Binding and loosing

[Sherman]

Hello everyone,

I haven't taken time to go through and read all the posts on this thread, but I would like to share something the Lord told me through this verse many years ago. Now this is clearly not an exegetical understanding of this passage, and this is not something to be taught or influence doctrine, but it is what the Lord taught me through this passage. I suppose its an Eisegetical understanding - "I see Jesus" in this passage.

Right after I was baptized in the Holy Spirit when I was 24 years old, I began reading the Bible with fresh insight, and a new dynamic relationship with the Holy Spirit. Anyhow, I was praying and as I prayed, I thought of this scripture, so I said to the Lord, "Lord, you wouldn't give something to Peter that you wouldn't give me, so I need to know three things: 1) What are these "Keys"? 2) What are they for? 3) And how do I get them?

I felt the Lord's smile and He replied: "These are the things that I develop in you so that I can use you to unlock anyone who is in bondage!" And I also "understood" that the 3rd question was soon to be answered. Wow, was I excited! The very next day from an evangelist that had visited my church I received a tape series that I had ordered a few months back. I had completely forgotten about about ordering them. They were intitled, "Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven." Was that cool or what!!! I dove into those tapes like a boy diving into the springs back home in FL.

These tapes were all about the Beatitudes. I quickly came to understand that the beatitudes were the foundation for a Spirit-filled life. Poor in Spirit, Mourful/broken, Meek, Hungry and Thirsty for Righteousness (positional and practical), Merciful, Pure in Heart, Peacemakers, and willing to suffer Persecution!!!

If we will allow God to develop these these attitudes in us, He can use us to unlock anyone caught in the snares of Satan!!!!! Hallelujah! It just don't get much better than that!

I hope this post is an encouragement to you to revisit this beautiful passage!

In Him and in your service,

[Pilgrim7]

Paul warned everyone of the 'falling away' that had already started, I wonder if He told them. They never mentioned it. Hmm. Maybe they forgot, or maybe they were part of it.

John also told them 'face to face' of the anti-christs that would come into the flock. Amazing that through the first 300 years no one mentioned that either. It makes you wonder what kind of students they really were.

I know that we were warned about false christs, false prophets and false teachers who would not spare the flock and lead to the elevation of the 'man of sin'.

When someone is taught about the rise of the 'man of sin' and then they never mention it later, hmm, it just makes me wonder.

God bless,

Dennis

[Lea-anne]

At the previous ministry I was in, they believed and prayed like "I bind this and I loose that". I think Jesus could have meant that He has given His Apostles the right to bind and loose certain principles in every day life. e.g. override the OT laws so that people were not bound by traditions and rituals. Take Paul's notes on marriage and divorce in 1 Cor 7. Some of it was words he spoke; advise he gave. I think that the Jesus meant that what the Apostles thought right would be bound in heaven. I hope I'm wording this right. Take the story of Gabriel and satan as they fought over the body of Moses. Not even Gabriel said a bad word against satan. All he said was 'The Lord rebuke you'. God gave us dominion over earth, not the spiritual realm. Also, there is not one incident where that the Apostles or Jesus is quoted using this binding and loosing term. Whenever they prayed that put everything and God's feet and had faith that He would help or sort the situation out. I stand to be corrected. I am still learning and am eager to learn.

[Botz]

At the previous ministry I was in, they believed and prayed like "I bind this and I loose that". I think Jesus could have meant that He has given His Apostles the right to bind and loose certain principles in every day life. e.g. override the OT laws so that people were not bound by traditions and rituals. Take Paul's notes on marriage and divorce in 1 Cor 7. Some of it was words he spoke; advise he gave. I think that the Jesus meant that what the Apostles thought right would be bound in heaven. I hope I'm wording this right. Take the story of Gabriel and satan as they fought over the body of Moses. Not even Gabriel said a bad word against satan. All he said was 'The Lord rebuke you'. God gave us dominion over earth, not the spiritual realm. Also, there is not one incident where that the Apostles or Jesus is quoted using this binding and loosing term. Whenever they prayed that put everything and God's feet and had faith that He would help or sort the situation out. I stand to be corrected. I am still learning and am eager to learn.

And so this thread has gone full circle, and comes back to where it started. After an interesting excursion into the lives and teachings of great personages at the outset of the early Church, and the usual foray into the advantages, or not, of the authority of the Catholic Church, and the strengths and weaknesses of certain traditions.

Basically I agree with what you say Lea-anne. Some may well be able to build a case for this spiritualised teaching on binding and loosing, but I don't believe it can be garnered from Matthew 16:19 and Matthew 18:18 which as we saw earlier on is talking of binding and loosing in an entirely different vein, and with a Jewish rabbinical context.

[Kansasdad]

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

No Dennis it is you who is avoiding dealing with the issue. You made the claim that this is about the Catholic Church. You make the claim that I have an agenda. However your claims can only be true if the Catholic Church was around in AD 90 or so. I told you early on I would play by "the rules" and not use anything that came from the "Catholic Church" All of the people I quoted were writing 100's of years before your time frame for the Catholic Church. So lets get off that assumption and deal with what is actually posted and not what you think I am getting at. The Moderators made it very clear that they will not allow a thread to become a defense of any particular denomination. I am fine with that and will stay with in their directive.

Now for the rest of your post. You actually bring up a valid point. We did have problems arising and being dealt with during the time of the Apostles. We also see through Church history that we had many heresies that they had to deal with. We know that the Apostles Creed was developed just for this reason. We also know that we have the Bible for this reason. Remember it was a group of people who went through all the writings that were circulating and determined which ones were authentic scripture. Now this same group could not be counted among those that had fallen away and at the same time gather and declare the authentication of the Bible. So we know that not all of the people had fallen away. So how do we determine which ones were teaching what the Apostles taught and which ones were teaching something different? The essence of your post.

To do this we first need to make sure that it does not contradict scripture. Second we need to determine if this person actually received his/her knowledge from the apostles. There has to be a verifiable direct line to the Apostles. In the case of the above questioned verses we have more than one individual whom we can verify were actually disciples of the Apostles. So point #2 is established. So that just leaves us with the first point. In this case we see that what these men said and practiced demonstrate a very literal interpretation of the scripture. Their teaching and practices demonstrate the words to mean exactly what they say. So again how can you claim that this is a fallen away practice when we know they studied with the Apostles and they teach us a very literal interpretation of scripture. We have on this thread several interpretations of these verses. They are not all correct. All of the readers of this thread have a choice, including the original poster. You can listen to people who studied the Bible 2000 years after it was written, pray, and follow which ever one you feel you are being guided towards, or you can pray and then look to the men who studied with the Apostles and from this knowledge actually put the Bible together.

God bless,

K.D.

[Smalcald]

You mean like Martin Luther?

[Kansasdad]

You mean like Martin Luther?

As to the first point we could establish that, but to the second point? I think some of what he taught contradicted scripture. Both points must be valid. I do not dismiss everything he taught as invalid. There were practices in the church that contradicted the doctrine of the church. Say one thing do another. These issues needed to be dealth with.

[Kansasdad]

I might add that we still have this today. We have practices that contradict scripture, Apostolic Traditions, and doctrine. They always need to be dealt with.

[apothanein kerdos]

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

Seems I'm being misquoted more often now, especially on the internet. I never expected it would happen on Worthy though!

The context of what I establishing that in was not for theological purposes, but instead for historical purposes. In other words, though I have read these authors and think of them as great men, I also find flaws in their works and even some hints of the Gnosticism they were fighting. Likewise, in an attempt to fight the heresy of Gnosticism, the often reverted to extremes in theology, instead of sticking to their biblical grounds. Keep in mind that many of these, with a possible exception to Tertullian, were heavily influenced by Plato's philosophy, which led to some twisting of scripture and inaccuracies in doctrine, that especially erred on the Platonic (Gnostic) side of theology. This is why we must take their writings and compare them to scripture, instead of incorporating them into Church doctrine whole-sale.

[apothanein kerdos]

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

Since I just made a post disagreeing with certain Catholic doctrines, at this point I should say that non-Catholics should read the early Church fathers. We should do so because there is a vast amount of wisdom contained in their works. St. Athanasius' work On the Incarnation is a foundational work on the purpose of Christ coming to die for us. Though it is flawed in many aspects, its core point is dead on accurate, and still relevant to this day. Augustine's City of God, though very Platonic (which is border line heresy), still makes the point of being separate and holy. It is a shame that there is not a single protestant or evangelical scholar on the patristic fathers. I hope at some point I can change that, but for now, philosophy is my direction.