the believe that the RCC has authority to forgive sins. The RCC only wishes it had it. The binding and loosing are about having the keys of knowledge that will open the sinner to understanding forgiveness of sins ONLY found through Jesus Christ. Their mission was to preach the knowledge they had learned about Christ and His successful mission. Christ and Him crucified. I hope that's clear enough for you.

The wording of the verse doesn't permit this interpretation: "if you forgive," and "if you withhold forgiveness." There is nothing here about "keys of knowledge" or teaching sinners how to understand forgiveness.

It would indeed be Blasphemy if Jesus believed He could ever give a God prerogative to sinner men and blasphemy on the part of man to think that they had such authority.

How could God blaspheme Himself?

 

[jas3]

“For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within?” (1 Corinthians 5:12 KJV)

We see that they did not need Paul to make all judgements for them, he tells them that they should be able to do this as saints

I wasn't saying that Paul needed to make all judgments for them, I was saying that being able to take a grievance "to the church" can't mean to take a grievance to any group of believers; if that were the case, then taking one or two witnesses would be the same thing as taking the matter to the church.

Not so, this section also applies to those "unlearned" as well as unbelievers.

Fair enough, but my point still stands that this verse is not about notorious sinners, because someone being unlearned doesn't necessarily make him a notorious sinner.

Obviously, the secrets of the unbelievers or the unlearned heart can be sin exposed. For they are "judged of all. This judgement is a spiritual conviction inwardly and it includes "all" things".

True, but the case in Matt. 18 is not one where a man's sins are discovered through prophecy, it's one where his sin is known publicly (at least, it becomes public when the witnesses are brought in).

You keep using this expression "notorious sinner", even in Matthew 18 the man was not repentant of the thing he did even when two others were talking to him. The entire church had to be involved. But there is a possibility that the man still was not in the wrong even though it may look like that.

By that expression I just mean a person whose sin is publicly known. I'm not sure why you're bringing up the possibility of the man being wrongly accused, because that's not even a consideration in the text.

Paul tells the church to "judge them that are within" and to set those to judge who are least esteemed in the church.

Addressed in the response to the first quote.

But to clarify, the authority is only as a believer (and that includes any believers) speaks the word of God and is in Christ with a life reflecting the Spirit of God.

That is a necessary condition, but not a sufficient one. I note that you didn't address the significance of laying on of hands here - maybe you did later, and if so I will respond as I'm able. Our responses are getting very lengthy, so I'm trying to keep mine to a manageable size.

They are not in a positional authority, but in a spiritual authority as only as they speak the word of God and have a life in Christ reflecting in their life.

I don't know what you mean by "a positional authority" - did you mean "a position of authority"? I'm inclined to agree with you that authority, in the sense of binding the laity to some belief or action, is dependent on the clergy keeping the orthodox faith. To expand on that, I would say that a leader couldn't allow for the blessing of "couples" in inherently sinful relationships, because "even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel to you different than the one we preached, let him be anathema."

I'll respond to the other parts of your post as I get time.

 

[jas3]

Nope, read further in the same chapter.

Nothing in the rest of Eph. 4, including the passage you quoted, talks about authority. At the same time, if you are trying to say that "pastors and teachers" don't actually have unique authority, the passage I quoted from Hebrews would say otherwise.

Totally wrong here. The spiritual authority is different than the positional authority of the false men in that story.

You're going to have to explain what you mean by "positional authority" for me to understand what you're saying here. There is no indication that "Jew" implies "unbeliever." It simply differentiates the man and his sons from the Gentiles.

You again misunderstand this verse. before this verse we read in the same chapter,

“Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God: whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation.” (\Hebrews 13:7 KJV)

You again confuse necessary and sufficient conditions.

The word "in Hebrews 13:17 "obey", does not mean the same word for children "obey" your parents. In Greek this word means to "allow yourself to be persuaded".

No, if we were translating it using the "persuade" definition (which is wrong here), it would be the command, "be persuaded," nothing about "allowing yourself." You see how if there is no insinuation of you being in control by introducing the word "allow" into the definition, it takes on the meaning of "obey." I'll also note that you have cited the definition in Strong's for the active voice, but the word as it appears in Heb. 13:17 is passive.

But Paul also can minister as God leads him as all can. Every part does its part and we cannot say that one part is not needed (1 Cor 12)

Again, nothing in that verse talks about authority.

again you are not correct, we should alway seek to speak and judge and believe the same things and have no division among us. Consensus is hard but needful.

We should strive for consensus, but my point is that there are many heresies that have arisen over the centuries that have gained large followings before being condemned. If they have as much of a say in judgment as everyone else, then there can never be a resolution.

I never said that and certainly not the word "complete".

Your theology requires it, unless you're going to try to make a "Trail of Blood" or "secret remnant of true Christians" case for how you can establish continuity of the Church from the 1st century to the 16th.

No, the church would not have the devil prevail against it. But this by no means says anything about issues and doctrinal error among them.

It does, because if the Church is "the pillar and foundation of truth" (1 Tim. 3:15) and the Church loses the truth (i.e. stops supporting it) then it would cease to be the Church, and if error (evil) has prevailed over Christ's Church, then Christ's promise is falsified.

We see many Jewish believers for many many many years who believed in Christ and were part of the church, still struggling wth the law and customs of the Jews and still sacrificing animals etc Acts 15, 21 etc. But the church was still there.

These are not examples of the whole Church falling into error.

you say "apparent: in a broad brush stroke, do you believe the gifts are still functioning to day as I do.

Yes, but we know that demons can also do signs and wonders (Acts 16:16, 2 Thess. 2:9, Rev. 16:14).

No such things in God's order or the scriptures.

We were talking about historical agreement between Christians. Whether or not they were wrong is a different discussion.

we are told not to go beyond that which is written, and if what Paul, Peter and John and others wrote goes against what was written later, then all should follow the holy scriptures, instead of mans words.

Again, whether or not the Nicene Creed is right has no bearing on whether or not it was accepted. Arguing that it is not right is against the rules of the forum, but fortunately that's territory we don't have to venture into.

 

[WarriorAngel]

Jesus does not take a back seat to any man. He is not waiting for their ruling to base His upon. The New Covenant, and Plan of Salvation is dependent upon what Jesus does, not any man' involvement. The RCC just wishes it did.
Ex. 34: 10- And he said, Behold, I make a covenant before all thy people I will do marvels, such as have not been done in all the earth, nor in any nation: and all the people among which thou art shall see the work of the Lord: for it is a terrible thing that I will do with thee.
Heb. 8:6- But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.
Man's involvement in the Old Covenant Sanctuary system is now made defunct with Jesus as the anti-type. Man's role was an inferior type...
Heb. 8:5- Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount.
Jesus is all parts in the New Covenant.. Sacrifice, Priest, High Priest, Intercessor, Mediator, Judge...
A blasphemous usurper is described in Daniel and Revelation who tries to sit as God, magnifying himself equal with God, and disrupting the Sacrificial system. This sounds about right concerning those who claim to stand in the place of God trying to forgive sins.

Jesus is the Rock all throughout Scripture. The Church is built upon Peter's confession that Jesus is the Rock, the Son of God. And no... the gates of hell (death) will not prevail over the church as Jesus has overcome death and can save from forever death.

And what keys are you referring to? It doesn't say key of David, which Jesus has, as I previously shown. It doesn't imply that Peter had all "authority", nor does it state that Peter had all power to forgive men their sins, or deny them. That would be blasphemy.

Isaiah 40: 13
Who can fathom the Spirit of the LORD, or instruct the LORD as his counselor?

 

[LoveofTruth]

I don't know what you mean by "a positional authority"

Positional authority, is in men like police, or those who govern in the natural world, or parents rulers etc. But spiritual authority is only in Christ and different from positional authority. It is when any believer speaks the word of God or has God directing his life and walk. This spiritual authority in Christ is how they cast out devils and minister etc. The man in a positional authority does not always have this spiritual authority. And even if he did have both, when ministering to the body in spiritual matters he must speak as the oracles of God and in the spiritual authority And if a man who is not spiritual tries to direct and dictate to the church he has no spiritual authority if he goes against God's word and way.

For example, a unbelieving policeman has no spiritual authority in matters of faith and the word in a gathering. Yet in the world, he has that authority to keep order . So to place a man over all in a gathering in a positional authority (a static office with no spiritual authority) as the Pastor or Leader etc, and to assume that because he is in that position he has spiritual authority is not right. Especially If he speaks contrary to the word of God then he has no authority.

Even a baby christian of 14 years old who uses scripture against a man who sits over all in a large chair wearing long robes and who is in a positional authority (a stagnant role without spiritual authority over others like a king Pope etc) the young man with the word of God showing correction by scripture in the spirit, has more authority than the Pope without scripture, if the Pope simply appeals to his power over the young and tries to force him to submit simply because he is the positional authority over him. This has happened with some reformers like Luther who was told to submit to the powers who pressed over him without the scriptures. he said his conscience is captive to the word of God (and not mans authority that goes against the truth). The Pope pressing his position over the young man does not make him have true spiritual authority. Only of he speaks the truth in the spirit in the word of God. Otherwise, believers can safely reject any man who is not in the true spiritual authority of God speaking the word of God.

I was in a gathering once and the so called "pastor " of man years over that assembly, with no elder for many years, told them to do things that the body wasn't agreed to and he said to listen to him or they were in rebellion and he was wrong and contrary to scripture. But he said for them to do what he said, in a forceful way and said, "I am the head of the church ". He threatened then that they would be in rebellion if they didn't just do what he said. i showed him in scripture that the whole body can make decisions and agree and discuss matters and he didn't care what scriptures I showed and said they did not do things like that h and that he was the head of the church. This man was not holding the head Christ I believe and trying to press a positional authority a static role with no spiritual authority. many do this today and the whole idea of authority is messed up by this.

 

[LoveofTruth]

Nothing in the rest of Eph. 4, including the passage you quoted, talks about authority. At the same time, if you are trying to say that "pastors and teachers" don't actually have unique authority, the passage I quoted from Hebrews would say otherwise.

I quoted Ephesians 4:15,16, which shows that Christ works in every believer to edify one another. This is all in Gods authority in a spiritual authority or power from Christ. Even a baby Christian who lives and speaks the word in this authority has authority with God.

It is true , that more mature brothers can use the word more skillfully than a babe who is unskillful in the word of righteousness. But the authority is in the word of God and as God amounts His word and gives power.

Some who have gifts and are mature will be very needful in the body and effective. But this does not make them like some lord over others or a controller. The reason believers listen to other elders is not because they are in a static position (which they should not be in), for even overseers is a function, but they are to be listened to because they are in Christ speaking the word of God and reflecting the life of Christ. Paul even said follow me as I follow Christ. And we know that even in Hebrews 13:7,17 , those who speak the word that should be heard and allowed to persuade them are also doing so as God works in them and every believer to make them all perfect through Jesus Christ (Hebrews 13:20,21). This verse is a few verses from verse 17. And shows the real power in all believers abd is similar to Ephesians 4:15,16.

The authority all believers have is similar to Jesus authority which he gives to all believers this authority.

Luke 10: 19. Behold, I give unto you power to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy: and nothing shall by any means hurt you.”

Jesus was questioned by the false religious men of his day and asked by what authority he did things by. He asked them by what authority John the Baptist spoke. John was a prophet, but not in a positional authority in the temple or among the Jewish leaders. John's authority cane directly from God.

And so today since all believer can prophesy and have a revelation from God (1Cor. 14) which is still for today. They are all in the authority from God. .

Jesus also spoke as one having authority, not as the scribes aand Pharisees.

Jesus was not in a positional authority in a static office or title. He was not a earthly king or religious leader in the temple so the false men tried to challenge his authority. But he spoke as one having authority. His word and life were the authority. Believers have a similar spiritual authority as they speak the word of God and walk in Christ.

Also, there are not just pastor gifts abd teacher gifts mebtioned in Ephesians 4, there are also apostles and prophets and evangelist today as well. These gifts have not ceased.

No, if we were translating it using the "persuade" definition (which is wrong here), it would be the command, "be persuaded," nothing about "allowing yourself." You see how if there is no insinuation of you being in control by introducing the word "allow" into the definition, it takes on the meaning of "obey." I'll also note that you have cited the definition in Strong's for the active voice, but the word as it appears in Heb. 13:17 is passive.

For them to be told to obey them is to say allow your l selves to be persuaded by what is said. The reason being is that vs 7, they have spoken the word of God. And it is God which works in all of you. So, if they are if God they should hear the word and be persuaded or convinced by it. He is not setting up a dictator Lording over type of control.

Again, nothing in that verse talks about authority.

We should strive for consensus, but my point is that there are many heresies that have arisen over the centuries that have gained large followings before being condemned. If they have as much of a say in judgment as everyone else, then there can never be a resolution.

Yes there can, we see in scripture they had great disagreements at times but came to peace and any could speak, , a few did. Acts 15. .

But a more dangerous thing is if one man dominates over all and is in error and binds the assembly quenching the spirit in others and cutting off any opposition. We see false men like this in third John in a man named Diotrephes. He loved the preeminence and wouldn’t receive the brethren and kicked sone out.

3 John 1: 9. I wrote unto the church: but Diotrephes, who loveth to have the preeminence among them, receiveth us not. 10. Wherefore, if I come, I will remember his deeds which he doeth, prating against us with malicious words: and not content therewith, neither doth he himself receive the brethren, and forbiddeth them that would, and casteth them out of the church.”

2 Corinthians 11: 19. For ye suffer fools gladly, seeing ye yourselves are wise. 20. For ye suffer, if a man bring you into bondage, if a man devour you, if a man take of you, if a man exalt himself, if a man smite you on the face.”

Acts 20: 29. For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. 30. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.”

1 John 2: 27. But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.”

We listen for the anointing in all.

 

[LoveofTruth]

I wasn't saying that Paul needed to make all judgments for them, I was saying that being able to take a grievance "to the church" can't mean to take a grievance to any group of believers; if that were the case, then taking one or two witnesses would be the same thing as taking the matter to the church.

Even two can address and spiritually judge all things if they hear from Christ. Jesus said where two or more are gathered he is there in the midst. But sometimes an issue is difficult or they may not be hearing as clearly as sone. So, in this case take it before the church as a gathered body with many parts in Christ and hopefully the matter will be understood. In the multitude of the body ministry there is safety . .

But the danger of just taking any matter to one man can be also troubling. And what if the man is himself in error abd a brother seeks to discuss the matter with him. He may often advise the wrong role he has and silence the brother from confronting him.

In fact a Elder who is in error before all should be addressed before all for others to hear as scripture speaks.

1 Timothy 5: 19. Against an elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses. 20. Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear.”

Galatians 2: 14. But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?”

But if the matter is a personal one or some sin done against a another brother and he tries to talk to the elder and then take another brother these matters seldom I fear, go before the church the so called “pastor” or “priest” , will stop it from happening. I have experienced this before, directly, when the so called “pastor” would not take it before the church and I was being wrongly treated and the other was in sin and falsehood etc.

 

[David Lamb]

You are mistaken. WarriorAngel was spot on. Catholics have emphasized the words of Jesus: "Thou art Rock and upon this Rock I WILL BUILD MY CHURCH." Jesus often chose to work through men, understand that God did not need the Apostles to accomplish His will, but He chose to use them. If Jesus did not want to use Simon Jesus could simply have said: " I am Jesus and upon this Rock I will build my Church." Instead at that moment he renamed Simon as Rock, as He had foretold, and gave Rock the keys to the kingdom. Understand the Catholic Church is both in Heaven and on Earth. I often first think of the Church in Heaven when the Catholic Church is mentioned.

The verse that you refer to is this:

“And I also say to you that you are Peter (Petros, masculine), and on this rock (petra, feminine) I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.” (Mt 16:18 NKJV)

If Jesus had meant He was going to build His church on Peter, He would have said, "and upon you I will build My church." So what was the rock on which He would build His church? Surely the truth expressed in the previous three verses:

“15 He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?" 16 Simon Peter answered and said, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." 17 Jesus answered and said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed [this] to you, but My Father who is in heaven.” (Mt 16:15-17 NKJV)

This ties in with a verse from 1 Corinthians:

“and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ.” (1Co 10:4 NKJV)

Jesus Christ and His gospel are the Rock on which He builds His church.