The Keys and Loosing and Binding

[TooFastTurtle]

Mat 18:18 is the same
Binding and loosing.
Allow < > disallow.

Context.
Mat 18:19
And anything you ask ,i will do it.

"I give you keys " power and authority and priviledge

Mat 18:18-19 was the text i stood on when God healed my blue healer of cushings disease,which is fatal 100% of the time.

The lame man at the gate beautiful is mat 18:18.
The man and wife extortionists killed is mat 18:18

Thats how they worked miracles.
Authority exercised.
Nothing has changed. Not even a sliver of change.
If you do not exercise your authority you will get very little victory.
What do you think is going on when you kick out the devil?
Authority

What do you think is going on when your child is sick,and in the spirit you see it is a demonic attack,and you loose your child from tjat grip of the enemy????
You exercised your authority.
You bound or disallowed the demonic,and you loosed your child into health and freedom.

Almost nowhere did Jesus or the apostles pray for the sick or demon possessed. They commanded.
Mat 18:18

IOW, MAKE IT LEAVE.
SICKNESS,DEMON ATTACK/OPPRESSION.

Cessationists nightmare that the power never left and Jesus is the same yesterday TODAY and forever.

So,we stay ready. We subject ourselves to a holy life,get refilled every morning,so we have something to give like what the apostles walked in.

Or,just walk a nominal life with a mixture of sin and God,and diminish what the bible says,believe your own doctrine,and you will have what we now see.... Mostly unanswered prayer.
You can not cast out demons or heal the sick except you recieve the anointing,walk holy, believe the bible,get refilled daily,and invoke mat 18:18,19 authority.

Heaven says that which you are bound with is the same that overcomes you.

You/ I have a crossroad.
It is the level of victory we decide to walk in.
Paul said " i will be behind in no gift"
That is why he walked in victory. He pursued it.
Passive=little to no victory
Active = the apostles

Cessationists talk highly of the Bible, almost to the point of worship. Yet we cannot find cessationism in that very Bible.

 

[Absolutely]

But,but,but it just can't mean authority.
...please...anything but authority.

Lol

 

[Absolutely]

Well look at the surrounding verses..


They are about resolving sin issues with other believers.

So.. the binding and loosing.. is about church discipline. Check Mathew 18

In particular verse 19

Its God approving a process of disciplining a sinning brother

It says no such thing.
You literally made that up.

 

[Melach]

Most interesting that you hold this view. Actually, when you literally read how Acts 15 went down, as recorded by Luke. Peter actually stated this:

11 But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.

A literal reading will tell you that Peter is actually saying that he wants the Jews (we), from then on, to be saved, as a Gentile (they).

This is very significant because under the Law of Moses, Gentiles could be saved, but only as a Jew. Exodus 12:48 sums that up well.

And when a stranger shall sojourn with thee, and will keep the passover to the LORD, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as one that is born in the land: for no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof.

So when Peter announced that, it was of huge significance to all the Jews who heard him during the Council.

But alas, James intervened before it could take root, and he did his final announcement that

19 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:

James, in my reading, deftly changed Peter's proclamation about how Jews and Gentiles are now to turn to God, into just the Gentiles.
And Acts 21 confirmed it, especially in v20

...Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law

In my reading, James kept the Jewish believers bounded to the Law of Moses. And as I have stated in my first reply to this thread, what they bound on earth, was also confirmed by heaven.

So much for the widely taught doctrine that Peter was the head of the church, and James merely supported Peter's decision, as what Adstar would believe. And yes, I cannot see how you could conclude that the 12 apostles had more authority than James. Scripture indicated otherwise.

It is amazing how a literal reading of Acts 15, without the baggage of church doctrine, reveals.

but are you saying st.james was wrong then? if he kept jewish believers bound to law of moses doesnt that mean he is preaching wrong gospel? i think its serious to say that.

or maybe the ot was still in force for jews until temple was destroyed in ad70 what you believe?

 

[Guojing]

but are you saying st.james was wrong then? if he kept jewish believers bound to law of moses doesnt that mean he is preaching wrong gospel? i think its serious to say that.

or maybe the ot was still in force for jews until temple was destroyed in ad70 what you believe?

We are all speaking from hindsight. We have the benefit of 2000 years to see that the Jewish nation have completely rejected Christ and God has set them aside, to gather Gentiles into the Body of Christ. (Romans 9-11)

James, Peter and John did not have the same benefit. When acts 15 arrived, many of them still harbor hopes that the Jewish nation can still repent of them crucifying Jesus and accept him as their promised King and the Son of God.

That was why the 12 stayed in Jerusalem even under intense persecution (

So James is not to be blamed in anyway, at least in my opinion.

 

[wattie]

It says no such thing.
You literally made that up.

Weeell..

Matthew 18, vs 15-18 are about resolving sin issues.. so it would follow that 19 also is about this.

 

[Nehemiah6]

...many of them still harbor hopes that the Jewish nation can still repent of them crucifying Jesus and accept him as their promised King and the Son of God.

Well the Bible is perfectly clear that after the Second Coming of Christ a huge number of Jews from all over the world will indeed repent and receive Christ as their true Divine Messiah and King. So what makes you think that this is not going to happen?

 

[Guojing]

Well the Bible is perfectly clear that after the Second Coming of Christ a huge number of Jews from all over the world will indeed repent and receive Christ as their true Divine Messiah and King. So what makes you think that this is not going to happen?

I didn't say it was never going to happen.

Yes, the 144,000 and the 2 witnesses will be doing an excellent job there later, with signs and wonders accompanying them. All the Jews will finally accept the resurrected Jesus as their king.

The point that it did not happen in the lifetime of all the 12. They did not realized that, after Stephen was stoned and Jesus raised Paul to reach out to the Gentiles with the Gospel of Grace, God has postponed that Gospel of the Kingdom until he gathered the church comprising of mostly Gentiles, and a Jewish remnant.

Peter probably got a hint nearing the end of his life, when he spoke of God being longsuffering in 2 Peter, and urging his Jewish brothers to look for Paul for the doctrine they needed.

We had the benefit of hindsight now of course.

 

[posthuman]

Woe therefore be unto you, Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! ​

Because ye shut up the kingdom of heaven before men: ​

for ye yourselves go not in, neither suffer ye them that would enter, to come in!​

(Matthew 23:13)​

​

how did the pharisees & teachers of the law lock people out of the kingdom of heaven?
did they have keys?


this is in re:

Therefore say I unto you, the kingdom of God shall be taken from you, ​

and shall be given to a nation, which shall bring forth the fruits thereof! ​

(Matthew 21:43) ​

​

the kingdom is taken away from them, and given to others -- presupposing it was theirs to have been removed from them.
how so?

 

[posthuman]

Who is the one that made the final judgement regarding this matter, as recorded in Acts 15? James, or Peter?

the Holy Spirit.
see Acts 15:28



as far As Acts 21, this would have been around A.D. 57. per Eusebius & Origen, Peter was probably in either Antioch or Rome by then, tho some other sources suggest he may have spent time in Egypt with Mark. just because he didn't happen to be present in Jerusalem when Paul - who knew he was going to be arrested when he went - visited for the last time, doesn't mean Peter was some kind of black-sheep castaway.
seeing that Peter preached the same gospel of Jesus Christ, for there is no other gospel, it kind of makes more sense that Peter wasn't present because if he had been he likely would have been arrested at the same time. Peter was arrested and killed in A.D. 64 - several years before Paul is finally martyred himself probably AD 68. which is weird if Peter was preaching a false, 'more palatable' gospel as a few people have suggested here in the forums over the last few weeks.. but which makes a sort of sense if Peter had escaped persecution in Jerusalem and boldly showed up defiantly in Rome, writing 2 Peter from there, a few years later, and being seized there by Nero & crucified.

 

[posthuman]

And when Paul spoke about Peter in his famous rebuke in Galatians 2 even indicated that Peter was concerned about "certain came from James" in v12.

probably ~ A.D. 48, 9 years before Acts 21.

why do you care so much about supposed human hierarchy in the kingdom of heaven?

 

[posthuman]

11 But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.

A literal reading will tell you that Peter is actually saying that he wants the Jews (we), from then on, to be saved, as a Gentile (they).

i don't understand, how do you get "from then on" ?

are you saying that you think Acts 15 is some kind of epiphany and Peter suddenly started preaching a radically different gospel?
where is that in the text?

this is verse 11 -

πιστεύομεν (('we believe' - present indicative active)) σωθῆναι (('to be saved' - aorist infinitive passive))

does that mean from this moment on?
isn't aorist a past tense?

and where do you get Peter 'wants' the Jews to be saved in some certain method -- are we talking about 'desires' or about facts? i don't see that in the text either -- in as you say, a "literal reading"

 

[Guojing]

i don't understand, how do you get "from then on" ?

are you saying that you think Acts 15 is some kind of epiphany and Peter suddenly started preaching a radically different gospel?
where is that in the text?

this is verse 11 -

πιστεύομεν (('we believe' - present indicative active)) σωθῆναι (('to be saved' - aorist infinitive passive))

does that mean from this moment on?
isn't aorist a past tense?

The Law of Moses was always binding to the Jews, under the Gospel of the Kingdom. That has always been the gospel that Peter was preaching, even in Acts. (Matthew 28:20)

 

[posthuman]

The Law of Moses was always binding to the Jews, under the Gospel of the Kingdom. That has always been the gospel that Peter was preaching, even in Acts. (Matthew 28:20)

what do you mean "from then on" and how do you get whatever you mean from the text?

 

[Guojing]

what do you mean "from then on" and how do you get whatever you mean from the text?

After Peter witnessed in Acts 10 that the Gentiles were saved without the Law of Moses, and he testified to that account in Acts 15.

Before that, he would never have gone to the Gentiles as it was against the Law for a Jew to associate with Gentiles. (Acts 10:28)

 

[posthuman]

After Peter witnessed in Acts 10 that the Gentiles were saved without the Law of Moses, and he testified to that account in Acts 15.

Before that, he would never have gone to the Gentiles as it was against the Law for a Jew to associate with Gentiles. (Acts 10:28)

so in Acts 10-11 Peter understands that "the gospel" ((singular)) is to the Gentiles as well as to the Jews. check. we know that.

but what do you mean Peter "desires" Jews be saved "from then on" like Gentiles and how do you get that from the text?

 

[Guojing]

so in Acts 10-11 Peter understands that "the gospel" ((singular)) is to the Gentiles as well as to the Jews. check. we know that.

but what do you mean Peter "desires" Jews be saved "from then on" like Gentiles and how do you get that from the text?

He recognized that the Law of Moses was no longer required for salvation after Acts 10. So as he stated in Acts 15:11, he now believed that Jews are to be saved as a Gentile, strictly by the grace of God and without the Law.

As I have stated, previously under the Law of Moses, Gentiles must be saved as a Jew. So Peter is now reversing it.

 

[posthuman]

He recognized that the Law of Moses was no longer required for salvation after Acts 10. So as he stated in Acts 15:11, he now believed that Jews are to be saved as a Gentile, strictly by the grace of God and without the Law.

As I have stated, previously under the Law of Moses, Gentiles must be saved as a Jew. So Peter is now reversing it.

you are saying that previous to Acts 15 Peter is preaching a false gospel?
how do you get that from the text?

why do you test God by putting a yoke on the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?
(Acts 10:10)
​

are these the words of a man who has been believing and preaching this yoke is salvation?
and wants 'from then on' to preach something different?
he doesn't seem to me to be making the argument that anything has changed - James doesn't take him that way:

Simon has declared how God at the first visited the Gentiles to take out of them a people for His name.
(Acts 10:14)
​

"at the first" -- Abraham. Gentile. nothing about law here, only about a people being chosen by God.

where do you get "from a literal reading" that Peter is has two gospels and is deciding "from then on" to preach a different gospel?
they send men to Antioch, a church Peter founded. the church in Antioch is questioning what they should do because certain Jews are telling them they should be circumcised keep the law of Moses -- something that is apparently radically different than the gospel they first heard and believed from Peter.

if anything here, James is the one who becomes enlightened, because it's men from James that make Peter act hypocritically in the account given in Galatians 2.

where do you get from the text that Peter has some kind of epiphany and goes from preaching one gospel to an entirely different gospel "from then on" ?

 

[posthuman]

As for those who were held in high esteem — whatever they were makes no difference to me; God does not show favoritism — they added nothing to my message. ​

(Galatians 2:6) ​

​

there is not human hierarchy in the kingdom of heaven and the apostles in Jerusalem were not preaching a different gospel than Paul received from Christ.

 

[posthuman]

He recognized that the Law of Moses was no longer required for salvation after Acts 10.

if Peter is preaching a false gospel of Judaism why does the Sanhedrin arrest him & John in Acts 3-4?