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

[ready]

This may be a simple question but it’s puzzled me recently.

If I was to commit a serious sin, I can go to confession to seek, and receive, forgiveness. But what do Protestants do in such an occasion, if anything at all? How can they be assured of God’s forgiveness for their sins?

Note - I’m not specifically looking for answers from Protestants themselves, but that would be interesting.

I truly don’t know how Protestants can be assured of God’s forgiveness because Jesus told his apostles “whose sins you forgive are forgiven, whose sins you retain are retained.” Jesus gave his apostles the ability to forgive our sins, he didn’t give this to any non-Catholic minister. If Jesus didn’t intend for us to be forgiven by a priest he wouldn’t have specified this to his apostles. Can the Protestants be forgiven of mortal sin if they have true contrition? I’d like to know what the Church has to say about this.

 

[exnihilo]

This has been an interesting discussion. If I may add some of my observations. John 20:23 was part of the readings for last Sunday and I have no good explanation for that verse. It simply does not make sense in common Protestant theology. The plain meaning would seem to be that Christ’s Apostles had the power to forgive, and more interestingly to not forgive sin. It makes little sense to me that this would be limited to those few who were with Christ at that very moment. And if one is going to adhere to Sola Scriptura I do not know of any clear statement ending the practice or power in the Bible. I tried to find some good explanations for that verse but all I found was very specious reasoning. So it seems to me the arguments about its limited scope are ad hoc.

I think verbal confession is a good thing. What I don’t understand is why so many Protestants reject it completely. It is one thing to say it is not necessary but another thing entirely to say it is of no advantage. I have most certainly heard people say ‘I dont need to confess my sins to a priest’. Assuming that to be true that does not seem to consider the idea that there might be some advantage to it. Such an answer is full of willfullness and has elements of legalism or trying to just get by. It might not be necessary to go to church every Sunday but one should still make every effort to do just that.

It seems to me in not offering confession people are being deprived. One commentor several pages back did make the good point that Protestant ministers will of course receive informal confessions. So it might be more correct to say that many Protestants do not have a formal system for confession. I’ve yet to be in any church that is not systematic in everything it does so omitting a system for such an important part of our spiritual life seems neglectful.

It occurred to me, or maybe even someone said it on one of the many pages of this topic and I absorbed it, to keep in mind that just as Mark 2:27 says ‘The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath’ it might also be for confession.

 

[pablope]

Ibeleevr…why are the arguments weak? Because of a few examples?And how many examples is enough?

It looks like you have an issue with God and the Bible. The Bible is what it is, and that is what God handed down. Either it is enough for you or it is not.

God provided you only those examples…To the unbeliever, to those with closed eyes…they are indeed shaky and nothing will ever convince an unbeliever…he will always look for something else to justify his state of unbelief. There will always be a never ending set of conditions.

It looks like you are imposing your own conditions to the Bible, and you are then questioning what God provided and just shows your lack of faith and trust in God.

Is it a matter of law? Or is it a matter of faith?

Let me reiterate what I stated:

[SIGN]…for a true believer, that is enough, some even do not need examples to believe.

To the unbeliever, to those with closed eyes…they are indeed shaky and nothing will ever convince an unbeliever…he will always look for something else to justify his state of unbelief. There will always be a never ending set of conditions.[/SIGN]

Besides, the choices you have supplied are vague at best, and left to interpretation by both sides!

I did not provide those examples. I only cited them to you to ponder as these have been in the Bible, part of Scripture for several thousand years. These are God’s examples. For you to say they are vague…means you are saying that what God provided, via my pointing them out to you, is also vague.

So, what is vague about 2sam12:
13 Then David said to Nathan, “I have sinned against the LORD.”

Nathan replied, “The LORD has taken away your sin. You are not going to die.

It is very clear, isn’t it…David admits a sin (the mortal sin of adultery) and Nathan provides absolution. This is what occurs in the CC sacrament of confession. It seems you cannot accept this fact, that is why it is vague.

Listen to what David says in Psalms 5:32,“Finally, I confessed all my sins to You, and stopped trying to hide my guilt. I said, I will confess my rebellion to the Lord. And You forgave me. All my guilt is gone.”

And you are clinging on one verse justify what you believe confession should be?. This verse does not say that clearly either. It just states a confession, but the manner or the how of confession is not stated clearly.

Psalms 5:32,"Finally, I confessed all my sins to You, and stopped trying to hide my guilt.

This verse says the psalmist had confessed, it does not say the manner of confession. The psalmist had already confessed and is expressing the grace he recieved by not hiding his guilt anymore. A good jew, would have followed the Law of Moses for his atonement, and did the animal sacrifiec as stated in Leviticus, which, I pointed out in a post, is a forerunner of the CC sacrament.

I said, I will confess my rebellion to the Lord. And You forgave me. All my guilt is gone

Sin is a rebellion against the Lord indeed, and speaks of going to confession when sinning. It does not state the manner of confession, just the willingness to confess and God’s mercy to forgive. A good Jew will follow the Law of Moses in Leviticus.

We Catholics chose to follow the manner Jesus commanded…that is contained in the teachings of the Apostles via Sacred Tradition in the manner of confession…and is how the early/first Christians did it.

On occasion, the eyes, and ears of catholics are closed to the truth, also.

This is about you…not any Catholic, so what does a catholic with closed eyes and ears have anything to do with you? So, you are justifying your closed eyes and ears because some catholics have closed eyes and ears also?

And, as a believer, and member of the Body of Christ, how can I impose my own conditions on the Bible?

When you are asking for more examples, more proof, saying the proof is vague, then you are imposing your own conditions, and you are not taking the Bible for what is already contained therein.

Let me repeat…God provided you only those examples…To the unbeliever, to those with closed eyes…they are indeed shaky and nothing will ever convince an unbeliever…he will always look for something else to justify his state of unbelief. There will always be a never ending set of conditions.

In the crux of the matter…you will have to convince yourself…that what is in the Bible, the example of David, Job 42, is enough…to believe. It is a matter of faith.

 

[pablope]

1beleevr;7984711:

pablope;7980597:

I couldn’t help but interject after reading your comment, because I hear this all the time about “being left to interpretation”.

This is exactly your problem. You recognize no authority but your own when the bible clearly shows that there IS an authority and that that authority is the Church, and the authority given to the Church was given to her by Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior. No one came to Peter or Paul, or any of the other Church Fathers to obtain a book so they could self-interpret it. They were taught by the Church and the scripture was used as a teaching aid not as the authority. The first heresies were a result of people not wanting to listen to authority, and wanting to interpret scriptures for themselves.

Peter talks about this:

"As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction. " 2 Peter 3:16 (DRB) – they recognize no authority and self-interpret the scriptures without any instruction.

And Paul writes to Timothy some guidelines about how he should behave himself in the Church of God (1 Timothy 3) and then makes a statement that the Church is the authority (the pillar and ground of Truth).

"And we know there is only ONE Truth, and so there must only be ONE Church, just as there is only ONE God.

Indeed…look at post 170…this is what 1beleevr…stated about the three of Job’s friend in Job 42:

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!

I think he is describing how one is “prideful and full of themselves” when someone “recognize no authority and self-interpret the scriptures without any instruction.”

 

[JonathonofOhio]

This has been an interesting discussion. If I may add some of my observations. John 20:23 was part of the readings for last Sunday and I have no good explanation for that verse. It simply does not make sense in common Protestant theology. The plain meaning would seem to be that Christ’s Apostles had the power to forgive, and more interestingly to not forgive sin. It makes little sense to me that this would be limited to those few who were with Christ at that very moment. And if one is going to adhere to Sola Scriptura I do not know of any clear statement ending the practice or power in the Bible. I tried to find some good explanations for that verse but all I found was very specious reasoning. So it seems to me the arguments about its limited scope are ad hoc.

I think verbal confession is a good thing. What I don’t understand is why so many Protestants reject it completely. It is one thing to say it is not necessary but another thing entirely to say it is of no advantage. I have most certainly heard people say ‘I dont need to confess my sins to a priest’. Assuming that to be true that does not seem to consider the idea that there might be some advantage to it. Such an answer is full of willfullness and has elements of legalism or trying to just get by. It might not be necessary to go to church every Sunday but one should still make every effort to do just that.

It seems to me in not offering confession people are being deprived. One commentor several pages back did make the good point that Protestant ministers will of course receive informal confessions. So it might be more correct to say that many Protestants do not have a formal system for confession. I’ve yet to be in any church that is not systematic in everything it does so omitting a system for such an important part of our spiritual life seems neglectful.

It occurred to me, or maybe even someone said it on one of the many pages of this topic and I absorbed it, to keep in mind that just as Mark 2:27 says ‘The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath’ it might also be for confession.

This is good that you are seeing the flaws in their teachings. What they do not understand is that the Sacraments (we’ll just focus on Baptism, Confession, and the Eucharist here) are a necessity, not an option.

When God commanded the faithful to smear the blood of the lamb on the door, He already knew what was in their hearts. Yet he required it, otherwise destruction was brought upon their household. Jesus warns us: “if you do not eat my body and drink by blood, you have no life within you.” Those who partake in the Lord’s Supper (Communion) join with Him in the one true sacrifice He made for man. They consume the body and blood of the Lamb of God, Jesus The Christ, and are living temples of the Holy Spirit, and the body and blood of the Lamb of God saves us from destruction.

And when He said “Receive the Holy Spirit, who’s sins you forgive they are forgiven, and who’s sins you retain are retained.”, He breathed on them. The only other time God breathed on man was in Genesis when He gave man life. The Holy Spirit is life, and so then in confession you receive the gift of forgiveness, the gift of life. The same goes with Baptism.

God will once again breath on man when our Lord comes again:

[BIBLEDRB]2 Thessalonians 2:8-10[/BIBLEDRB]"

Since some will not receive the Spirit of Life and Truth within them, they cannot live, because when God destroys death they too will parish, having no life within them. But those who are spiritually alive will be preserved and saved in a similar way as the Hebrews were saved when they put the blood of the lamb on the door as God commanded.

They make a mistake in reducing the Sacraments to mere works of men, and then say works can not save you, therefore, they conclude, the Sacraments are not necessary for salvation. On the contrary, they are works of God, which provide saving grace and life. So there is no doubt in my mind, and there should be none in yours-- the Sacraments are NOT optional, but they are the way to be saved, because they are not works of men, but the works of God, and in them is Jesus Christ who is the way the Truth and the Life. And Life is the Holy Spirit, and both are God, and without God you cannot live.

 

[1beleevr]

1beleevr;7984711:

pablope;7980597:

I couldn’t help but interject after reading your comment, because I hear this all the time about “being left to interpretation”.

This is exactly your problem. You recognize no authority but your own when the bible clearly shows that there IS an authority and that that authority is the Church, and the authority given to the Church was given to her by Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior. No one came to Peter or Paul, or any of the other Church Fathers to obtain a book so they could self-interpret it. They were taught by the Church and the scripture was used as a teaching aid not as the authority. The first heresies were a result of people not wanting to listen to authority, and wanting to interpret scriptures for themselves.

Peter talks about this:

"As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction. " 2 Peter 3:16 (DRB) – they recognize no authority and self-interpret the scriptures without any instruction.

And Paul writes to Timothy some guidelines about how he should behave himself in the Church of God (1 Timothy 3) and then makes a statement that the Church is the authority (the pillar and ground of Truth).

“But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.” - 1 Timothy 3:15 (DRB)

And we know there is only ONE Truth, and so there must only be ONE Church, just as there is only ONE God.

Well, well, Mr. high and mighty, throwing flaming arrows of judgement and condemnation! To say that I do not recognize authority is disingenuous and un charitable! I just don’t agree with the catholic church. The examples given, cannot solidly be used as a foreshadow of confession in the New Testament. In the Old Testament/Old Covenant, priests interceded on behalf of the people, going behind a curtain or veil. When Christ died on the Cross, the veil was torn from the top down, allowing all of us access to God!(Hebrews 4:16. So your(catholic view of Job 42 and 2 Sam 12) are shaky at best when used to justify confessing to a priest in 2011. And then you take and twist 1John 1:9 to fit your agenda, as well as James(Jesus’s brother) 5:16! I have shared sins with pastors, who have prayed with me.(James 5:16) But, I had already confessed it to God,(1John 1:9).Sometimes, I wonder why I meet so many former catholics, if you are so right all the time!

 

[Nicea325]

JonathonofOhio;7984960:

1beleevr;7984711:

Well, well, Mr. high and mighty, throwing flaming arrows of judgement and condemnation! To say that I do not recognize authority is disingenuous and un charitable! I just don’t agree with the catholic church. The examples given, cannot solidly be used as a foreshadow of confession in the New Testament. In the Old Testament/Old Covenant, priests interceded on behalf of the people, going behind a curtain or veil. When Christ died on the Cross, the veil was torn from the top down, allowing all of us access to God!(Hebrews 4:16. So your(catholic view of Job 42 and 2 Sam 12) are shaky at best when used to justify confessing to a priest in 2011. And then you take and twist 1John 1:9 to fit your agenda, as well as James(Jesus’s brother) 5:16! I have shared sins with pastors, who have prayed with me.(James 5:16) But, I had already confessed it to God,(1John 1:9).Sometimes, I wonder why I meet so many former catholics, if you are so right all the time!

So meeting former Catholics proves what? Many Catholics are also spiritually blind and the fact they leave does not change the Truth about God. It has nothing to do with who is right,but the Truth…period!

 

[onenow1]

To say that I do not recognize authority is disingenuous and un charitable! I just don’t agree with the catholic church.

Former Catholics do not have a special insight on truth, Judas sould be an example for you #1.

God Bless
:compcoff:

 

[JonathonofOhio]

JonathonofOhio;7984960:

1beleevr;7984711:

Well, well, Mr. high and mighty, throwing flaming arrows of judgement and condemnation! To say that I do not recognize authority is disingenuous and un charitable! I just don’t agree with the catholic church. The examples given, cannot solidly be used as a foreshadow of confession in the New Testament. In the Old Testament/Old Covenant, priests interceded on behalf of the people, going behind a curtain or veil. When Christ died on the Cross, the veil was torn from the top down, allowing all of us access to God!(Hebrews 4:16. So your(catholic view of Job 42 and 2 Sam 12) are shaky at best when used to justify confessing to a priest in 2011. And then you take and twist 1John 1:9 to fit your agenda, as well as James(Jesus’s brother) 5:16! I have shared sins with pastors, who have prayed with me.(James 5:16) But, I had already confessed it to God,(1John 1:9).Sometimes, I wonder why I meet so many former catholics, if you are so right all the time!

If you felt judged or condemned it was not by my words, but by the Word of Truth, for it was from scripture that I took all that I said, and there is much more than that. But this, not being a complete essay, was meant to provoke thought, which seems to allude you.

And it is your own words that bring judgment upon you, for you say in one sentence that you do not deny authority, but then you say in another you disagree with the Church, who has been given authority from God and is the ground and pillar of Truth. You have been given no authority, and yet you speak boastfully of heavenly things. You reject the Church and place yourself even above the Church Fathers, who, filled with the Holy Spirit, were given the gift of interpretation so that as many as possible could be made to understand the Wisdom of God and the Truth so that the Church might flourish, and yet you accuse me of thinking I am ‘high and mighty’?

My purpose was to instruct, and none of my words conflicted with anything those who came before me have already said, and they are inline with the teachings of the Church. I am humble and submit to the authority of the Church, for by doing so I submit to Christ, and therefore, am not ‘high and mighty’ because I seek nothing more than to share what insight was given to me. If by me sharing you felt judged and condemned, then do not accuse me, but look into your own heart, because I will not be quiet for fear of accusation.

As to your comment about meeting so many former Catholics: You, knowing the scriptures, should know full well about the times coming, and they are here and yet to come, when many would abandon the way of the Truth. And it will only get worse. If it is not enough that you meet many former Catholics, then look to the corruption within the Church, and the dwindling number of priests who’s duty is the serving at The Lord’s Table. But even though all these things happen, the sacrifice of the cross is never corrupted, because it cannot be touched by the sins of men, but the day will come when men will be deprived of the Supper of the Lamb because of the falling away (I pray that it is not in my lifetime). Our Savior prophesied about the days to come when the Sun would be Darkened and the Moon would not shine. The sun is Jesus, and the moon is the Church, because both are heavenly bodies, and both give their light to the world, and just as the moon gets its light from the sun, the Church also gets her light from Jesus.

Therefore it should be no wonder to you that we should diminish while you increase, because if it were not possible for you to increase then the world would not accept the son of perdition who is to come, who will persecute what remains of the church. Our Lord said the heavens will be shaken and the stars will fall from the sky. Surely the stars, which are giants so far away from the earth are not falling from the sky, but it is the saints in the church he is referring to, because the angels and those in heaven cannot be taken from the Hand of God. The members of the True Church are the falling stars, because they are the light of the world (Matthew 5:14), and they partake in heavenly things. This is why he warns, “whoever seeks to save his life will lose it” because they will fall from grace under the persecution to come. And when it comes, which of your brothers will stand up and speak out against it? Not a one will, because they reject the Church just as the world rejected Christ (John 15:19).

Now, that being said, if your further reactions to my comments is only to make false accusations against me, and further prooftexting of scripture, then there is no reason to discuss anything else with you.

 

[JonathonofOhio]

[/quote]

Just had to say: you hit the nail on the head
[/quote]

 

[Sepatong]

I am a bit confuse of the tradition of confession done to the priest. Where is the verse int he bible stated taht we have to confess our sin to this people so that they can forgive our sins on behalf of our GOD in heaven?
Lets look at John 20:23,…it is clearly stated that JESUS told them “his desciples” in othe words…to all of us…not only aplicable to the priest or father or pastor or whaever we call the,…because all christian are called " JESUS’s DESCIPLES". Also very clear in the prayer JESUS thought us Our Father,…forgive us as we forgive those who sinned against us"…But anyway,…this is only my opinion and my understanding of this verse…as long we sincere in our heart and repent;…GOD will forgive us…God Bless…

 

[pablope]

I am a bit confuse of the tradition of confession done to the priest. Where is the verse int he bible stated taht we have to confess our sin to this people so that they can forgive our sins on behalf of our GOD in heaven?
Lets look at John 20:23,…it is clearly stated that JESUS told them “his desciples” in othe words…to all of us…not only aplicable to the priest or father or pastor or whaever we call the,…because all christian are called " JESUS’s DESCIPLES". Also very clear in the prayer JESUS thought us Our Father,…forgive us as we forgive those who sinned against us"…But anyway,…this is only my opinion and my understanding of this verse…as long we sincere in our heart and repent;…GOD will forgive us…God Bless…

I suggest you go through the whole thread.

Look also at post 276 for a link to the an article on the Biblical basis of the sacrament.

 

[pablope]

QUOTE=1beleevr;7988774]

Well, are you not describing yourself here also?

To say that I do not recognize authority is disingenuous and un charitable!
I just don’t agree with the catholic church. The examples given, cannot solidly be used as a foreshadow of confession in the New Testament.

You say there are not, yet you do not give a reason why…

In the Old Testament/Old Covenant, priests interceded on behalf of the people, going behind a curtain or veil. When Christ died on the Cross, the veil was torn from the top down, allowing all of us access to God!(Hebrews 4:16. So your(catholic view of Job 42 and 2 Sam 12) are shaky at best when used to justify confessing to a priest in 2011

.

Then you again pronounce the examples given in the Bible, provided to you by God himself, as shaky…

So is this not abrogating authority for yourself to declare what God has provided via the Bible as “shaky”?

And then you take and twist 1John 1:9 to fit your agenda, as well as James(Jesus’s brother) 5:16! I have shared sins with pastors, who have prayed with me.(James 5:16) But, I had already confessed it to God,(1John 1:9).Sometimes, I wonder why I meet so many former catholics, if you are so right all the time!

Who is twisting what, 1b? Yet you yourself cite the tearing of the curtain wall and Heb 4:16 for your own agenda, twisting its meaning.

JonNC posted a quote from their confession supporting the sacrament, another protestant sees a need for the sacrament…so who is speaking the truth? Seems protestants cannot even agree on the proper mode of confession.

And do you think God is happy at this?

 

[onenow1]

QUOTE=1beleevr;7988774]

Hi, Again Pablobe, the pillar and foundation of truth lies in the Church, the bible says it, so indeed the problem lies in the understanding and proper context of scripture !!! Unfortunately, this is where most arguments{debates} end up. A book cannot have authority unless the proper interpretation is revealed.

Common sense should dictate this truth.

God Bless, have a great day.

 

[1beleevr]

[/quote]

Boy, you guys are really hung up on ad hominems! I was pointing out that many catholics leave the faith, and I wonder why; id it is the true church of Jesus Christ!
[/quote]

 

[1beleevr]

QUOTE=1beleevr;7988774]

So tell me, what does the tearing of the veil(curtain) mean to you? In the Old Testament, priests went behind a curtain(veil) to represent the people. Why did the curtain tear? Hebrews 4:16 is not rocket science; Paul or whomever wrote Hebrews, says LET US GO BOLDLY INTO THE THRONEROOM OF GRACE! Hosea 14:2, Psalms 79:9, Psalms 86:5,Isaiah 55:7. This means you have to look them up. And no catholic has yet offered an example of how they know they’re forgiven! Still waiting for examples of priests representing confessors in the Bible, besides Job 42 and 2 Samuel!

 

[pablope]

QUOTE=1beleevr;7988774]

Could you cite the chapter and verse? Don’t have time to look for it.

Hebrews 4:16 is not rocket science; Paul or whomever wrote Hebrews, says LET US GO BOLDLY INTO THE THRONEROOM OF GRACE!

The throne of gace…speaks of God’s throne…where God dispenses mercy and gace. That is all it says. It does not state how God dispenses His mercy and grace, nor is how one to approach it. With that said, we in the CC still have the teachings of the Apostles, practiced by the very first christians and we in the CC still does today, on how we approach God for His mercy and grace.

And no catholic has yet offered an example of how they know they’re forgiven! Still waiting for examples of priests representing confessors in the Bible, besides Job 42 and 2 Samuel!

Why does it have to be in the Bible? Where is it stated that everything has to be in the Bible?

Did you read post 276?

As I said in a previous post…only one example is enough for a true believer, for one with true faith, some even do not need an example. As Jesus said to Thomas in John…blessed are those who have not seen yet believe.

 

[JonathonofOhio]

(name removed by moderator);7988850:

1beleevr;7988774:

Boy, you guys are really hung up on ad hominems! I was pointing out that many catholics leave the faith, and I wonder why; id it is the true church of Jesus Christ!

Do you even know what an ad hominem is?

It is an attempt to link the truth of a claim to a negative characteristic or belief of the person advocating it.

In your response you accused me of being ‘high and mighty’ in an attempt to prove my statements were false, but never made any factual statements to refute what I said. Based on the negative characteristic you attributed to me, you dismissed my arguments by making the statement that they were simply ‘not enough’, as if a large number of ‘examples’ would convince you anyway. BTW, is there some set number of examples that need to be provided to convince you of a truth? What is the rule on that?

Furthermore, you proceeded to introduce other arguments that really had nothing to do with disproving my proposed arguments.

Hence, the pointing out of you using ad hominem in your post, which, in this sense, is a logical fallacy.

 

[JonathonofOhio]

(name removed by moderator);7988850:

1beleevr;7988774:

Boy, you guys are really hung up on ad hominems! I was pointing out that many catholics leave the faith, and I wonder why; id it is the true church of Jesus Christ!

Also the point you attempted to make is a fallacious argument. You assumed that, since you see many Catholics leaving the faith, it must not be the one true Church. Where is the logic in that?

This is called Appealing To Widespread Belief. Here is another example of this type of fallacious argument:

“I see so many people trying bloodletting with leaches these days as a cure for their cancer. If there are so many people trying it, it must be working!”

 

[onenow1]

(name removed by moderator);7988850:

1beleevr;7988774:

Boy, you guys are really hung up on ad hominems! I was pointing out that many catholics leave the faith, and I wonder why; id it is the true church of Jesus Christ!

Hi,#1 Something to think about !>>> “Obey your superiors and be subject to them, for they keep watch as having to render an account of your souls; so that they may do this with joy, and not with grief, for that would not be expedient for you.” Hebrews 13:17

So many folks claim to follow the teaching of Holy Scripture. I would ask if the founders of the Reformation, Luther, Calvin, Munser, and the others, obeyed this verse? If they were not obedient, how then could their followers be obedient?

Peace