- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: The battle of religion and freedom, between church and grace
Posted on 11/15/25 at 8:02 pm to FooManChoo
Posted on 11/15/25 at 8:02 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
18 Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. 19 Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth
So … do you or I have the power to bind or loose ?
1
Posted on 11/15/25 at 8:10 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
I believe that the Bible teaches Presbyterianism in terms of church government
That’s convenient…what presbyterianism did Ignatius of Antioch teach? How about Polycarp? How about Athanasius? And on and on and on…we have found the Calvinist amongst us.
Posted on 11/15/25 at 8:12 pm to Guntoter1
quote:Not unless either of us are elders in church, and only as a plurality of elders, not alone or individually.
So … do you or I have the power to bind or loose ?
This passage is about church discipline, and within that context, it speaks of the authority to bind and loose. That's the same language given to Peter, speaking on behalf of the other disciples.
My point is that Rome uses the binding and loosing language to say that Peter had unique authority. I'm just pointing out that the same language was said by Christ to the other disciples, too.
Posted on 11/15/25 at 8:12 pm to HillbillyTiger
quote:God look up the word presbyter in the early church fathers.
That’s convenient…what presbyterianism did Ignatius of Antioch teach? How about Polycarp? How about Athanasius? And on and on and on…we have found the Calvinist amongst us.
Posted on 11/15/25 at 8:14 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
God look up the word presbyter in the early church fathers.
I have dude…a presbyter in the Church means pastor aka PRIEST. Before you go off half-cocked, know what you’re talking about.
Posted on 11/15/25 at 8:19 pm to HillbillyTiger
quote:The word means "elder", and is used interchangeably with the work for bishop in the New Testament. The Greek word for priest (hiereus) was different from both elder (presbuteros) and bishop (episkopos).
I have dude…a presbyter in the Church means pastor aka PRIEST. Before you go off half-cocked, know what you’re talking about.
The reason Presbyterians are called Presbyterians is because they use an elder-led government, and elder is presbuteros in Greek. You can see where the word comes from. The presbyters were elders of the churches.
Posted on 11/15/25 at 8:20 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
Not unless either of us are elders in church, and only as a plurality of elders, not alone or individually.
So you consider your elders as apostles
Got it.
But you skipped over my earlier question.
Christ promised that the gates would not prevail over the church and yet you are not a member of that church.
Please explain how the CC lost the faith but the gates of hell did not prevale.
Posted on 11/15/25 at 8:22 pm to Guntoter1
quote:No. Elders have the apostolic authority to bind and loose (aka, the keys). They don't have infallibility, though.
So you consider your elders as apostles
Got it.
quote:I'm a member of the visible Church of Jesus Christ. You conflate the visible Church of Christ with the organizational structure centered in Rome. I do not.
But you skipped over my earlier question.
Christ promised that the gates would not prevail over the church and yet you are not a member of that church.
Please explain how the CC lost the faith but the gates of hell did not prevale
Posted on 11/15/25 at 8:26 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
I'm a member of the visible Church of Jesus Christ. You conflate the visible Church of Christ with the organizational structure centered in Rome. I do not.
But you said the Bible lays out a government structure for the church.
You said your church follows that structure. So those members of that Gov.
Are the visible church correct?
Posted on 11/15/25 at 8:33 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
The Greek word for priest (hiereus) was different from both elder (presbuteros) and bishop (episkopos).
When did the Church ever use “hiereus” as the title for priests? That is the Greek word used by the Hebrews prior to destruction of the Temple in 70 AD.
Ignatius is very specific in his differentiation in roles of bishops, presbyters (PRIESTS) and deacons…it’s unchanged in the Church since the 1st century.
An innovation from the 17th century doesn’t trump the Faith as once given and handed down unbroken brother.
Posted on 11/15/25 at 8:37 pm to Guntoter1
quote:I did, and it does.
But you said the Bible lays out a government structure for the church.
quote:It does follow that structure. Those members are part of the visible church but not the visible church.
You said your church follows that structure. So those members of that Gov. Are the visible church correct?
This is what the Westminster Confession of Faith says:
The visible Church, which is also catholic or universal under the Gospel (not confined to one nation as before under the law), consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion; and of their children: and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of God, out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation. -WCF 25.2
Posted on 11/15/25 at 8:41 pm to HillbillyTiger
quote:I'm only speaking to the use of the word in terms of the scriptures. I believe the structure of the government changed pretty quickly (within a few hundred years) as individual presbyters or bishops gained in prominence. The word for priests is used by Peter in 1 Peter 2, when he says that we (the church) are a royal priesthood (hierateuma).
When did the Church ever use “hiereus” as the title for priests? That is the Greek word used by the Hebrews prior to destruction of the Temple in 70 AD
quote:Again, I'm speaking to what the scriptures teach. Paul, for instance, gives qualifications for two officers, elder/bishop and deacon.
Ignatius is very specific in his differentiation in roles of bishops, presbyters (PRIESTS) and deacons…it’s unchanged in the Church since the 1st century.
quote:I agree. The Reformation went back to the scriptures as given by God through the Apostles.
An innovation from the 17th century doesn’t trump the Faith as once given and handed down unbroken brother
This post was edited on 11/15/25 at 8:42 pm
Posted on 11/15/25 at 8:42 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
It does follow that structure. Those members are part of the visible church but not the visible church.
Please explain why your Presbyterian form of church Gov. is correct but the Catholic form of church Gov is wrong.
Posted on 11/15/25 at 8:43 pm to Guntoter1
quote:Catholicism is an episcopate with one head. I believe the Scriptures teach a presbyterian form of government whereby the church is led by a plurality of elders that make decisions and pass them down to the greater church. Acts 15 shows this model in the example of the council of Jerusalem.
Please explain why your Presbyterian form of church Gov. is correct but the Catholic form of church Gov is wrong.
Posted on 11/15/25 at 8:48 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
Catholicism is an episcopate with one head. I believe the Scriptures teach a presbyterian form of government whereby the church is led by a plurality of elders that make decisions and pass them down to the greater church. Acts 15 shows this model in the example of the council of Jerusalem.
So the church lost its way and adopted a false Government and 1200 years later the presbyters re established the correct form? Is this correct please explain if I got it wrong
Posted on 11/15/25 at 8:50 pm to Guntoter1
quote:Yes. It started off well and then went down hill rather quickly. From a plurality and equality of elders to a primacy of a bishop in a congregation to a primacy of a bishop in a region to a primacy of the bishop of Rome. Took several hundred years, but it happened.
So the church lost its way and adopted a false Government and 1200 years later the presbyters re established the correct form? Is this correct please explain if I got it wrong
Posted on 11/15/25 at 8:56 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
Yes. It started off well and then went down hill rather quickly. From a plurality and equality of elders to a primacy of a bishop in a congregation to a primacy of a bishop in a region to a primacy of the bishop of Rome. Took several hundred years, but it happened
I agree the church out grew the number of apostles and therefor some churches had to appoint presbyters.
But this would mean that the church Christ established failed correct?
I mean you must think the church failed and went astray because it adopted a false form of Gov. correct?
This post was edited on 11/15/25 at 9:02 pm
Posted on 11/15/25 at 8:59 pm to FooManChoo
Nice give and take. I appreciate it.
As to this:
Where and when do you assert the Orthodox Church “left the Scriptures”?
As to this:
quote:
The Reformation went back to the scriptures as given by God through the Apostles.
Where and when do you assert the Orthodox Church “left the Scriptures”?
Posted on 11/15/25 at 9:00 pm to Guntoter1
quote:Failed? No. It was a practical evolution that deviated from what God ordained but the Church was still the Church, even in spite of the incorrect governmental structure.
I agree the church out grew the number of apostles and therefor some churches had to appoint presbyters.
But this would mean that the church Christ established failed correct?
I believe that Baptists (congregational government) and Episcopals (episcopalian government) are still part of the visible Church. The form of government doesn't change that, necessarily. A denomination or congregation being less pure doesn't mean she ceases to be the Church if she still maintains the marks of a true church.
Posted on 11/15/25 at 9:04 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
Failed? No. It was a practical evolution that deviated from what God ordained but the Church was still the Church, even in spite of the incorrect governmental structure.
So you consider Catholics part of the body of Christ?
Page 4 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News