|
|
Bible Questions and Spiritual Discussion
|
|
Ted, first I just wanted to make sure you knew that I wasn't being passive aggressive when I said that "I don't pretend to be a Greek scholar". I just meant that I am completely unqualified to do Greek word studies. I didn't know if you had this skill or not, though I did assume that possibly you may have studied it during your pastoral training. I'm sorry if it came through wrong; I wasn't thinking that you were proclaiming yourself to be a Greek language scholar.
Reading what you quoted of Zhodiates, it seems apparent that not only is he supporting my position, but he is also making a strong case for ecclesiastical infallibility. It seems to me that what he is saying is that "binding and loosing" was an ecclesiastical authority, used when the Church made their authoritative doctrinal decisions and ecclesiastical disciplines. So its basically saying that this Church would be effectively prevented from teaching anything that did not agree with what God had already proclaimed.
Its apparent that this can only mean that there is only one Church, and that with this particular usage, "Church" cannot mean "everyone who is called a Christian", since 1) there are so many different churches who have all taught different (conflicting) things, and 2) individuals certainly do not all teach doctrines to others that are in accord with the doctrines others are teaching to others. I have no more right to bind some doctrine here than anyone else on the DAB, nor do I have the right to proclaim someone excommunicated (anathema). So the text seems to be referring to an ecclesiastical body that would be prevented from teaching error (which is the an accurate description of infallibility), and that could pronounce excommunications and anathemas.
This also supports Zhodiates and reinforces what the Jews meant when they said "bind and loose":
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=1073&letter=B
And also, an article on Rabbinic authority that refers to binding and loosing:
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=2154&letter=A
So basically, these Jewish men who were Jesus' apostles knew exactly what was meant when Jesus told them he would give them the power to bind and loose. And that is why, if the Church said that the Age of Accountability was a true doctrine, it would be because God would already have made it so.
So anyways, knowing that that might be controversial... I guess this horse is dying, but in essence I think that the truth is that the "Age of Accountability" is not doctrine found in the Bible and I thank you all for contributing to the discussion whether or not you believe in it and why.
| I just don't see how you got all that from what Ted said. It seems on the level of saying that sense God gave Adam the power to name things, that nobody else should ever name anyone or anything unless that power was passed down from Adam in divine "authority". You are twisting it all up in your preconcieved ideas about YOUR church in a patriotism that is divisive and in disrespect of other faiths. I have read many of the Catholic websites, and know that they are not in agreement on everything either, and what about things the church has had to amend through time? It changes too. Or are we still buying souls out of purgatory? Still burning heretics at the stake (many of which eventually become saints". Do you respond to the treasures you read? I start reading scriptures on salvation for the challenge you and have going, and omgosh..... I Word-study and praise and follow trails into the heart of God and by the time I have been doing it I don't even care about arguing with you, it is so alive to me! This whole thing on binding and loosening has been huge in my life, in a TOTALLY different way then what you are saying it means. I would be depleted if I had to quote by rote and never just spend an afternoon with God asking Him what He has to say to me with the scripture in front of my face. To me this thread sounds like sitting before an incredible meal, served by the One who loves me passionately, and picking apart whether basil can be used without permission. Ugh. Pulls out hair.
| Here is how I got what I said from what Ted quoted. In fact his quotes made me look at the whole thing in a different way.
Quote:
----
This means that we as believers on earth can only confirm what has already been decided in heaven. Heaven does not have to confirm our pronouncements. The use of the pl., which includes other believers, indicates that this was not an exclusive prerogative of Peter, 'whatsoever ye [pl.] shall bind on earth…and whatsoever ye [pl.] shall loose.'
----
First of all, I disagree with how Zhodiates has interpreted the use of pluralities, into which he has placed his own personal belief. He said that the verse was stating that "This means that we as believers on earth can only confirm what has already been decided in heaven." That is exactly what infallibility is - the ability to correctly define what has already been taught. And this infallibility that most people think we just apply to the pope is actually most commonly throughout history applied to the college of bishops as a whole. So one can see how this would always be a "plural".
Quote:
----
The word 'church' appears for the first time in Matt 16:18 and, therefore, this authority the Lord Jesus gave to all His disciples was the necessary apostolic authority for the establishment of the truth in the church. It has to do with individuals in regard to forgiveness or judgment. The privilege of the forgiveness of sins, which means their removal from the sinner and his regeneration, is the unique privilege of God (Mark 2:7).
----
Agreed, with the one exception, that the follow on to Mark 2:7 is in fact Jesus demonstrating God's forgiveness operating through a man in his humanity: note how Jesus refers to himself as Son of Man, a pointer to his humanity:
Mark 2
----
5 When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, "Child, your sins are forgiven."
6 Now some of the scribes were sitting there asking themselves,
7 "Why does this man speak that way? He is blaspheming. Who but God alone can forgive sins?"
8 Jesus immediately knew in his mind what they were thinking to themselves, so he said, "Why are you thinking such things in your hearts?
9 Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, 'Your sins are forgiven,' or to say, 'Rise, pick up your mat and walk'?
10 But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority to forgive sins on earth"--
11 he said to the paralytic, "I say to you, rise, pick up your mat, and go home."
----
In concert with John 20:23, you see that Jesus explicitly gives the authority to forgive sins to men, and here in Mark 2 he is demonstrating it while emphasizing his humanity.
Quote:
----
Here the kingdom, or church, of the Lord is compared to an edifice to which the Apostles have the keys (Matt. 16:19; Is. 22:22; Rev. 3:7). Accordingly, as they shut or open the door to anything that should be believed or rejected in the church on earth, it must be in agreement with what God has already ordained in heaven. The allusion here is to the ancient manner of binding together the twin doors of houses with a chain to which a padlock was sometimes suspended. In this connection see also the word aphiemi (863), to forgive, in relation to John 20:23.
----
Jesus is proclaiming a capability, to bind and loose, something that will be used in the future, Zhodiates is saying that Jesus is saying that whatever they bind and loose will have been already ordained in heaven. That means that they are incapable of binding or loosing something that is not already ordained in heaven. That means infallible doctrinal pronouncements.
Quote:
----
That this binding and loosing had to do only with the doctrine and government of the local church is demonstrated by the leadership Peter assumed consequent to this experience. He acted as chairman of the group of disciples in Jerusalem even before the coming of the Holy Spirit (Acts 1:15-26). At Pentecost he was the one who preached when three thousand souls believed (Acts 2:14-41). It was Peter also who brought the gospel to the Gentiles at Caesarea by the sea (Acts 10:34-48). It is evident that what the council at Jerusalem did had been ratified in heaven by the Holy Spirit (Acts 15:8,9).
----
The only part that I disagree with is his assertion that it _only_ had to do with these things. In fact, the scriptures only demonstrate these two parts of the power of the keys, but that itself does not explicitly exclude the forgiveness of sins. But what Zhodiates does say is that Peter used the power of the keys to pronounce doctrine and perform ecclesiastical discipline, and it is demonstrated by these scriptures, including the council of Jerusalem, where the bishops discussed and Peter had the final say on the doctrine of whether one had to be circumcised.
Quote:
----
'Binding and loosing' were idiomatic expressions among the rabbis denoting what these rabbis permitted the people to do or not to do. The disciples were acting in a similar manner as the rabbis for the Jews, but they were acting on behalf of all believers. Such authority was given to all the disciples as Matt. 18:18 makes clear. It was Peter who disciplined Ananias and Sapphira, and his decision received ratification from heaven (Acts 5:1-11). We have a similar experience with Paul in 1 Cor. 5 when discipline was needed. Paul said to the Corinthians that when they were assembled, and his spirit was present, with the power of the Lord Jesus, then the judgment of God would be made manifest in a practical way (1 Cor. 5:3-5). It was at the apostolic council in Jerusalem that it was said, 'it seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us' (Acts 15:28). What was bound on earth had first been bound in heaven."
----
If you follow the links I have shown above, this corroborates what the Jewish people say that the power of binding and loosing entails. These certain persons had the power to bind and loose, and they operated on behalf of all believers. That means that these persons who had this authority were part of the Church (institution). Both Peter and Paul were bishops in the early Church. Nowhere in scripture does it demonstrate anyone but the apostles using binding and loosing, and that is because they are the body that is responsible for doctrinal truth and ecclesiastical discipline. They have that authority.
We as members of the body also exact a similar authority, over our family and ourselves, but not over the entire church body with regard to doctrine.
| "Jesus is proclaiming a capability, to bind and loose, something that will be used in the future, Zhodiates is saying that Jesus is saying that whatever they bind and loose will have been already ordained in heaven. That means that they are incapable of binding or loosing something that is not already ordained in heaven. That means infallible doctrinal pronouncements."
Why does that mean infallible doctrinal pronouncements? To say that they can do something doesn't mean that they CAN'T do something else too. Is every word that Peter or Paul said scripture? and it is still a stretch to think that the Catholic church alone, instead of all believers, would have this power. Has the church been infallible? Andre, the church has been the cause of atrocities through out time. Are you sure you want to pronounce them infallible? 0.0 It might be better to take the humble road and like Brian said, they fall down and they get up, they fall down and they get up. At least then it is believable.
| Only God is infallible. This seems like heresey to me, to claim that for the church. But I won't burn you at the stake.
| Kelley, you need to understand what the Church means by infallibility before you make your judgements.
Infallibility does not mean that people in the Church cannot sin.
Infallibility does not mean that people cannot be wrong about something preached informally.
Peter wrote scripture. That particular teaching was infallible. Paul wrote scripture. That particular teaching was infallible. Every single person who wrote scripture wrote infallibly. They were guided by the spirit, reiterating what they had learned. The Council of Jerusalem involved the apostles and they made an infallible pronouncement, one that hadn't been decided explicitly by Jesus, but their decision was annointed by the Holy Spirit.
Since binding and loosing is an act, it takes an official proclamation or intention to make it so. Regular sermons by the apostles are not necessarily guided infallibly by the holy spirit, and they are not intended to be. Those uses of the keys were intentional doctrinal pronouncements, invoking the keys.
Atrocity is the result of sin. Show me an atrocity that was the result of doctrine. The sale of indulgences was an abuse, a sin, and was never doctrine. The way that the governments handled their punishments for those found guilty of breaking national laws (which is what the atrocities of the inquisition were) was not church doctrine.
Every person is a sinner, that's just the nature of the beast. Even the infallible writings of the apostles were written by sinful persons. Kelley, you need to separate the sinful actions of men from the infallible actions (through men) of the Holy Spirit. The Bible is living proof, and it is very believable.
| But out of all the things they said and wrote, who decides WHAT to treat as infallible? Are those people infallible? and what about who decided who those people should be? are those people infallible?
In the end, God made sure we could know Him through his Word. We all have to approach Him there. It is a living interaction between each soul and the Holy Spirit. God seemed much less eager that we would have infallible written in stone words (he could have repeated the Moses stones) then that we come to know Him through relationship and walking our real lives out with Him under the power of the Holy Spirit. And you can't really ditch the sin issue if the authority is supposed to be infallible. Weren't those sins commited over disputes about doctrin?
| All the authority to proclaim things as infallible is sourced initially from Jesus himself, who was impeccable.
While discussing doctrines and personal viewpoints can lead humans to commit sinful acts, it is not the doctrine itself that is sinful. I'm not ditching the sin issue. God created a church out of sinful living stones. Sinful people wrote the Bible, and sinful people declared it the Bible. Every believer has to come to grips with the fact that people who sin can also be infallible. Otherwise you have to reject the Bible.
| "Every believer has to come to grips with the fact that people who sin can also be infallible"
The person is not infallible. Your original statement was about being infallible in their doctrinal pronouncments. But they aren't. Who wrote the Gospel of Peter for instance? I really don't know, I'm just asking, assuming it's Peter. There are a lot of other texts out there. You are staking your stake in the ground on the Catholic grouping of thoughts. That is only one such grouping. Jesus didn't call your particular grouping infallible, as it didn't exist then. The Bible is gathered documents that passed intense scrutiny and has been successful in reaching people for 2000 some years in the power of the Holy Spirit for Christ. It doesn't reach them for Peter, or for the church Father's, or for Mary, or for Saints. It doesn't reach them for any particular church who wants to claim it exclusively. God reaches them anyway, through the Bible, without extra Catholic doctrin every single day. All I'm asking you to do is to leave room for everyone else. We exist out here, we are real, and we didn't find God in your church. GOD is infallible.
| Andre, I hope you're taking all of this as iron sharpening iron. I realize we come from two different traditions of exegesis. BTW, I didn't take your comment about Greek scholarship as flippant at all. I hope I didn't sound flippant pronouncing that I neither am a Greek scholar.
I can see how if someone agrees with God's eternal word or judgment regarding a matter, their agreement constitutes "infallibility" on that issue. I don't think any man is infallible at all times though in any area, because clearly even Peter got his doctrine wrong when he was being influenced by the Judaizers (Gal. 2:11-16).
Scripture indicates that Jesus was both 100% man and 100% God concurrently (John 1:1,14). I believe the reason He loved to call Himself Son of Man so much while everyone else was calling Him the Son of God is because He loves mankind so much and got such a kick out of actually getting to be a man. Regardless of the reason, Jesus constantly referred to Himself as the Son of Man and His divinity was inseparable from His humanity in the same way that a person's soul is inseparable from their body; here was a body and a soul (a mind, will and emotions) who was fully God in spirit (John 4:24); He could do nothing apart from being God any more than I could drink a glass of milk apart from having a body.
If as the Son of Man Jesus was limiting His God-hood, then a mere man would be Lord of the Sabbath (Mark 2:28) even though we know from Exodus that the Sabbath was made by and belongs to God (Ex. 20:9,10), albeit it was made for man (Mark 2:27). Also, if in being the Son of Man Jesus was limiting His divinity, then man in his humanity, in and of himself, can be divine - which would clearly be a heresy - because Jesus said, "Who do people say that the Son of Man is?" (Matt. 16:13), and ultimately Peter's answer was, "You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God!" (Matt. 16:16). Furthermore, a mere man in his humanity would be able to pay for the sins of every other man - even though this would be a clear violation of the principle of lex talionis (eye for an eye) - because Jesus said, "the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many." As it is we know it took the blood of God to cleanse all mankind because Jesus was the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world (Rev. 13:8).
All of that to say I take Mark 2:10 as Jesus demonstrating God's forgiveness operating through Himself; God incarnate. And like Paul, I believe that we, "do not preach ourselves but Christ Jesus as Lord, and ourselves as your bond-servants for Jesus' sake." (2 Cor. 4:5)
|
(page
1
2
3
4
5
6)
|
|
|
start of topic
|
|
|
