Catholics have confession, what do Protestants have if they sin?

[pablope]

I know nothing about catholic confession, but I would feel uncomfortable confessing my sins to a stranger. Is there a guarantee of confidentiality? So, I choose to believe that I speak directly to God through prayer, which includes confession of sins!

The seal of confession is absolute, I think only with the permission of the pope can the seal be broken…and I have not heard of an instance when this has been done.

 

[1beleevr]

1beleevr;7944695:

You may not like the US president, but you still call him the president. You may like the Holy Father, but he is still addressed as such. You know what that is…respect…and it is reflective of your upbringing, of Christian charity, values…which you seem to be lacking.

Enter stage left, condemnation and judgement, again! This is not about whether or not I like the president, the pope, or my immediate supervisor at work!It is about respecting the rank or office. For the millioneth time(seems like it) I do not disrespect the pope, by not calling him holy father. Jesus breathed on His disciples, giving them the Holy Spirit, not the right to be called Holy Father, as He addresses God in John 17:11. The practice of calling him that, is purely a MAN thing; seemingly only by catholics, and perhaps some Anglican, and Lutheran churches. He is the pope, the leader of the catholic church, not my Holy Father; that is God’s title! And, speaking of charity, to assume that my upbringing is flawed, because I don’t agree with you, is uncharitable and reflective of your character.Have you cornered the market on Christian charity, or are you just blowwin’ smoke?

 

[Deacon_Latif]

…because it becomes a matter of interpretation of John’s words!

Sacramental Absolution is most certainly not a matter of the interpretation of this or that bible verse. Bear in mind, first, that my point was not that 1 Jn proves confession to a priest, but that it does not prove the “me and Jesus” theology that many think it does. Second, I would point to other scripture as clearer witness to the priest’s absolving ministry. For example, we can stay with the writings of the Beloved Disciple, and go to his Gospel, chapter 20, where the Lord Jesus breathed on His disciples and saith unto them, “Receive ye the Holy Ghost. Whosesoever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whosesoever sins ye retain, they are retained.”

 

[1beleevr]

Actually, you missed v 8:

8 So now take seven bulls and seven rams and go to my servant Job and sacrifice a burnt offering for yourselves.

See also Leviticus 5 …of how the Israelites obtained forgiveness. As this recounts, the burnt offering were offered through Job, who prayed for his friends forgiveness…and intercession too.

Where does it says God withheld judgement? Only after they offered the burnt offering through Job, praying on their behalf, that God forgave the three. Job was the intermediary, as you said, for the forgiveness of his three friends.

Actually, nice try dodging it.

Who was with David, when he cried out to God about his sinful ways, asking for mercy? Who was with Jacob, or Abraham? The veil being torn from the top down, meant we no longer had to send a priest into the “Holy of Holies,” we could approach God on our own! Hebrews 4:16. When any number of persons in the Bible asked for forgiveness, they weren’t necessarily in the presence of another. I believe that if these three friends would have humbled themselves before God, swallowed their pride and asked for forgiveness, God may have granted it, He knew their hearts,but was willing to spare them on Job’s behalf! Nice try though!

 

[1beleevr]

Sacramental Absolution is most certainly not a matter of the interpretation of this or that bible verse. Bear in mind, first, that my point was not that 1 Jn proves confession to a priest, but that it does not prove the “me and Jesus” theology that many think it does. Second, I would point to other scripture as clearer witness to the priest’s absolving ministry. For example, we can stay with the writings of the Beloved Disciple, and go to his Gospel, chapter 20, where the Lord Jesus breathed on His disciples and saith unto them, “Receive ye the Holy Ghost. Whosesoever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whosesoever sins ye retain, they are retained.”

If I didn’t know better, I would think that you believe that “time with Jesus,” is a negative thing! Kind of ironic, as Jesus Himself spent a lot of time with His Father! And why would He tell us to pray in a closet? And I don’t believe that John 20:21-23 proves any more that we should go to a priest for confession than 1John 1:9,or James 5:16. So, it is indeed a matter of interpretation!

 

[Deacon_Latif]

If I didn’t know better, I would think that you believe that “time with Jesus,” is a negative thing! Kind of ironic, as Jesus Himself spent a lot of time with His Father! And why would He tell us to pray in a closet?

It is indeed the privilege, the right, the gift, and the duty, of the baptized Christian to pray to God without ceasing. And when the Christian prays, we should keep a couple things in mind about that prayer: 1. he is praying not by himself, but with the whole church, and 2. he is praying in Christ. Prayer is an endlessly rich facet of the Christian life, and much could be said of it. However, one thing a man does not get from it is absolution. God doesn’t give that to us by osmosis, or meditation, but by the clear words of a man. When Christ’s servant absolves your sin, he is actually bringing you back to the grace and promise of Baptism.

 

[pablope]

Who was with David, when he cried out to God about his sinful ways, asking for mercy?

The prophet Nathan…in 2 Samuel 12:

13And David said unto Nathan, I have sinned against the LORD. And Nathan said unto David, The LORD also hath put away thy sin; thou shalt not die.

David confessed through Nathan…and forgiven through Nathan. If you go to the the beginning of the chapter, God sends Nathan. This is a forerunner of priest’s role in sacramental confession.

.

I believe that if these three friends would have humbled themselves before God, swallowed their pride and asked for forgiveness, God may have granted it, He knew their hearts,but was willing to spare them on Job’s behalf! Nice try though!;

 

[Richard_Kastner]

The prophet Nathan…in 2 Samuel 12:

13And David said unto Nathan, I have sinned against the LORD. And Nathan said unto David, The LORD also hath put away thy sin; thou shalt not die.

David confessed through Nathan…and forgiven through Nathan. If you go to the the beginning of the chapter, God sends Nathan. This is a forerunner of priest’s role in sacramental confession.

2Sam12 comes right after 2Sam11 right? Well in 2Sam.11 David’s sin with Bathsheba is talked about and David’s treacherous way of dealing with Uriah Bathsheba’s husband. In ch.12 Nathan brings up David’s sin to him by means of a parable and altho David does see his sin by means of this little story and is lead to repentence, he in no way confesses his sin to Nathan as in the Catholic rite of confession. David does that in
Psalm 51

Psalm 51
1Have mercy upon me, O God, according to thy lovingkindness: according unto the multitude of thy tender mercies blot out my transgressions.
2Wash me throughly from mine iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin.
3For I acknowledge my transgressions: and my sin is ever before me.
4Against thee, thee only, have I sinned, and done this evil in thy sight: that thou mightest be justified when thou speakest, and be clear when thou judgest.
5Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.
6Behold, thou desirest truth in the inward parts: and in the hidden part thou shalt make me to know wisdom.
7Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean: wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow.
8Make me to hear joy and gladness; that the bones which thou hast broken may rejoice.
9Hide thy face from my sins, and blot out all mine iniquities.
10Create in me a clean heart, O God; and renew a right spirit within me.
11Cast me not away from thy presence; and take not thy holy spirit from me.
12Restore unto me the joy of thy salvation; and uphold me with thy free spirit.

David here confesses to noone but his heavenly Father.

You are making suppositions that are not there…seems you are trying to interpret it to justify your belief to yourself. Did you not read the passage? God did not want to grant them forgiveness unless they went through Job.

Part of v8: lest I deal with you after your folly, in that ye have not spoken of me the thing which is right, like my servant Job.

God’s condition was they go through Job, be forgiven through Job. And after they obeyed God’s command, going through Job, were the 3 forgiven.

God did not spare them on Job’s behalf. They were spared because they obeyed God’s command to go through Job, after Job prayed for them and their forgiveness.

Job is generally considered the first book of the bible to be written, so this is before the formal rite of the atoning sanctuary service was given. That is not to say that the atoning sacrifices did not take place. Gen4 and Job1
5And it was so, when the days of their feasting were gone about, that Job sent and sanctified them, and rose up early in the morning, and offered burnt offerings according to the number of them all: for Job said, It may be that my sons have sinned, and cursed God in their hearts. Thus did Job continually.

By Jobs faithful sacrifices to the Lord Job proved himself to be a priest of the sacraficial rite. Job was however only to oficiate over the sacrifices and pray for the offenders. He in no way usurped the power of God in presuming to give absolution.

 

[1beleevr]

2Sam12 comes right after 2Sam11 right? Well in 2Sam.11 David’s sin with Bathsheba is talked about and David’s treacherous way of dealing with Uriah Bathsheba’s husband. In ch.12 Nathan brings up David’s sin to him by means of a parable and altho David does see his sin by means of this little story and is lead to repentence, he in no way confesses his sin to Nathan as in the Catholic rite of confession. David does that in
Psalm 51

Psalm 51
1Have mercy upon me, O God, according to thy lovingkindness: according unto the multitude of thy tender mercies blot out my transgressions.
2Wash me throughly from mine iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin.
3For I acknowledge my transgressions: and my sin is ever before me.
4Against thee, thee only, have I sinned, and done this evil in thy sight: that thou mightest be justified when thou speakest, and be clear when thou judgest.
5Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.
6Behold, thou desirest truth in the inward parts: and in the hidden part thou shalt make me to know wisdom.
7Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean: wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow.
8Make me to hear joy and gladness; that the bones which thou hast broken may rejoice.
9Hide thy face from my sins, and blot out all mine iniquities.
10Create in me a clean heart, O God; and renew a right spirit within me.
11Cast me not away from thy presence; and take not thy holy spirit from me.
12Restore unto me the joy of thy salvation; and uphold me with thy free spirit.

David here confesses to noone but his heavenly Father.

Job is generally considered the first book of the bible to be written, so this is before the formal rite of the atoning sanctuary service was given. That is not to say that the atoning sacrifices did not take place. Gen4 and Job1
5And it was so, when the days of their feasting were gone about, that Job sent and sanctified them, and rose up early in the morning, and offered burnt offerings according to the number of them all: for Job said, It may be that my sons have sinned, and cursed God in their hearts. Thus did Job continually.

By Jobs faithful sacrifices to the Lord Job proved himself to be a priest of the sacraficial rite. Job was however only to oficiate over the sacrifices and pray for the offenders. He in no way usurped the power of God in presuming to give absolution.

Great post, Richard; it seems that you have put the ball back in the catholic’s court! These are awesome answers to their allegations!

 

[1beleevr]

The prophet Nathan…in 2 Samuel 12:

 

[LOCO]

2Sam12 comes right after 2Sam11 right? Well in 2Sam.11 David’s sin with Bathsheba is talked about and David’s treacherous way of dealing with Uriah Bathsheba’s husband. In ch.12 Nathan brings up David’s sin to him by means of a parable and altho David does see his sin by means of this little story and is lead to repentence, he in no way confesses his sin to Nathan as in the Catholic rite of confession. David does that in
Psalm 51

Psalm 51
1Have mercy upon me, O God, according to thy lovingkindness: according unto the multitude of thy tender mercies blot out my transgressions.
2Wash me throughly from mine iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin.
3For I acknowledge my transgressions: and my sin is ever before me.
4Against thee, thee only, have I sinned, and done this evil in thy sight: that thou mightest be justified when thou speakest, and be clear when thou judgest.
5Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.
6Behold, thou desirest truth in the inward parts: and in the hidden part thou shalt make me to know wisdom.
7Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean: wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow.
8Make me to hear joy and gladness; that the bones which thou hast broken may rejoice.
9Hide thy face from my sins, and blot out all mine iniquities.
10Create in me a clean heart, O God; and renew a right spirit within me.
11Cast me not away from thy presence; and take not thy holy spirit from me.
12Restore unto me the joy of thy salvation; and uphold me with thy free spirit.

David here confesses to noone but his heavenly Father.

Job is generally considered the first book of the bible to be written, so this is before the formal rite of the atoning sanctuary service was given. That is not to say that the atoning sacrifices did not take place. Gen4 and Job1
5And it was so, when the days of their feasting were gone about, that Job sent and sanctified them, and rose up early in the morning, and offered burnt offerings according to the number of them all: for Job said, It may be that my sons have sinned, and cursed God in their hearts. Thus did Job continually.

By Jobs faithful sacrifices to the Lord Job proved himself to be a priest of the sacraficial rite. Job was however only to oficiate over the sacrifices and pray for the offenders. He in no way usurped the power of God in presuming to give absolution.

Hi Richard,

The following explains the Catholic position in a clear and easily understood manner. In other words, better than I could.

Why We Have A Ministerial Priesthood by Tim Staples (p1 of 3)

The Catholic belief in and great emphasis upon the priesthood was one of the “Romish” beliefs I thought to be refuted most easily in Sacred Scripture when I was Protestant. This was an extremely important doctrine, because I surmised that multiple other Catholic doctrines went up in smoke with the demise of the Catholic understanding of the priesthood. Confession, the Mass as sacrifice, “Last Rites,” and more crumbled like a house of cards without the priesthood as a foundation.

The biblical texts seemed so clear to me. For example, Hebrews 7:22-25 says:

“This makes Jesus the surety of a better covenant. The former priests were many in number, because they were prevented by death from continuing in office; but he holds his priesthood permanently, because he continues forever. Consequently he is able for all time to save those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them” (emphasis added).

Doesn’t this text eliminate the possibility of there being priests who are “many in number” as we see in Catholicism? Moreover, this text tells us that Christ is our intercessor before the Father. Coupled with 1 Timothy 2:5, which says, “For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,” I could not see how anyone could say there could be priests in the New Covenant. A priest, by definition, is a mediator between God and men. As I interpreted the above texts, Christ would be our one, unique priest and intercessor, excluding the possibility of a ministerial priesthood. (Intercessor and mediator are synonymous in the New Testament.)

First, we need to dispel the notion that there cannot be “many priests” in the New Covenant. First Peter 2:5-9 tells us, “Like living stones be yourselves built into a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ . . . But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s own people.” The fact that all baptized Christians are referred to as priests in the New Testament necessarily means it is not a contradiction to say that Christ is our unique priest/mediator/intercessor while affirming the biblical truth that Christians can act as priests/mediators/intercessors as well.

The key is to understand properly the nature of the body of Christ. Christians do not usurp or diminish the unique priesthood of Christ when they are referred to as priests; they participate in that unique priesthood. So intimate is the union of the baptized with Christ that Paul describes this mystical union as a body (cf. 1 Cor. 12:12-27; Rom. 12:5) with Christ as its head (cf. Eph. 1:22-23). What can be attributed to a hand in the body does not somehow take away from the head. The fact that Christians are priests does not usurp the priesthood of Christ because it is Christ who empowers them to participate in his own priesthood. Indeed, it is Christ (and his priesthood) living in them (cf. Gal. 2:20).

 

[LOCO]

TIM STAPLES continues (Page 2 of 3)

The Priest-Elder

But even if a Protestant accepts the notion of Christians being priests and accepts the Catholic interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:5 and Hebrew 7:22-25 in this respect, this in no way shows that there is a distinct ordained priesthood apart from the universal priesthood of the faithful. First Peter 2 indicated that all Christians are priests — but not ministerial priests. Here was my biggest problem with the Catholic notion of a ministerial priesthood. The ordained ministers of the New Covenant are called apostles (cf. Eph. 4:11), elders Gas. 5:14), bishops (1 Tim. 3:1), and deacons (1 Tim. 3:8ff). They are not referred to directly with the typical Greek word for “priest,” which is hiereus.

But the English word priest is derived from the Greek word presbuteros, or “elder.” It does not originate from hiereus. The German word priester also has its origin from the Greek word for “elder.” So there is etymological reason to say that the elder in the Christian Church was considered to be a priest. In fact, the Douay-Rheims Bible translates presbuteros as “priest,” which can be a valid translation (see Jas. 5:14, DRV).

Having said that, I must say that for me, it was not the word elder or priest that helped me to see the truth of the New Covenant priesthood; it was the function of the apostle, bishop, and elder, which is clearly revealed to be of a priestly nature. (A deacon is ordained, but he is not a ministerial priest.)

There were basically four biblical steps I took on the road to discovering the New Covenant priesthood. First, I saw that although the standard noun for priest — hiereus — is not used for New Testament ministers, the verb form of hiereus is. And it is found when Paul refers specifically to his ministry as an apostle. He refers to his ministry as a “priestly service”:

“Because of the grace given me by God to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles in the priestly service [Greek: hierourgounta] of the gospel of God” (Rom. 15:15-16).

Second, I saw that 1 Peter 2:5-9 is a reference to Exodus 19:6: “and you shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.” This text indicates a universal priesthood in the Old Covenant. Yet in that same chapter, verse 22, we read: “And also let the priests who come near to the Lord consecrate themselves.” I clearly saw that there was a universal priesthood in existence in the Old Covenant, but this did not exclude the possibility of a distinct ministerial priesthood as well. Could it be the same in the New Covenant? I discovered that it was.

Third, as far as the term priest is concerned, it began to seem plausible to me that the Christians of the first century would avoid using it in naming the ministerial offices of the Church, because it was the same term being used by the more numerous Jewish and even pagan priests (cf. Luke 1:8-9; Acts 14:13). Christians used language to distinguish their priests from the Jewish and pagan priests of their day.

But what was most important for me was the fourth step in the process. I saw in Scripture that New Covenant ministers functioned as priests. As the old saying goes: “If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck . . .”

 

[LOCO]

TIM STAPLES continues (Page 3 of 3)

A Common Objection

This fourth step in my biblical journey began with an objection that I had that is quite commonly raised by our Protestant brothers concerning the priesthood: “Why do I have to go to some man to have my sins forgiven when the Bible says I can go straight to God through Christ? Isn’t this the whole reason that Jesus came and died on the cross?”

Well, it’s not the whole reason. But this objection is based in partial truth and partial misunderstanding. The Protestant is correct in one respect. We can and ought to go directly to God through Jesus Christ in repentance, prayer, and offering our spiritual sacrifices in union with him. But I discovered that this is not an either/or proposition. We do not go either to God or to his representatives on this earth when we have needs. The Catholic Church and the Bible say we do both. For example, Romans 12:1-2 says, “I appeal to you, therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship.”

Here we see Paul encouraging all Christians to exercise their universal, “royal priesthood” before God and offer spiritual sacrifices directly to him. We Catholics agree that all Christians can and should do just that. But, analogous to what we saw in the Old Testament, we also see a special group of men called by Christ to a ministerial priesthood in the New Testament. In fact, each of the three ministers I mentioned before — apostles, elders, and bishops — function as priests in the New Testament.

Apostles, Elders, and Bishops

In Scripture, we see our Lord definitively choosing and sending apostles to act as mediators between God and men. This, again, is the very definition of a priest. For example, after the Resurrection, Jesus appears to the apostles in the upper room and says to them:

“‘Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.’ And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained’” (John 20:21-23).

Jesus gave the power to forgive and retain sins to the apostles. This is a priestly ministry (cf. Lev. 19:21-22). In 2 Corinthians 2:10, Paul says, “If I have pardoned anything for your sakes I have done it in the person of Christ” (DRV).

Paul evidently heard confessions in Corinth, carrying out this priestly commission of the apostle. He goes on to say that the apostle has been given the ministry of reconciliation: “So we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We beseech you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God” (2 Cor. 5:20).

That Paul uses the word we in describing this priestly ministry may indicate that he is including the elders and bishops he was traveling with and/or ministering with as priests as well, but the point remains the same: Paul describes his ministry as a priestly one.

Jesus not only gave the authority to forgive sins to the apostles, but he gave them divine, infallible authority to proclaim the gospel as well. “He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me” (Luke 10:16). This too is a priestly function. The apostles act in the place of God as mediators between God and men. In 2 Corinthians 2:17, Paul describes this priestly work as such: “For we are not as many, adulterating the word of God; but with sincerity, as from God, before God, in Christ we speak” (DRV).

Bishops (episkopoi) are successors of the apostles according to Scripture. When the apostles were choosing a successor for Judas, the text describes the office of apostle as a bishopric: “and [Judas’] bishopric (episkope) let another man take” (Acts 1:20, DRV). Bishops, it can be inferred, are called to carry on the apostolic ministry and the apostles’ priestly function. The apostolic office in succession is called a bishopric.

Presbyters are seen as priests as well. James 5:14-15 puts it quite plainly:

“Is any among you sick? Let him call for the elders (presbyteroi) of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; and the prayer of faith will save the sick man, and the Lord will raise him up; and if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven.”

Notice that Scripture does not say we should go to anyone because we are all priests as Christians. It singles out the presbyters and clearly depicts them as having the power and authority to act as mediators in the forgiveness of sins and healing.

It Was Greek to Me

One Protestant scholar tried to explain away John 20:21-23 with this reasoning: Because “the first verbs in the two clauses are aorists, which imply the action of an instant; [and] the second verbs are perfects [these verbs] imply an abiding state that began before the action of the first verbs” (Merrill C. Tenney, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, ed. Frank E. Gabelein, vol. 9, Zondervan, 193).

But this approach ignores the fact that the two aorist subjunctive verbs “you forgive” and “you retain” are contained in indefinite relative clauses meaning “whoever’s sins you forgive” and “whoever’s sins you retain.” Not only are these two aorist verbs in the subjunctive mood — which has a future orientation rather than the normal past of the aorist — but the indefinite relative clauses express a conditional thought that must be fulfilled before the concluding clauses of “are forgiven” and “are retained” can be fulfilled.

In short, the apostles are essential in the text because the forgiveness is contingent upon them doing the forgiving. Before the future event of these sins being forgiven occurs, another future event must occur; namely, the apostles must forgive those sins.

 

[pablope]

2Sam12 comes right after 2Sam11 right? Well in 2Sam.11 David’s sin with Bathsheba is talked about and David’s treacherous way of dealing with Uriah Bathsheba’s husband. In ch.12 Nathan brings up David’s sin to him by means of a parable and altho David does see his sin by means of this little story and is lead to repentence, he in no way confesses his sin to Nathan as in the Catholic rite of confession. David does that in

I beg to disagree, my dear richard…look at verse 13 again…David admit’s sin to Nathan…after he realizes his offense. Do you have any other verse prior to this account where he admits he had sinned?

None. This is the only the point where David admits he had sinned. Then he writes psalm 51:

Psalm 51

 

[JonNC]

I beg to disagree, my dear richard…look at verse 13 again…David admit’s sin to Nathan…after he realizes his offense

 

[pablope]

pablope;7945121:

W-R-O-N-G!! You don’t think that these three were being prideful, and full of themselves? They thought they knew the mind of God, and spoke idly about what they believed to be what God thought

! If they obeyed God’s wishes, it was because they were humbled, and no longer proud! Nice try though!

On contrary 1b…you are trying to see something in the account that is not there. If you open your eyes, and erase your protestant glasses and pride, you will see what God is trying to impart to the three-a lesson in humility and it is one of the lessons of the sacrament of confession.

They are indeed prideful and full of themselves, thinking that they can go directly to God. Doesn’t this ring a bell in you? Aren’t you describing yourself with your post?

They wanted to be forgiven, so they followed God’s command.

As from the passage, God tells them to go to Job, God does not want anything to do with them.
Why do you think God ordered this?

It is so that they will become humble. What is more humiliating than having to go to Job to offer and intercede for their forgiveness.

This is what is imparted in the sacrament of confession. One of the hardest human things to do is to account for one’s sin orally. But once a catholic decides to go to confession, he has admitted his sin, accused himself of his guilt, and finds the courage to account for his sins. There are no ifs and buts, there is no rationalizing. It is a direct admittance of guilt.

Same as David when he realized his sin and admitted to Nathan. Same as Job’s three friends. They had to humiliate themselves and obey as God commanded, and only then where they forgiven.

 

[pablope]

pablope;7947158:

More than this, pablope, Nathan announces absolution!!

"And Nathan said unto David, ‘The LORD also hath put away thy sin; thou shalt not die.’"

Jon

Hi, Jon.

Thanks for that. I forgot about that.

Pablope

 

[Richard_Kastner]

TIM STAPLES continues (Page 3 of 3)

“‘Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.’ And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained’” (John 20:21-23).

Jesus gave the power to forgive and retain sins to the apostles. This is a priestly ministry (cf. Lev. 19:21-22). In 2 Corinthians 2:10, Paul says, “If I have pardoned anything for your sakes I have done it in the person of Christ” (DRV).

You post so much, I don’t think that I will answer it point by point. There are however some glaring points of misinformation that I think need to be addressed.

First the idea that Christ gave the apostles the power to forgive sins. I’ll let my commentary speak on this.

1. Whose soever sins. Jesus here speaks to the disciples as representatives of His church on earth, to which, acting in its corporate capacity, He has entrusted the responsibility of caring for the spiritual interests and needs of its individual members. Jesus had already explained to them at length how to deal with erring members, first personally (see on Matt. 18:1-15, 21–35), and then with the authority of the church (see on vs. 16–20). Now He reiterates the counsel given upon that former occasion.
   The church is to work faithfully for the restoration of its erring members, encouraging them to repent and turn from their evil ways. When there is evidence that things have been made right with God and man, the church is to accept the repentance as genuine, to release the erring one from the charges brought against him (to “remit” his “sins”), and to receive him back into full fellowship. Such a remitting of sins is ratified in heaven; in fact, God has already accepted and pardoned the repentant one (see on Luke 15:1–7). The Scriptures explicitly teach, however, that confession of sin and repentance for it are to be made directly to the throne of grace in heaven (see Acts 20:21; 1 John 1:9), and that the release of the soul from sin comes only through the merits of Christ and His personal mediation (1 John 2:1). This prerogative God has never delegated to erring mortals, themselves so often in need of divine mercy and grace, even though they be the appointed leaders of the church.
   They are retained. When evidence of genuine repentance is lacking, the charges brought against an erring member are to be “retained.” Heaven will recognize the decision of the church, for no man can be right with God when he is willfully at odds with his fellow men. He who despises the counsel of God’s appointed representatives on earth cannot expect to enjoy God’s favor. For an illustration of the operation of this principle in the early church see Acts 5:1–11.

Paul evidently heard confessions in Corinth, carrying out this priestly commission of the apostle. He goes on to say that the apostle has been given the ministry of reconciliation: “So we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We beseech you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God” (2 Cor. 5:20).

That Paul uses the word we in describing this priestly ministry may indicate that he is including the elders and bishops he was traveling with and/or ministering with as priests as well, but the point remains the same: Paul describes his ministry as a priestly one.

Second, the idea tht Paul in 2Cor.5 is talking only about himself and his entorage, I find particularly offensive, because the way I read this chapter there can be no mistaking the fact that Paul is talking about not only the people that he is traveling with, but all Corinthians in Christ and yes all people everywhere that are in Christ. Let’s take a look.

2Cor5
14For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead: **
15 And that he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again.
16Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more.
17Therefore if any man be in Christ**, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.

Paul clearly sets down the president that Jesus died for all men and that he is talking to and about** ALL** who are in Christ.

18And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation;

So when Paul says that God has given to us the ministry of reconciliation. He is talking about** ALL **who have recieved Jesus Christ as their Lord and savior

19To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.
20Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ’s stead, be ye reconciled to God.
21For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

Paul ends by emphasising that God through Christ was reconciling the world to Himself and when we (all in Christ) do become reconciled to God in Christ, He gives to us (all in Christ) the ministry of reconciliation, in order to carry on the Gospel message to all the world.

This message I believe is so glaringly obvious to anyone who reads 2Cor.5 that I can only deduce that your commentator intentionally wrested scripture and if he does not repent, well
2 Peter 3:16
As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

I beg to disagree, my dear richard…look at verse 13 again…David admit’s sin to Nathan…after he realizes his offense. Do you have any other verse prior to this account where he admits he had sinned?

None. This is the only the point where David admits he had sinned. Then he writes psalm 51:

Yes, he does admit his sin. Perhaps you missed this part of my post “he in no way confesses his sin to Nathan as in the Catholic rite of confession. David does that in Psalm 51”

Seems you are missing information on psalm 51:
footnote:
*
Psalm 51] A lament, the most famous of the seven Penitential Psalms, prays for the removal of the personal and social disorders that sin has brought*.

usccb.org/nab/bible/psalms/psalm51.htm

So after David’s confession to Nathan does he write this…this is part of his penance, not his confession.

You should read 2Samuel further…after his confession, his son from Bathseba is to perish, that is why he is praying for mercy, as a result of his sin, and penance too.

I’m not quite sure what your point is here?

You are missing the point entirely. He is not usurping God. Look at the passage again.God tells the three to go to Job. It is per God’s command.

V 9:9
Then Eliphaz the Temanite, and Bildad the Shuhite, and Zophar the Naamathite, went and did as the LORD had commanded them. And the LORD accepted the intercession of Job.

The 3 followed as God commanded. Job did and followed as what God commanded and interceded for this friends. What do you think he interceded for? For their forgiveness, that is why the 3 friends were spared. And Job was merely obeying as per God commanded.

I don’t see how I am missing the point. God tells the three to bring sacrifices to Job who here is acting as the high priest. These sacrifices are a type for Jesus sacrifice on the cross. So when God tells the three to bring sacrifices, He is telling them to come to a faith in the future sacrifice of Christ on the cross and since they had shown by their actions that they were untruthful God has them ask Job, a man that has already accepted the righteousness of Christ, to pray for them.

James 5:16
Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.

Nowhere in the passage does it even imply that Job usurps the power of God and gives absolution. The only one that has the power to forgive sins is God.

Matt9
2And, behold, they brought to him a man sick of the palsy, lying on a bed: and Jesus seeing their faith said unto the sick of the palsy; Son, be of good cheer; thy sins be forgiven thee.
3And, behold, certain of the scribes said within themselves, This man blasphemeth.
4And Jesus knowing their thoughts said, Wherefore think ye evil in your hearts?
5For whether is easier, to say, Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Arise, and walk?
6But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (then saith he to the sick of the palsy,) Arise, take up thy bed, and go unto thine house.

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nicea325
Exactly! If you are so confident you are forgiven,then tell us what confirmation do you have one is forgiven? Apparently you are confident that you and your man-made church knows better than the CC who has been around a lot longer. So please enligten us all

Be happy to, as soon as you answer my question,“What evidence do catholics have that they have been forgiven?”

Are you serious? Tell me what part of verse 23 of John 20 do you not understand?
I don’t think many non-Catholics pay enough attention. In verse 23 Jesus says, “**You **forgive” and “**you **retain,” Tell me something? Who in the heck is…YOU in that verse? A dog? A cat? An angel?

Jesus does not SAY:

“You proclaim forgiveness” or “You proclaim retention.” The bottomline is simple: You like so many non-Catholics simply CANNOT take verse 23 for what it really says because of prejudice against the Catholic doctrine…plain and simple!

Ever heard of absolution? Apparently not because of your false belief.

It’s the words that a priest uses to confer or convey the forgiveness of Christ once a person has confessed his sins. This absolution is based directly on Jesus’ words in John 20:19–23. It says, “God, the Father of mercies, through the death and resurrection of his Son, has reconciled the world to himself and sent the Holy Spirit among us for the forgiveness of sin, through the ministry of the Church. May God give you pardon and peace, and I absolve you from your sins in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. Amen.”

The formula states this important role of the Holy Spirit when it says that God “sent the Holy Spirit among us for the forgiveness of sin.” The Holy Spirit is the active agent of bringing the forgiveness of Christ to sinners.

Verse 21 Jesus says, “As the Father has sent me, so I send you.” In other words, Jesus is giving his apostles the same authority that he received from his Father.

So please answer me. It is you alone who said you are forgiven,thus I want you tell us Catholic with what certitude do you know God has forgiven you?