View Single Post
  #11 (permalink)  
Old 04-10-2008, 01:45 AM
Neogillist's Avatar
Neogillist Neogillist is offline.
Puritanboard Freshman
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Sherwood Park, Alberta, Canada
Posts: 163
Thanks: 8
Thanked 84 Times in 45 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Poimen View Post
The Westminster Confession, in addition to the Heidelberg, refers to Matthew 16:19 in its section on 'Church Censures' (Chapter 30).

Quote:
II. To these officers the keys of the kingdom of heaven are committed; by virtue whereof, they have power, respectively, to retain, and remit sins; to shut that kingdom against the impenitent, both by the Word, and censures; and to open it unto penitent sinners, by the ministry of the gospel; and by absolution from censures, as occasion shall require.[2]
2. Matt. 16:19; 18:17-18; John 20:21-23; II Cor. 2:6-8
I actually looked up how different theologians interpret Mat. 16:19 and 18:17-18, and have observed three different interpretations.

John Calvin thinks that the "binding and loosing" refers to sins where the keys of the kingdom is the preaching of the gospel, which has the power to "loose" the sins of the elect and "bind" those of the reprobate. He points out however that the "binding" is accidental, in that those who reject the gospel close the doors of heaven to themselves and that the preaching of the gospel is not intended to "bind" the sins of any, but that is a by-product. He puts in more efforts in refuting the popish interpretation of this passage, however, than in fully expounding it. Thus Calvin does not seem to relate it directly to church discipline.

Matthew Henry adopts your interpretation I think, and thus that of the WCF where the binding and loosing refers to church censures (vol. 5 p.211) and thus church discipline. He interprets the keys to be the 1) the doctrine of the church, 2) its discipline (p. 188-189).

Gill and Lightfoot interpret the binding and loosing to making something lawful and unlawful, especially as pertaining to doctrine or church order. Thus they would say that the practice of circumcision was "loosed" by the apostles, and was thus no longer binding on believers, while other practices were made "binding" in the New Testament church such as baptism. This may especially relate to the authority of church councils, such as the one that first took place at Jerusalem. They appeals to various Rabbinical writings to present their case, and overall, I think that it best fits the context. The binding and loosing, however does not refer to persons according to them.

Finally, all these theologians seem to agree that the keys of the kingdom is the preaching of the gospel or the doctrine of the church. I find it really interesting to look at these different perspectives.
__________________
Jean-David Jutras
URCNA
Alberta