Binding and loosing

[Floatingaxe]

As a child of God, I trust how He brought it about. He can use whatever means He wishes. It's the Word of God that has pre-eminence...not the vehicle He used. He used donkeys too, once, to get a job done...

Besides...what has this got to do with binding and loosing?

Actually I already answered that question in a response to you. Do you actually read my post?

This was my response to you

I understand that this is your opinion. But you are now saying "that it is Gods way" Where in scripture do you find this conclusion. Scripture does not say this. 30,000 different versions of the truth is not a molehill. It is mass confussion because of this very issue. If Pauls instructions were only oral up to a certain time then became written, why would paul refer to both. You keep ignoring this fact. This is not a small issue to Paul. He commands it in the name of Jesus Christ. Does that sound like a small issue, or something Paul thought was fundementally important.

It is quite simple, on this very thread we have the exact issue Paul was addressing. We have written scripture. We have individuals interpreting the same written words differently. Paul recognised this would happen. In fact it was happening during his time. This is not new. So Paul tells us how we are to handle this very situation. I am trying to show you how the Bible tells us to handle this situation. I have given you the verses where the Bible show us how to handle it. If you disagree then prove it with scripture. You are not just disagreeing with me, you are disagreeing with Paul.

I think you have totally gone off the deep end and make no sense whatsoever. You indeed ARE straining at gnats! This is all tangental to the OP, and comes off as the rantings of someone who is not churched, but is off on his own personal "odyssey"...weird stuff. I will have none of it.

[EricH]

Lets take another angle here. Your reasoning seems to be that since paul commanded the readers of 2 Thessalonians for example to obey the traditions he handed down, that this command is still binding, and that since the scriptures in no place define what those traditions are, it is up to us to figure it out.

No this has been your insertion. It is not at all what I have said. The Bible also tells us how the Oral teachings were to be passed on and How we know what to hold on to. I told you in an earlier post that my opinion does not matter here, lets look to scripture. Likewise your opinion is not relevant, we must look to scripture. The problem is we could never get past the first point. Namely that we needed to hold on to these teachings at all. If you don't agree that they need to be followed at all, then there is not much point in showing scripture that tells you how to do it. K.D.

So your logic seems to be if there is an imperative in one of Paul's letters, it is binding upon us today. In addition to his command that the readers of 2 Thessalonians 3:6 that they avoid those who live in a way that goes against the precepts received from Paul, He command them to Pray for him that his missionary journeys be successful. Using your logic that once the command is given it stands forever, why do we not still pray for Paul's missionary journeys?

Eric I can't believe you really believe your own logic. No, we do not have a commscripture and to pray for Paul's missionary journeys, but we do have an example to follow; Praying for our church leaders and their missionary journeys, exactly like Paul describes. So Yes, what Paul said then is just as important today. I know you don't really believe that scripture relevant for their times is not relevant for our times as well.

Second, Paul did not commanded them in the name of Jesus Christ to pray for him and his journeys. There is a far cry difference between asking for prayers and commanding in the name of Jesus Christ.

I was simply reflecting your logic back at you. If you find it troubling, maybe that is where you should look. Your point was that if it is written as a command in scripture we need to obey it. That was your logic, not mine. Paul did command them to pray, The tense is the imperative in the greek. That is not the tense of request, but one of command. Are you saying that no commands in scripture are binding, unless the phrase "in the name of Jesus" appears with them? I am not disagreeing with you that scripture is applicable today. But you have developed some system of determining which commands are eternal, and which can be "contextualized" because of circumstances. I am trying to understand how you are making that differentiation, and where your ultimate authority lies

Which of course is all irrelevant to the point I made. Paul's imperative request for prayer is just as relative today as it was in his time. So actually this only supports what I have been saying. The commands Paul gives are still very relevant to us today. All of them. We need to pray for our missionaries today just as Paul says, and we need to hold on to his teachings by word of mouth. Both are just as relevant today as they were when Paul said them. Thank you for providing further proof that Paul's commands for us are still valid and need to be followed.

Again, you have not really answered the question I asked. How do you decide which passages to obey literally, and which to contextualize? Please answer the question I am asking.

Yes Eric I have. The Bible tells us exactly how we are to know. Re-read the post. This is not my plan. I didn't make this up. This is what scripture says. You must follow Gods plan, even if it doesn't fit into your concept of what it should be. Gods ways are not mans ways. If you refuse to follow what he tells you to do then you will go astray. I am not going to argue with you Eric. I have presented scripture that shows you Gods plan to safe guard his truth. It doesn't matter if you like it or not. It is Gods plan. Follow it or reject it that is your choice.

God Bless,

K.D.

Let me repeat the question. In order for you to claim that the traditions you are following are biblical, you must not only provide scriptures that say they exist, you must also provide scriptures that describe what the traditions are. The scriptures you have provided, only tell us that there were oral and written precepts that came from the apostles. You have provided no scriptures that tell us what exactly those traditions are. So, if you are claiming to have a set of traditions you are following that came from the mouths of the apostles and that you have biblical proof that those traditions are the ones that Paul was talking about, then you still need to provide that. It is not enough to say that the bible supports the idea that there were traditions that came from the mouths of the apostles, and that proves that the ones I am following are those traditions. In order for you to have biblical proof that the ones you are following are those tradtions, you must provide passages that identify the specific traditions you are following as the ones that came from the apostles mouths. You have not provided this. Can you provide this? It is a simple question.

Eric your requirement does not make any sense. If they were written down by the apostles then they would not be oral traditions of the Apostles. Paul clearly distinguishes that he is talking about Both. So your arbitrary requirement does not make any sense. What does make sense is that the people that actually heard the Apostles preach would know. They would know what Paul wrote and what he only preached.

When a group of church leaders canonized the Bible, How did they do it. They had hundreds of writings to choose from. How did they pick and choose which ones were scripture and which were not. Maybe I assumed you would know this Eric. If you can accept that God guided a group of people to determine what written words were the Words of God, does not it also follow that God would guide this same group to determine what oral teachings were in fact the teaching from the Apostles and which were not. Especially when God promises us he will do this very thing. You are willing to accept what they say about the written but not what they say about the oral. By what criteria do you make this judgement. How can you accept only half of what they say as being guided by the Holy Spirit. Did the Holy Spirit just suddenly abandon them. Eric if you accept the Bible as being the Word of God then you must also accept what this same group says are oral teaching of God. If not, then you need to justify the canonizing of the Bible.

I am not making an arbitrary requirement. You are the one who has been holding that you can defend your traditions based on scripture alone. So am I correct in assuming that you cannot do this. That you are dependent on sources outside of scripture. That was my point to begin with. It took us this long for you to say that your stance is not totally based on scripture, but is scripture plus....

The canonization of scripture, and your insistence of a body of traditions outside of scripture that hold equal authority to it, are 2 separate issues. You are attempting to equate one with the other. It does not follow, that if God guided the church to recognize the very words of the prophets and apostles in scripture (which he promised to do), that He would also lead them to recognize a set of traditions that are not written down as being of equal authority (which he never promised to do). God in no place promised that He would produce a separate set of traditions apart from scripture that would have equal auhtority to it. We do however have numerous passages in scripture that address the centrality and sufficiency of scripture. No statements are made for traditions like this. The only statements that are made is that they existed at the time of the writing of certain letters, and that the oral sayings of the apostles themselves had authority.

The most we can say from the passages you provided is that at the time of the writing of some of the books you quoted, that some of the words of the Apostles existed in written form, and some in oral form, given by the apostles directly to the churches in question. You have chosen to believe that the portions that were not written down at that time never were. You have also made the leap that the traditions you now believe in are those very traditions that Paul mentions (even through you can provide no scriptural support for this).

We hold that the tradtions you cited were oral at the time, but were eventually encoded in scripture. The reason we believe this is that because in the last 2 books that Paul wrote (1 and 2 Timothy), he makes a strong appeal to the sufficiency of scripture alone. In both books he spends most of HIs time instructing Timothy on how to Handle the scriptures because it is in them that salvation is found and that people are equipped for every good work.

You also seem to have an approach to scripture that allows you to hold that some passages should be taken literally (for example that since Paul mentioned oral traditions, they must have stayed that way), and others should be contextualized because certain events (like Paul's death) have taken place. I have asked several times what you rules are for doing this, and have yet to see a response.

[Karen C.]

My 2cents worth!

To take this scripture in context you would have to see what the subject that was being addressed first.

Subject would be; A Brother Who Sins Against You

Matthew 18

15

[Kansasdad]

I am not making an arbitrary requirement. You are the one who has been holding that you can defend your traditions based on scripture alone. So am I correct in assuming that you cannot do this. That you are dependent on sources outside of scripture. That was my point to begin with. It took us this long for you to say that your stance is not totally based on scripture, but is scripture plus....

The canonization of scripture, and your insistence of a body of traditions outside of scripture that hold equal authority to it, are 2 separate issues. You are attempting to equate one with the other. It does not follow, that if God guided the church to recognize the very words of the prophets and apostles in scripture (which he promised to do), that He would also lead them to recognize a set of traditions that are not written down as being of equal authority (which he never promised to do). God in no place promised that He would produce a separate set of traditions apart from scripture that would have equal auhtority to it. We do however have numerous passages in scripture that address the centrality and sufficiency of scripture. No statements are made for traditions like this. The only statements that are made is that they existed at the time of the writing of certain letters, and that the oral sayings of the apostles themselves had authority.

The most we can say from the passages you provided is that at the time of the writing of some of the books you quoted, that some of the words of the Apostles existed in written form, and some in oral form, given by the apostles directly to the churches in question. You have chosen to believe that the portions that were not written down at that time never were. You have also made the leap that the traditions you now believe in are those very traditions that Paul mentions (even through you can provide no scriptural support for this).

We hold that the tradtions you cited were oral at the time, but were eventually encoded in scripture. The reason we believe this is that because in the last 2 books that Paul wrote (1 and 2 Timothy), he makes a strong appeal to the sufficiency of scripture alone. In both books he spends most of HIs time instructing Timothy on how to Handle the scriptures because it is in them that salvation is found and that people are equipped for every good work.

You also seem to have an approach to scripture that allows you to hold that some passages should be taken literally (for example that since Paul mentioned oral traditions, they must have stayed that way), and others should be contextualized because certain events (like Paul's death) have taken place. I have asked several times what you rules are for doing this, and have yet to see a response.

All of which is still an attempt on your part to avoid the issue, because you have given NO answer at all but instead a typical dodge of the real issue at hand. The fact of the matter is that St. Paul explicitly says in 2Thes2:15 that we are to hold to BOTH written and oral traditions. Are you denying this, Eric? The legitimate question didn't ask WHAT the traditions were or weren't. It asked whether the bible states that at a later time, only written traditions were to be adhered to. You implying that all these oral traditions which Paul referred to were at some point written down? Show us this teaching from the bible.

If you can't support your postiton from scripture then it is a self-defeating proposition which should be rejected for what it is...a tradition of man.

Above you stated this, " It does not follow, that if God guided the church to recognize the very words of the prophets and apostles in scripture (which he promised to do), that He would also lead them to recognize a set of traditions that are not written down as being of equal authority (which he never promised to do).

Show me scripture where God makes this promise to guide the church to recognise written words only and not oral. You make the claim now show me the proof, for I have shown you repeadely where he promised to guide us to Both.

You also make this statment, "We do however have numerous passages in scripture that address the centrality and sufficiency of scripture" Again show me where the Bible tells us that scripture is ALL that we need. I am aware of where it say all of scripture is benificial but that is not the same as saying all we need is in the written. Again show me your proof from scripture?

[Kansasdad]

I think you have totally gone off the deep end and make no sense whatsoever. You indeed ARE straining at gnats! This is all tangental to the OP, and comes off as the rantings of someone who is not churched, but is off on his own personal "odyssey"...weird stuff. I will have none of it.

I am sorry that I have not been able to write this so you could understand. Lets back up. The OP had a question about a verse on Binding and Loosing. We have had several people offer interpretations of this verse and give advise. Some of the responses agreed and some did not. This left the original poster basically on his own to determine which interpretation was correct. In other words he was left right where he started. Now I was able to find a very early church leader who gave us some information about this very issue. One who actually learned from the Apostles. Now this early church father who studied with the Apostles, gave us teaching that agreed with some of the posters but disagreed with others. Those that his teaching disagreed with then rejected him as just some religious person that had no more authority than anyone else. The teaching of this Early Church father did not contradict the verse in question but clarified it. Therefore the rejection of this teaching is anti-Biblical. We are instructed to hold on to these teachings not reject them.

Eric and I have gone on a major side tract ( which we often do)

Does this help to clarify how this is related to the OP?

K.D.

[EricH]

All of which is still an attempt on your part to avoid the issue, because you have given NO answer at all but instead a typical dodge of the real issue at hand. The fact of the matter is that St. Paul explicitly says in 2Thes2:15 that we are to hold to BOTH written and oral traditions. Are you denying this, Eric? The legitimate question didn't ask WHAT the traditions were or weren't. It asked whether the bible states that at a later time, only written traditions were to be adhered to. You implying that all these oral traditions which Paul referred to were at some point written down? Show us this teaching from the bible.

If you can't support your postiton from scripture then it is a self-defeating proposition which should be rejected for what it is...a tradition of man.

I think it is an extremely valid question to ask what the nature of the traditions are. Especially if someone comes along claiming to have them, and can't demonstrate from scripture, what they are, and why what they claim to have should be believed. I agree that Paul commanded us to obey the written and oral commands that came directly from him. What I am disagreeing with on is that the traditions you follow that cannot be found in the Bible, and in some cases seem to contradict the Bible, are those traditions. What I am asking for is some biblical proof that the ones you are following are the ones Paul described in 2 Thess 2:15. I think that is a legitimate request. In several places in scripture we are told to search the scriptures to see if what a person is saying is really true. Anything you claim that is a command from God needs to stand up to the test of scripture. That is what I am asking you for in terms of the extra-biblical traditions you follow.

Above you stated this, " It does not follow, that if God guided the church to recognize the very words of the prophets and apostles in scripture (which he promised to do), that He would also lead them to recognize a set of traditions that are not written down as being of equal authority (which he never promised to do).

Show me scripture where God make this promise to guide the church to recognise written words only and not oral. You make the claim now show me the proof, for I have shown you repeadely where he promised to guide us to Both.

Actually you have not. All you have demonstrated is that Paul commanded his readers to follow both what he told them, and what he wrote to them You have not demonstrated from the Bible that God would continue to sustain the oral sayings apart from scripture. There are numerous places where God promises to sustain scripture. But none that state that Oral traditions will be so sustained.

You also make this statment, "We do however have numerous passages in scripture that address the centrality and sufficiency of scripture" Again show me where the Bible tells us that scripture is ALL that we need. I am aware of where it say all of scripture is benificial but that is not the same as saying all we need is in the written. Again show me your proof from scripture?

Show me scripture where God make this promise to guide the church to recognise written words only and not oral. You make the claim now show me the proof, for I have shown you repeadely where he promised to guide us to Both.

I can provide you with many scriptures that describe the scriptures as being inerrant, infallable, and sufficient for every good work. I cannot fine one that makes any claims of the such for oral traditions. Your argument seems to be that the scripture does not say that it does not apply to oral traditions, so it must. That is simply put an argument from silence. Here is your logic:

The scriptures do not say that the texts that apply to scripture do not apply to Oral traditions, so they must apply to oral traditions. It simply does not follow.

Here is one scripture that claims scripture itself is all that we need:

and that from childhood you have known the sacred Scriptures, which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is inspired by God and is profitable for teaching, for rebuking, for correcting, for training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.

2 Timothy 3:15-17

Clearly Paul says:

1. The scriptures themselves are able to instruct us so that we can be saved

2. They are sufficient for every good work - which work is not included in every?

3. The make us complete - what part of us is lacking if we are complete??

Do you need more? I can provide it.

I agree that Paul stated that we are to hold to the oral commands he gave. Where I am differing with you is what those are. You have made some "extra-biblical" leaps to arrive at the conclusion that the traditions you follow that are not in scripture are the ones Paul was speaking of. You have still not given me any scriptural support to show me that the ones you follow are. I on the other hand have provided scripture that seems to indicate that by the time Pul wrote is last epistle, he was onvly concerned with us knowing scripture. That inidicates to me that whatever oral sayings He had spoken of in earlier letters were now codified.

Once again, I am waiting for the answer to 2 questions:

1. How can you demonstrate biblically that the oral traditions you are following are the same ones Paul described in his letters

2. What rules do you use to determine which scriptures to take absolutel literally and which to adjust for historical occurrences?

Why are you resisiting answering these questions?

[Floatingaxe]

Does this help to clarify how this is related to the OP?

Yes, thanks.

[Floatingaxe]

Acts 19:18 (And many of them that believed, came confessing and declaring their deeds.) many came to orally confess sins and divulge their sinful practices. Oral confession was the practice of the early Church just as it is today.

Now lets look at what some of the disciples of the Apostles had to say about the subject. I would be much more interested in what they had to say then some contemporary writer. I think knowing what the Apostles taught hold much more weight.

"Father who knowest the hearts of all grant upon this Thy servant whom Thou hast chosen for the episcopate to feed Thy holy flock and serve as Thine high priest, that he may minister blamelessly by night and day, that he may unceasingly behold and appropriate Thy countenance and offer to Thee the gifts of Thy holy Church. And that by the high priestly Spirit he may have authority to forgive sins..." Hippolytus, Apostolic Tradition, 3 (A.D. 215).

"In addition to these there is also a seventh, albeit hard and laborious: the remission of sins through penance...when he does not shrink from declaring his sin to a priest of the Lord." Origen, Homilies on Leviticus, 2:4 (A.D. 248).

"It is necessary to confess our sins to those whom the dispensation of God's mysteries is entrusted." Basil, Rule Briefly Treated, 288 (A.D. 374).

Notice the dates, these are the Church leaders who followed the Apostles, well before Constantine came along in A.D. 500 or so. So don't try to make this just a Catholic Church thing. It was taught since the very beginning of Church history.

Aha! I found it! Just as expected. Talk about remission of sins through penance and entrusted mysteries of God, declaring sin to a priest of the Lord. These things are the early beginnings of heretical thought and practice...away from Paul!

[Kansasdad]

Acts 19:18 (And many of them that believed, came confessing and declaring their deeds.) many came to orally confess sins and divulge their sinful practices. Oral confession was the practice of the early Church just as it is today.

Now lets look at what some of the disciples of the Apostles had to say about the subject. I would be much more interested in what they had to say then some contemporary writer. I think knowing what the Apostles taught hold much more weight.

"Father who knowest the hearts of all grant upon this Thy servant whom Thou hast chosen for the episcopate to feed Thy holy flock and serve as Thine high priest, that he may minister blamelessly by night and day, that he may unceasingly behold and appropriate Thy countenance and offer to Thee the gifts of Thy holy Church. And that by the high priestly Spirit he may have authority to forgive sins..." Hippolytus, Apostolic Tradition, 3 (A.D. 215).

"In addition to these there is also a seventh, albeit hard and laborious: the remission of sins through penance...when he does not shrink from declaring his sin to a priest of the Lord." Origen, Homilies on Leviticus, 2:4 (A.D. 248).

"It is necessary to confess our sins to those whom the dispensation of God's mysteries is entrusted." Basil, Rule Briefly Treated, 288 (A.D. 374).

Notice the dates, these are the Church leaders who followed the Apostles, well before Constantine came along in A.D. 500 or so. So don't try to make this just a Catholic Church thing. It was taught since the very beginning of Church history.

Aha! I found it! Just as expected. Talk about remission of sins through penance and entrusted mysteries of God, declaring sin to a priest of the Lord. These things are the early beginnings of heretical thought and practice...away from Paul!

And you base your opinion from what. We have scripture that says this (Receive ye the Holy Ghost. 23 Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.) One way to interpret these verses is to take them exactly as they say. We then can also see that the very first church also understood them to mean exactly what they say. So who then is taking the verse away from what Paul taught. Scripture itself? Not likely. The disciples who were taught by Paul and the other Apostles, also not likely. Or someones personal interpretation that explains these verses to mean something else and disagrees with the teachings passed on by the Apostles. Here we have both the Written and the Oral agreeing with each other. How can you possibly reject this teaching. It has all of the elements scripture says is required to authenticate the truth.

K.D.

[Kansasdad]

I can provide you with many scriptures that describe the scriptures as being inerrant, infallable, and sufficient for every good work. I cannot fine one that makes any claims of the such for oral traditions. Your argument seems to be that the scripture does not say that it does not apply to oral traditions, so it must. That is simply put an argument from silence. Here is your logic:

The scriptures do not say that the texts that apply to scripture do not apply to Oral traditions, so they must apply to oral traditions. It simply does not follow.

Here is one scripture that claims scripture itself is all that we need:

and that from childhood you have known the sacred Scriptures, which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is inspired by God and is profitable for teaching, for rebuking, for correcting, for training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.

2 Timothy 3:15-17

Clearly Paul says:

1. The scriptures themselves are able to instruct us so that we can be saved

2. They are sufficient for every good work - which work is not included in every?

3. The make us complete - what part of us is lacking if we are complete??

Do you need more? I can provide it.

I agree that Paul stated that we are to hold to the oral commands he gave. Where I am differing with you is what those are. You have made some "extra-biblical" leaps to arrive at the conclusion that the traditions you follow that are not in scripture are the ones Paul was speaking of. You have still not given me any scriptural support to show me that the ones you follow are. I on the other hand have provided scripture that seems to indicate that by the time Pul wrote is last epistle, he was onvly concerned with us knowing scripture. That inidicates to me that whatever oral sayings He had spoken of in earlier letters were now codified.

Once again, I am waiting for the answer to 2 questions:

1. How can you demonstrate biblically that the oral traditions you are following are the same ones Paul described in his letters

2. What rules do you use to determine which scriptures to take absolutel literally and which to adjust for historical occurrences?

Why are you resisiting answering these questions?

Ok, let me answer in two different post because there are two completely different issues here. First to respond to the content of the traditions. Eric it seems to me you are trying to direct this conversation into a defence of the traditions of the Catholic Church. You have made it very clear you will not allow this, yet you have tried to make this personal to the traditions in which I believe in. I am not going to go there and give you a reason to close this thread. HOWEVER,

I will answer the question in a very specific way. The OP asked about a very specific verse of scripture. I am contending that oral traditions of the very early church, Well before the supposed start of the Catholic Church in 325AD teach us about this verse and what its meaning is. So there is the context given to us in scripture. Paul tells us that we must hold on to his teaching both in writing and by word of mouth. We have before us the written, but we have confusion as to its meaning. Therefore it becomes imperative that we search for his oral teachings. I provided documentation of early teachings about this subject. Those teachings do not contradict the written. In fact they show that the teachings passed on by the Apostles take a very literal interpretation of these verses. Thus we have Both the written and the oral from people we know studied under the Apostles agreeing with each other. Yet we have people who still will not except a literal interpretation of scripture supported by oral traditions of the Apostles.

God Bless

K.D.

second part on the next post.