Are protestants brothers and sisters in Christ?

  • Thread starter Thread starter lanman87
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
God determines who is part of THAT group. But he tells us many attributes that members of the group will posses. Love God and Love others, profess faith in Christ, Call on His name, seek to know Him and the power of His resurrection, help the widows and orphans, seek to worship in spirit and in truth, be baptized… However, we know that not all who seem to be members of the body actually are members of the body. Many who claim to follow Christ do not know Christ and at the judgement he will tell them to depart from Him.
I’ve posted many times, qualifying statements in scripture addressing that point.
Ianman:
Specifically Jesus is talking to the Disciples but by extension He was talking to all His followers (the church).
Specifically Jesus is talking about His Church He builds on Peter and the apostles. There’s only one.
Ianman:
Just as the Great Commission in Matthew 28:16-20 (and His teachings to the disciples in many other passages) was specifically directed at the disciples but by extension was directed at all His followers.
As Jesus put it. John 14:15 ]

It’s a conditional statement.
 
God determines who is part of THAT group. But he tells us many attributes that members of the group will posses. Love God and Love others, profess faith in Christ, Call on His name, seek to know Him and the power of His resurrection, help the widows and orphans, seek to worship in spirit and in truth, be baptized… However, we know that not all who seem to be members of the body actually are members of the body. Many who claim to follow Christ do not know Christ and at the judgement he will tell them to depart from Him.

Specifically Jesus is talking to the Disciples but by extension He was talking to all His followers (the church). Just as the Great Commission in Matthew 28:16-20 (and His teachings to the disciples in many other passages) was specifically directed at the disciples but by extension was directed at all His followers.
Hi Ian.

So if Jesus is by extension always talking to laity or just any one in general calling themselves whatever…In John 20:21-23 does that mean you and i can forgive or retain sins?

And the men he talked to authored scripture. Can we do that as well?

Thanks.
 
Hi Ian.

So if Jesus is by extension always talking to laity or just any one in general calling themselves whatever…In John 20:21-23 does that mean you and i can forgive or retain sins?

And the men he talked to authored scripture. Can we do that as well?

Thanks.
I don’t live in 1st century Palestine. I didn’t witness the teachings of Jesus. I wasn’t an Apostle and didn’t work with the Apostles in helping spread the Gospel. If I had done those things and God called me to write down what I had seen and heard then I could write scripture. But as someone who lives in 21 century America. No, I can’t write scripture.

John 20:21-23 is written to the entire church. Many scholars say that the literal meaning of the Greek text suggests:
Code:
“Those whose sins you forgive, have already been forgiven; those whose sins you do not forgive, have not already been forgiven.”
I’m not a Greek scholar but that interpretation certainly fits with the rest of the New Testament. Peter didn’t forgive the peoples sins at Pentecost, he declared to them how to receive forgiveness. As a matter of fact, I can’t find any place in the New Testament that an Apostle tells someone their sins are forgiven apart from the person declaring their faith in Christ. This is the pattern of the entire New Testament. The Apostles preached the Gospel message and told people to repent, believe, have faith, call on His name and so on. We, as followers of Christ, can confidently declare that when someone responds to the Gospel and places a genuine faith in Christ they are forgiven and those that don’t respond in faith we can confidently declare they haven’t been forgiven.

Only God can truly tell 100% for certain if someone has genuine faith, but our declaration is that if you do have genuine faith your sins are forgiven and if you don’t have a genuine faith then your sins aren’t forgiven.

I’ve read much concerning both sides of this passage from both Catholic Apologist and Protestant Apologist. I’m afraid I have to go with the Protestants on this one. Their interpretation fits in better with the rest of scripture and even the practice of the early church.
 
I don’t live in 1st century Palestine. I didn’t witness the teachings of Jesus. I wasn’t an Apostle and didn’t work with the Apostles in helping spread the Gospel. If I had done those things and God called me to write down what I had seen and heard then I could write scripture. But as someone who lives in 21 century America. No, I can’t write scripture.

John 20:21-23 is written to the entire church. Many scholars say that the literal meaning of the Greek text suggests:
Code:
“Those whose sins you forgive, have already been forgiven; those whose sins you do not forgive, have not already been forgiven.”
I’m not a Greek scholar but that interpretation certainly fits with the rest of the New Testament. Peter didn’t forgive the peoples sins at Pentecost, he declared to them how to receive forgiveness. As a matter of fact, I can’t find any place in the New Testament that an Apostle tells someone their sins are forgiven apart from the person declaring their faith in Christ. This is the pattern of the entire New Testament. The Apostles preached the Gospel message and told people to repent, believe, have faith, call on His name and so on. We, as followers of Christ, can confidently declare that when someone responds to the Gospel and places a genuine faith in Christ they are forgiven and those that don’t respond in faith we can confidently declare they haven’t been forgiven.

Only God can truly tell 100% for certain if someone has genuine faith, but our declaration is that if you do have genuine faith your sins are forgiven and if you don’t have a genuine faith then your sins aren’t forgiven.

I’ve read much concerning both sides of this passage from both Catholic Apologist and Protestant Apologist. I’m afraid I have to go with the Protestants on this one. Their interpretation fits in better with the rest of scripture and even the practice of the early church.
Although Ill probably be chastised for saying this, I would like to say you do a very good job of voicing your point very well. And also a very good post!
 
I don’t live in 1st century Palestine. I didn’t witness the teachings of Jesus. I wasn’t an Apostle and didn’t work with the Apostles in helping spread the Gospel. If I had done those things and God called me to write down what I had seen and heard then I could write scripture. But as someone who lives in 21 century America. No, I can’t write scripture.
Thank you, Ian.

Do you find anywhere in scripture the criteria for who/how/when scripture is to be written? I know it’s inspired and profitable and all that because it says that, but how about the criteria needed in order for it to be considered scripture?

The Catholic position is it needed to be written by an Apostle or someone under the authority of the Apostles, such as Luke. But where do Sola Scriptura practicing protestants get their understanding/criteria? Humanly speaking…
John 20:21-23 is written to the entire church. Many scholars say that the literal meaning of the Greek text suggests:
Code:
“Those whose sins you forgive, have already been forgiven; those whose sins you do not forgive, have not already been forgiven.”
I’m not a Greek scholar but that interpretation certainly fits with the rest of the New Testament. Peter didn’t forgive the peoples sins at Pentecost, he declared to them how to receive forgiveness. As a matter of fact, I can’t find any place in the New Testament that an Apostle tells someone their sins are forgiven apart from the person declaring their faith in Christ. This is the pattern of the entire New Testament. The Apostles preached the Gospel message and told people to repent, believe, have faith, call on His name and so on. We, as followers of Christ, can confidently declare that when someone responds to the Gospel and places a genuine faith in Christ they are forgiven and those that don’t respond in faith we can confidently declare they haven’t been forgiven.
Peter telling them to be baptized for the forgiveness of sins is in perfect alignment with RCC teaching. That’s initially, the problem is we are still sinning even after our baptism or encounter with the Lord.

The early Church confessed their sins in front of the entire congregation. That practice eventually ceased thanks to non Christians coming into the assemblies with the purpose of gathering dirt on Christians.

How about this passage:
1 John 5:15-17New American Bible (Revised Edition) (NABRE)
15 And if we know that he hears us in regard to whatever we ask, we know that what we have asked him for is ours. 16 If anyone sees his brother sinning, if the sin is not deadly, he should pray to God and he will give him life. This is only for those whose sin is not deadly. There is such a thing as deadly sin, about which I do not say that you should pray. 17 All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin that is not deadly.
This explains mortal vs venial sin; mortal needing confession.

It’s often mistranslated to this:
1 John 5:15-17King James Version (KJV)
15 And if we know that he hear us, whatsoever we ask, we know that we have the petitions that we desired of him.
16 If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it.
17 All unrighteousness is sin: and there is a sin not unto death.
Many times the translator will add “a” there to make it appear to be a singular sin. Read the KJV version closely and you see it makes no sense. It essentially says there is 1 sin not unto death and 1 sin unto death…but it list neither. That’s because the author’s intent is general sin classification.
I’ve read much concerning both sides of this passage from both Catholic Apologist and Protestant Apologist. I’m afraid I have to go with the Protestants on this one. Their interpretation fits in better with the rest of scripture and even the practice of the early church.
I would totally agree with that if the bible were in manual form and intended to be the sole rule of faith for Christians. And if the correct interpretation was through a 21 century American/English lense.

As we know the bible also points to the Church (Matt 18:17 - I Tim 3:15), to councils led by Church authority (Acts 15) and to Sacred Tradition( 2 Thess 2:15) And it explains that not everything was written down(see the ending of John’s gospel)

And as Augustine says, I read the scriptures because the Church who gave me the scriptures tells me to.(paraphrase)

God bless you and thanks for your contributions to the forum even though we disagree on so much. 🙂
 
Thank you, Ian.

Do you find anywhere in scripture the criteria for who/how/when scripture is to be written? I know it’s inspired and profitable and all that because it says that, but how about the criteria needed in order for it to be considered scripture?

The Catholic position is it needed to be written by an Apostle or someone under the authority of the Apostles, such as Luke. But where do Sola Scriptura practicing protestants get their understanding/criteria? Humanly speaking…
Fair enough which is what any mainline Protestant would say the exact same thing.

Your Constitution could also have said “what is written is ordained by God”. Does that make it infallible all of a sudden?

It all comes down to faith. Whatever you are reading, If you don’t believe it, it wouldn’t matter what kind if Divine power it proclaims?

I am all for faith! With enough of that we move mountains!
 
The ECFs disagree with ianman’s interpretation of John 20:22-23.

John Chrystotom says:
Let us then do all we can to have the Holy Spirit with ourselves, and let us treat with much honor those into whose hands its operation has been committed. For great is the dignity of the priests. Whosesoever sins, it says, ye remit, they are remitted unto them; wherefore also Paul says, Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves. Hebrews 13:17 And hold them very exceedingly in honor; for thou indeed carest about your own affairs, and if you order them well, you give no account for others, but the priest even if he rightly order his own life, if he have not an anxious care for yours, yea and that of all those around him, will depart with the wicked into hell; and often when not betrayed by his own conduct, he perishes by yours, if he have not rightly performed all his part. Knowing therefore the greatness of the danger, give them a large share of your goodwill; which Paul also implied when he said, For they watch for your souls, and not simply so, but, as they that shall give account. Hebrews 13:17 They ought therefore to receive great attention from you; but if you join with the rest in trampling upon them, then neither shall your affairs be in a good condition. For while the steersman continues in good courage, the crew also will be in safety; but if he be tired out by their reviling him and showing ill-will against him, he cannot watch equally well, or retain his skill, and without intending it, throws them into ten thousand mischiefs. And so too the priest, if he enjoy honor from you, will be able well to order your affairs; but if you throw them into despondency, you weaken their hands, and render them, as well as yourselves, an easy prey to the waves, although they be very courageous. Consider what Christ says concerning the Jews. The Scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; all therefore whatsoever they bid you to do, do ye. Matthew 23:2-3 Now we have not to say, the priests sit on Moses’ seat, but on that of Christ; for they have successively received His doctrine. Wherefore also Paul says, We are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us. 2 Corinthians 5:20 See ye not that in the case of Gentile rulers, all bow to them, and oftentimes even persons superior in family, in life, in intelligence, to those who judge them? Yet still because of him who has given them, they consider none of these things, but respect the decision of their governor, whosoever he be that receives the rule over them. Is there then such fear when man appoints, but when God appoints do we despise him who is appointed, and abuse him, and besmirch him with ten thousand reproaches, and though forbidden to judge our brethren, do we sharpen our tongue against our priests? And how can this deserve excuse, when we see not the beam in our own eye, but are bitterly over-curious about the mote in another’s? Do you not know that by so judging you make your own judgment the harder? And this I say not as approving of those who exercise their priesthood unworthily, but as greatly pitying and weeping for them; yet do I not on this account allow that it is right that they should be judged by those over whom they are set. And although their life be very much spoken against, you, if you take heed to yourself, will not be harmed at all in respect of the things committed to them by God. For if He caused a voice to be uttered by an ***, and bestowed spiritual blessings by a diviner, working by the foolish mouth and impure tongue of Balaam, in behalf of the offending Jews, much more for the sake of you the right-minded will He, though the priests be exceedingly vile, work all the things that are His, and will send the Holy Ghost. For neither does the pure draw down that Spirit by his own purity, but it is grace that works all. For all, it says, is for your sake, whether it be Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas. 1 Corinthians 3:22-23 For the things which are placed in the hands of the priest it is with God alone to give; and however far human wisdom may reach, it will appear inferior to that grace. And this I say, not in order that we may order our own life carelessly, but that when some of those set over you are careless livers, you the ruled may not often heap up evil for yourselves. But why speak I of priests? Neither Angel nor Archangel can do anything with regard to what is given from God; but the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, dispenses all, while the priest lends his tongue and affords his hand. For neither would it be just that through the wickedness of another, those who come in faith to the symbols of their salvation should be harmed. Knowing all these things, let us fear God, and hold His priests in honor, paying them all reverence; that both for our own good deeds, and the attention shown to them, we may receive a great return from God, through the grace and lovingkindness of our Lord Jesus Christ, with whom to the Father and the Holy Ghost be glory, dominion, and honor, now and ever, and world without end. Amen.
 
Thank you, Ian.

Do you find anywhere in scripture the criteria for who/how/when scripture is to be written? I know it’s inspired and profitable and all that because it says that, but how about the criteria needed in order for it to be considered scripture?

The Catholic position is it needed to be written by an Apostle or someone under the authority of the Apostles, such as Luke. But where do Sola Scriptura practicing protestants get their understanding/criteria? Humanly speaking…

Peter telling them to be baptized for the forgiveness of sins is in perfect alignment with RCC teaching. That’s initially, the problem is we are still sinning even after our baptism or encounter with the Lord.

The early Church confessed their sins in front of the entire congregation. That practice eventually ceased thanks to non Christians coming into the assemblies with the purpose of gathering dirt on Christians.

How about this passage:

This explains mortal vs venial sin; mortal needing confession.

It’s often mistranslated to this:

Many times the translator will add “a” there to make it appear to be a singular sin. Read the KJV version closely and you see it makes no sense. It essentially says there is 1 sin not unto death and 1 sin unto death…but it list neither. That’s because the author’s intent is general sin classification.

I would totally agree with that if the bible were in manual form and intended to be the sole rule of faith for Christians. And if the correct interpretation was through a 21 century American/English lense.

As we know the bible also points to the Church (Matt 18:17 - I Tim 3:15), to councils led by Church authority (Acts 15) and to Sacred Tradition( 2 Thess 2:15) And it explains that not everything was written down(see the ending of John’s gospel)

And as Augustine says, I read the scriptures because the Church who gave me the scriptures tells me to.(paraphrase)

God bless you and thanks for your contributions to the forum even though we disagree on so much. 🙂
I’m not trying to be a troll and disagreeing to just tick people off. I try to be civil and respectful of everyone.

As to the criteria of the scriptures, I believe the early church used the criteria you and I described. However, I believe it was the New Testament was decided by consensus of the various local churches. I also believe that most of what we call the New Testament was available and read/studied by the end of the 1st century.

However, if someone asked me how we got the Bible my answer is that God gave it to us. He inspired the writers to write what they wrote and His Providence delivered to us just the way He wanted it delivered.

I’m not prepared to talk about venial and mortal sins (maybe someday) however I do know that priestly confession did not start happening until the 7th century. Apparently it was the Irish who started the practice and it was later adopted by the entire church.
 
I’m not prepared to talk about venial and mortal sins (maybe someday) however I do know that priestly confession did not start happening until the 7th century. Apparently it was the Irish who started the practice and it was later adopted by the entire church.
You’re thinking of private confession as the absolute norm Absolution by priests was the norm.
St. Augustine (d. 430) warns the faithful: “Let us not listen to those who deny that the Church of God has power to forgive all sins” (De agon. Christ., iii).
St. Ambrose (d. 397) rebukes the Novatianists who “professed to show reverence for the Lord by reserving to Him alone the power of forgiving sins. Greater wrong could not be done than what they do in seeking to rescind His commands and fling back the office He bestowed. . . . The Church obeys Him in both respects, by binding sin and by loosing it; for the Lord willed that for both the power should be equal” (On Penance I.2.6).
Again he teaches that this power was to be a function of the priesthood. “It seemed impossible that sins should be forgiven through penance; Christ granted this (power) to the Apostles and from the Apostles it has been transmitted to the office of priests” (On Penance II.2.12).
The power to forgive extends to all sins: “God makes no distinction; He promised mercy to all and to His priests He granted the authority to pardon without any exception” (On Penance I.3.10).
Against the same heretics St. Pacian, Bishop of Barcelona (d. 390), wrote to Sympronianus, one of their leaders: “This (forgiving sins), you say, only God can do. Quite true: but what He does through His priests is the doing of His own power” (Ep. I ad Sympron., 6 in P.L., XIII, 1057).
In the East during the same period we have the testimony of St. Cyril of Alexandria (d. 447): “Men filled with the spirit of God (i.e. priests) forgive sins in two ways, either by admitting to baptism those who are worthy or by pardoning the penitent children of the Church” (In Joan., 1, 12 in P.G., LXXIV, 722).
St. John Chrysostom (d. 407) after declaring that neither angels nor archangels have received such power, and after showing that earthly rulers can bind only the bodies of men, declares that the priest’s power of forgiving sins “penetrates to the soul and reaches up to heaven”. Wherefore, he concludes, “it were manifest folly to condemn so great a power without which we can neither obtain heaven nor come to the fulfillment of the promises. . . . Not only when they (the priests) regenerate us (baptism), but also after our new birth, they can forgive us our sins” (On the Priesthood III.5 sq.).
St. Athanasius (d. 373): “As the man whom the priest baptizes is enlightened by the grace of the Holy Ghost, so does he who in penance confesses his sins, receive through the priest forgiveness in virtue of the grace of Christ” (Frag. contra Novat. in P.G., XXVI, 1315).
And the role of reconciliation through the physical Church was discussed earlier.
 
However, if someone asked me how we got the Bible my answer is that God gave it to us. He inspired the writers to write what they wrote and His Providence delivered to us just the way He wanted it delivered.
Like he gave us the ecumenical councils. 🙂
 
I don’t live in 1st century Palestine. I didn’t witness the teachings of Jesus.

I wasn’t an Apostle and didn’t work with the Apostles in helping spread the Gospel.
Ignatius of Antioch, WAS there. He knew the apostles. He was ordained Bishop in ~69 a.d., and was a direct disciple of John the apostle. Would you like to see what Ignatius had to say about the subject of the Church when he wrote Letters to the Church in 6 locations? He wrote these letters on his way to the coliseum to be martyred.

Ignatius uses Christian in (ch 2) and Catholic Church in (ch 8) Epistle to the Smyrnæans of which schismatics from the Catholic Church won’t be going to heaven Epistle to the Philadelphians (ch 3)

It goes without saying, everybody knew what he meant by Catholic Church.
Ianman:
John 20:21-23 is written to the entire church. Many scholars say that the literal meaning of the Greek text suggests:
Code:
“Those whose sins you forgive, have already been forgiven; those whose sins you do not forgive, have not already been forgiven.”
*Jn 20: 21 Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.” 22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 If you forgive *ἀφῆτε ] the sins of any, they are forgiven; ** ἀφέωνται ]. if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.”

open those links to those Greek words

He uses the second person plural: “you.” And he talks about the apostles actually forgiving sins. When he refers to retaining sins, he uses the same form: “When you hold them bound, they are held bound.”

Whoever you got your information from, was wrong.

Besides, Do you really believe Jesus establishes a useless sacrament there? His apostles are to go out and do what has already been done? IOW, they really can’t do what Jesus said they will be able to do after He breaths on them, giving them the HS, then finishes the installment of the sacrament that does NOTHING? Really?
Ianman:
I’m not a Greek scholar but that interpretation certainly fits with the rest of the New Testament.
Now you see from the Greek, the Catholic position is correct
Ianman:
Peter didn’t forgive the peoples sins at Pentecost, he declared to them how to receive forgiveness. As a matter of fact, I can’t find any place in the New Testament that an Apostle tells someone their sins are forgiven apart from the person declaring their faith in Christ

This is the pattern of the entire New Testament. The Apostles preached the Gospel message and told people to repent, believe, have faith, call on His name and so on. We, as followers of Christ, can confidently declare that when someone responds to the Gospel and places a genuine faith in Christ they are forgiven and those that don’t respond in faith we can confidently declare they haven’t been forgiven.
Only one of us is really following Christ.

Is the Catholic who confesses his sins to a priest any better off than the non-Catholic who confesses directly to God ? Absolutely Yes. How?

Venial sin can be prayed about and that sin is forgiven. Protestant and Catholic agree. But what about mortal sin? Whole different situation
1 John 5:16 ].
  • The Catholic seeks forgiveness the way Christ intended. The Protestant doesn’t. The Protestant is really being presumptuous and contrary to scripture…
  • the Catholic receives sacramental graces the non-Catholic doesn’t get; through the sacrament of penance sins are forgiven and graces are obtained. as in sins are actually forgiven
  • the Catholic is assured that his sins are forgiven; He hears the words, you are forgiven. He does not have to rely on a subjective “feeling.” 1 John 5:16 ] ought to give a Protestant real concern, for assuming that their praying for forgiveness for mortal sins works. THAT’s why Jesus instituted the sacrament of reconciliation.
 
I believe it was the New Testament was decided by consensus of the various local churches. I also believe that most of what we call the New Testament was available and read/studied by the end of the 1st century.
There was no canon (list) of official books till the end of the 2nd century. The Muratorian canon is thought to be the oldest official canon,

earlychristianwritings.co…uratoria n.html

Yet the canon was still in development. All 73 books which is the final canon, are not mentioned in this canon.
Ianman:
However, if someone asked me how we got the Bible my answer is that God gave it to us. He inspired the writers to write what they wrote and His Providence delivered to us just the way He wanted it delivered.
God used His Church that HE established. That’s how He wanted it
Ianman:
I’m not prepared to talk about venial and mortal sins (maybe someday)
It’s there. It can’t be denied 1 John 5:16 ]

That’s why Jesus established the sacrament of reconciliation. To take care of mortal sin.
Ianman:
however I do know that priestly confession did not start happening until the 7th century. Apparently it was the Irish who started the practice and it was later adopted by the entire church.
You don’t know that. So stop guessing with your answers
 
Fair enough which is what any mainline Protestant would say the exact same thing.

Your Constitution could also have said “what is written is ordained by God”. Does that make it infallible all of a sudden?

It all comes down to faith. Whatever you are reading, If you don’t believe it, it wouldn’t matter what kind if Divine power it proclaims?

I am all for faith! With enough of that we move mountains!
If the scriptures stated a certain criteria then non Catholics wouldn’t have to rely on another authority outside the bible to tell them said criteria.

As it stands now you accept Catholic tradition in certain matters but reject it in other areas.

We accept it all by faith. Even the Marian dogmas.
 
You don’t know that. So stop guessing with your answers
Well, the Catholic church agrees with me that personal confession to a priest didn’t happen until the 7th Century. It even mentions the Irish part. 🙂

During the seventh century Irish missionaries, inspired by the Eastern monastic tradition, took to continental Europe the ‘private’ practice of penance, which does not require public and prolonged completion of penitential works before reconciliation with the Church. From that time on, the sacrament has been performed in secret between penitent and priest. This new practice envisioned the possibility of repetition and so opened the way to a regular frequenting of this sacrament. It allowed the forgiveness of grave sins and venial sins to be integrated into one sacramental celebration. In its main lines this is the form of penance that the Church has practiced down to our day” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 1447).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top