Binding and loosing

[Floatingaxe]

Maybe not! This is not down to opinion, but rather, TRUTH. I follow after the Word of God in any matter. If anything doesn't line up with it, I toss it out. Your so-called fathers of tradition may have veered away from TRUTH and instituted some erroneous doctrine.

Again you are trying to make this personal. They are not my so-called fathers of tradition. Paul talks of these very people. I don't think you have grasped of whom I have quoted. These are the very first leaders of your faith. If you reject them then you have absolutely nothing to base Christianity on. They were here before the Bible. It is God working through the very people you are rejecting that we have the Bible.

Kansasdad...I am sorry that you think I am makimg this personal...I am not.

It really doesn't matter to me what you are believing about this matter, as I don't really think it affects our salvation at all. So go in peace, Kansasdad. I will not contend with you any more about it.

[Kansasdad]

Some of those rules are seriously common sense...taking things in context, for example. I see people tearing things out of context WAY too often, as though that phrase were an island not meant to be associated with the rest of that passage's teachings. I'll bet we could eliminate half of those thirty-thousand interpretations just by applying that simple, obvious rule.

On this I actually don't disagree. But that still leaves 15,000 sorry couldn't resist.

Actually it is amazing that this is receiving so much resistance. Paul tells Timothy( first generation of disciples) to train men to be good teachers (second generation) and to hold on to all that he has been taught. So that these men will also teach others (third generation) I have provided teaching from these very men that Paul is talking about. If what they said contradicted what Paul said then I could understand the rejection. But it doesn't. Their teaching provides a very literal teaching of the scripture in question. If you have a very literal interpretation of scripture demonstrated with examples of how the very people Paul and the other Apostles taught carried out these scriptures, then any other interpretation seems quite suspect. Sorry but if I have to decide who is being guided by the Holy Spirit, a disciple of the Apostles who takes a literal interpretation of scripture or some one 2000 year later that takes a diffused broadly applied interpretation of the same scripture, Whom should I believe.

God Bless,

K.D.

It bothers me a great deal.

Part of American Protestant and sometimes even Catholic Christianity is a negative reaction to all tradition, any tradition is seen as bad and onerous and burdensome. Unfortunately what that means is that when we remove all tradition, we get stuck with modern culture filling the void, and this is what has happened too many of our congregations. Why would anything "new" be happening in our faith or our beliefs? Our churches have become so trendy, its depressing.

Yes I agree completely. thank you.

[Pilgrim7]

The reason for not defining the 'traditions' is that then it can easily be refuted with Scripture. This is why the 'emphasis' on 'tradition' being of equal value with Scripture. Once a person is 'convinced' of the 'value of tradition', then it is used to 'trump' Scripture any time that it is convenient. This has been amply demonstrated in this thread. Thus the 'word of man' is raised above the 'Word of God', yet that will never be admitted. No need to 'burn Bibles' anymore, just use only those Scriptures that can be 'twisted' to make the case for 'tradition' and all the rest of 'man's inventions'.

Let us be honest here. This is all about the RCC Priesthood and their 'assumed and presumed' authority to forgive sin. You see this is the essence of 'Blasphemy' as recorded in the Scripture. The only sin a man can forgive, is one that is commited against him by another and that doesn't procure for him the forgiveness of God.

John 10:33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that you, being a man, make yourself God.

Luke 5:20 And when he saw their faith, he said unto him, Man, your sins are forgiven you. (I wonder why Peter didn't say that)

5:21 And the scribes and the Pharisees began to reason, saying, Who is this which speaks blasphemies? Who can forgive sins, but God alone?

We either 'bind or loose' men in or from sin by presenting them the Gospel of Christ. By doing this we bring them to a decision, to either 'receive Christ' and forgiveness, thus being 'loosed from sin', or by rejecting Christ, and thus 'being bound in sin'. We didn't 'bind or loose' them, their choice did, yet we were the instruments in the 'binding and loosing', able to give them the assurance that if they 'repent of sin' and 'believe the Gospel' they are forgiven. That is the extent of our role in the 'binding and loosing'.

God Bless,

Dennis

[Floatingaxe]

The reason for not defining the 'traditions' is that then it can easily be refuted with Scripture. This is why the 'emphasis' on 'tradition' being of equal value with Scripture. Once a person is 'convinced' of the 'value of tradition', then it is used to 'trump' Scripture any time that it is convenient. This has been amply demonstrated in this thread. Thus the 'word of man' is raised above the 'Word of God', yet that will never be admitted. No need to 'burn Bibles' anymore, just use only those Scriptures that can be 'twisted' to make the case for 'tradition' and all the rest of 'man's inventions'.

Let us be honest here. This is all about the RCC Priesthood and their 'assumed and presumed' authority to forgive sin. You see this is the essence of 'Blasphemy' as recorded in the Scripture. The only sin a man can forgive, is one that is commited against him by another and that doesn't procure for him the forgiveness of God.

John 10:33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that you, being a man, make yourself God.

Luke 5:20 And when he saw their faith, he said unto him, Man, your sins are forgiven you. (I wonder why Peter didn't say that)

5:21 And the scribes and the Pharisees began to reason, saying, Who is this which speaks blasphemies? Who can forgive sins, but God alone?

We either 'bind or loose' men in or from sin by presenting them the Gospel of Christ. By doing this we bring them to a decision, to either 'receive Christ' and forgiveness, thus being 'loosed from sin', or by rejecting Christ, and thus 'being bound in sin'. We didn't 'bind or loose' them, their choice did, yet we were the instruments in the 'binding and loosing', able to give them the assurance that if they 'repent of sin' and 'believe the Gospel' they are forgiven. That is the extent of our role in the 'binding and loosing'.

God Bless,

Dennis

Excellent, Dennis!

[Kansasdad]

The reason for not defining the 'traditions' is that then it can easily be refuted with Scripture. This is why the 'emphasis' on 'tradition' being of equal value with Scripture. Once a person is 'convinced' of the 'value of tradition', then it is used to 'trump' Scripture any time that it is convenient. This has been amply demonstrated in this thread. Thus the 'word of man' is raised above the 'Word of God', yet that will never be admitted. No need to 'burn Bibles' anymore, just use only those Scriptures that can be 'twisted' to make the case for 'tradition' and all the rest of 'man's inventions'.

Let us be honest here. This is all about the RCC Priesthood and their 'assumed and presumed' authority to forgive sin. You see this is the essence of 'Blasphemy' as recorded in the Scripture. The only sin a man can forgive, is one that is commited against him by another and that doesn't procure for him the forgiveness of God.

John 10:33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that you, being a man, make yourself God.

Luke 5:20 And when he saw their faith, he said unto him, Man, your sins are forgiven you. (I wonder why Peter didn't say that)

5:21 And the scribes and the Pharisees began to reason, saying, Who is this which speaks blasphemies? Who can forgive sins, but God alone?

We either 'bind or loose' men in or from sin by presenting them the Gospel of Christ. By doing this we bring them to a decision, to either 'receive Christ' and forgiveness, thus being 'loosed from sin', or by rejecting Christ, and thus 'being bound in sin'. We didn't 'bind or loose' them, their choice did, yet we were the instruments in the 'binding and loosing', able to give them the assurance that if they 'repent of sin' and 'believe the Gospel' they are forgiven. That is the extent of our role in the 'binding and loosing'.

God Bless,

Dennis

So Dennis then for the above red highlight to be true this would make Hippolytus, (A.D. 215) a Catholic Priest, or Origen, (A.D. 248). or Basil,(A.D. 374).

Or how about Ignatius of Antioch [A.D. 110]). Are you actually admitting that there were Catholic Priest in the year A.D. 110. Did you know that Ignatius actually studied with the Apostles. Just like Timothy mentioned in the Bible. Are you actually saying that Ignatius was defending the Catholic Priesthood?

.

[Pilgrim7]

KD,

You are really good at avoiding evidence and issues in order to further your agenda. I have never mentioned these names. There was a 'falling away', which you seem to not be aware of, yet Paul was. It had already started when Paul wrote Thessalonians. Maybe He was trying to warn us of them. If these people you seem to admire above the Scriptures were part of this 'falling away', then they were but preparing the way for the 'man of sin'.

Not every one who is taught of another is a 'true disciple'. Paul specifies many who He taught who 'departed from the faith'. Should we follow their 'traditions' just because at one time they were taught by Paul. You reasoning and logic is so flawed, that is impossible to even discuss issues with you.

As you are well aware, the 'official RCC' didn't officially usurp 'church authority' until the 500's. Until then there was the 'general falling away' which had 'already begun' in Paul's day. It took time for 'Pagan Rome' and the priesthood of 'Sol Invictus', the cult of the Invincible Sun, to 'morph into the Holy Roman Empire' and presume to rule over Christ's flock.

You see, the way Rome asserted her dominance over 'organized christianity' at that time, was to 'christianize' the official Roman Religion of 'Sol Invictus', making all her priests, temple priestesses and festivals 'christian in name only'. Thus the magical appearance of another priesthood, even though Christ had done away with the Levitical priesthood and the office of priest. No change took place other than in name and profession. Thus they assumed power and 'Mystery Babylon' was eventually formed.

So much for your 'traditions'. Only those sins that are confessed 'directly to God' in the name of Jesus are 'loosed'. Any confessed to a 'priest', are not forgiven and thus will not be 'loosed', but 'bound' to meet one on the day of judgment when Jesus says 'depart from me you workers of iniquity, for I never knew you'.

I think that we are through with this discussion, I leave you to your traditions and pray that your sins have been 'loosed' by Christ Himself.

God Bless,

Dennis

[Fiosh]

The Early Church Fathers are not heretics or "fallen away Christians". They are disciples of the Apostles, and martyrs for their faith in Jesus.

For example:

Ignatius of Antioch -(this is the guy who studied under the Apostle John) Sometime late in the reign of the Emperor Trajan (98-117AD), a persecution broke out in Syria. Ignatius, leader of the Christians in the region

[Floatingaxe]

Wonder away, Fiosh! We will never know. All we do know for sure is what God had Paul write FOR US! He is our model.

[Fiosh]

Wonder away, Fiosh! We will never know. All we do know for sure is what God had Paul write FOR US! He is our model.

Ah, but we DO know! If I may borrow a quote from Ak from another thread:

"So Irenaeus, Ignatius, Clement of Alexandira, Clement of Rome, Tertullian, Athanasius, Bardesanes, Eusibias, Justin Martyr, Origen, Polycarp, Tacticus, Pliny the Younger, Hermias, Aristides the Athenian, and hundreds more are all people who wrote about the first three hundred years of the Church, during the first three hundred years of the Church. It is said that there is more historical evidence and knowledge of what occurred in the first three hundred years of Christianity than from 700-1200. What you said is just ignorant to the hundreds of sources we have from this time."

Peace,

Fiosh

[Floatingaxe]

Then why do you wonder, Fiosh?