Confession and Matt 9:8

[JTBT]

and…
The Church extends an OPEN INVITATION to all. I therefore invite you to attend a mass in the near future.
Thank You,

Correct again, only God can forgive sins. The priest performs a ministry, acting as the “eyes, ears and hands” of Christ, so to speak. The faith of this is expressed in the prayer said during the administration of the sacrament. Notice that the priest is not asked for forgiveness, God is.
In the early church confession was much more public, but a minister was required. From James, chapter 5…

Sub
I must say that you have made the best “case” thus far if it is indeed true that it is not the Priest that is asked for forgiveness, I think the next thing would be to define Elders, as just priest, but I don’t think you will be able to do that.

 

[NotWorthy]

John and James is where I can see the justification for confession, but according to others on this blog confession in the early church was not what we see today; confession was indeed more public, and not just to a Priest. which is actually what I would expect from reading John and James
Christ breathed on the apostles not everyone.
I don’t think that it is very clear who was in the room

It was His disciples. I don’t think anyone can claim that the Apostles and only the Apostles were the first priests. Their role would be more akin to the bishop, IMO.

I have not allowed just anybody to have this authority, only Christians.
but your understanding is giving this authority only to a Priest. Do you think that if the Priest refused to forgive you that our heavenly Father would not forgive you?

It doesn’t matter what I think. I’m just going by what Jesus says, and again, he says it rather clearly - “and whose sins you retain are retained.” (NAB).

and yes, this is a very grave authority. and I am not speaking of it flipantly
as far as stealing my car, if you asked me for forgiveness and I refuse to forgive you, I would be condeming myself. Matt. 6:15, Mark 11:26 and for that matter the Lord’s Prayer

That’s a different matter. As Christians we are expected to forgive our brothers and sisters. But this does not mean God forgives them. That involves repenting and whatnot.

And it is a grave authority. A priest would not consider retaining someone’s sins unless they proved to be unrepentant. “Father, I got drunk last night and I plan on getting drunk tonight”. This type of confession typically would not find the confessor getting absolution.

well look at Luke 5:24 it says the samething as Mark it is the same story in three different books, and the intent is the same in all three to show that the Son of Man

has the Authority to forgive sins,
again this is not a good proof text for confession,

1. it is not the point of the passage,
2. nowhere in the passage do we see the paralyzed man confess any of his sins.First point.
   It doesn’t matter what Luke and Mark does or doesn’t say. If their audience didn’t question a priest’s authority to forgive their sins, then it would not need to be added to the text. Matthew’s audience however, knew that God alone could forgive sins. It was necessary for Matthew’s audience to see that God had given this authority to men.

The Holy Spirit guided Matthew to put that into his Gospel. If you start questioning the teachings of the Bible based on what is or isn’t in all the Gospels, then you’ve opened up a can of worms.

Second Point.
It doesn’t necessarily point to the necessity of Confession, but it provides the necessary link that establishes that absolution can be given by men (not one man, but men - of course through the authority given to men from God). Now, with the authority of absolution, let me ask you. How does one know whether to absolve or retain someone’s sins? The Holy Spirit did not gift the disciples with ESP, so it would seem confession is necessary.

The third point.
The paralyzed man did not confess his sins? Of course not. Jesus can read the hearts and souls of men. But you and I can’t. Again, without the charism of ESP, one would need confession to determine absolution.

 

[JTBT]

It doesn’t matter what Luke and Mark does or doesn’t say.
The Holy Spirit guided Matthew to put that into his Gospel.

Point blank the argument out of Matthew is weak at best, I can understand that if you already believe in confession Matthew is a nice comformation but you are not going to convince a Protestant with this verse.

 

[NotWorthy]

Point blank the argument out of Matthew is weak at best, I can understand that if you already believe in confession Matthew is a nice comformation but you are not going to convince a Protestant with this verse.

I wasn’t trying to convince a Protestant with this verse.

But this verse establishes that Men were giving authority.

Without ESP, how would you say that men can forgive sins?

In regards to convincing a Protestant, John chapter 20 would also be used. And any Protestant that speaks of wanting to “return to how the early Church was” should at least study Church History. They’ll find Confession was going on.

Yes, you’re right, it was public confession at the earliest, but I think the Church found that private confession was much better. I mean, think about it, “Well, Brother Jim confessed his sin and has been absolved, but the gossip that was generated from his public confession has caused 18 of our sisters to fall into sin”. And we know that the Early Church had the authority to make these adjustments to the practice of confession.

 

[JTBT]

I wasn’t trying to convince a Protestant with this verse.

But this verse establishes that Men were giving authority.

Without ESP, how would you say that men can forgive sins?

Honestly I am having a hard time with the whole Idea.
If men are given the authority to forgive sins it is only though the Holy Spirit and not by any power of man. Therefore; it would still be God doing the forgiving, though a Priest. Subrosa has presented a very good argument, I am having to do a little digging now.

 

[NotWorthy]

Honestly I am having a hard time with the whole Idea.
If men are given the authority to forgive sins it is only though the Holy Spirit and not by any power of man. Therefore; it would still be God doing the forgiving, though a Priest. Subrosa has presented a very good argument, I am having to do a little digging now.

It is by the power of the Holy Spirit to forgive sins. But the priest has the Divinely given authority to work “in persona Christi” (in the person of Christ) to forgive our sins.

Let me ask you, have you ever heard a sermon on John chapter 20? What does the pastor say is going on when Jesus breathes on them and tells them to forgive or retain our sins (paraphrasing)?

 

[NotWorthy]

One other point regarding the shift from public confession to private:

What if Brother Jim was prepared to confess of his affair with Sister Mary, but Sister Mary was not prepared? How do you think Sister Mary, and more importantly her husband, would feel about Jim’s public confession?

 

[Subrosa]

:bible1:** [21**] Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.”
22**

 

[JTBT]

Let us then contextualize, shall we?

Always:thumbsup:

We can see that the WHOLE CHRISTIAN CHURCH in the world agreed that Jesus left us a ministry for forgiveness of sin.

Amen:yup:

I might add that JTBT has at this point admitted that Jesus said these words and they mean what they say. It is only to determine who has the ministry and under what form it exists.
Sub

I would never dream of saying that Jesus didn’t say these words it is as you have said we just need to determine in what form this ministry exists, I do have an answer for you and NotWorthy that is well rather lengthy so I will have to post it tomorrow and i look forward to your comments

 

[rogue13]

Point blank the argument out of Matthew is weak at best, I can understand that if you already believe in confession Matthew is a nice comformation but you are not going to convince a Protestant with this verse.

I would strongly disagree with your statement here. If you, as a Catholic, are arguing about the Sacrament of Confession with a Bible-only Christian, then this is a very powerful verse. The non-Catholic says that the Catholic teaching on Confession is not in the Bible. The Catholic goes to Matt 9:6 & 8 and says, “This is exactly what the Church teaches - that God gave the authority on earth to forgive sins to men. It is written in the Bible exactly as we believe it.”

What option is left the non-Catholic? “Well, what that means is…” One more verse that he has to explain away. No matter what the non-Catholic says, all the Catholic has to do is point to the very plain words of Scripture and say, “But the Bible states exactly what we believe. I don’t have to add a single word of explanation, as do you, to what is written here.”

My question to you is the same one I put in a previous post: Does the Sacrament of Confession have to do with men having the authority on earth to forgive sins? If your answer is, “Yes,” then Matthew 9 points us directly to the Sacrament of Confession.

Will you convince a Protestant with this verse? Maybe, maybe not. But, how many times have you shown a Protestant John 6:51-59 and they immediately said, “Oh my, I guess you’re right - I need to become Catholic?” I dare say that no single verse on any particular topic will “prove” the case to a Protestant. But, just as John 6 is a powerful argument in building the case for the Eucharist, so Matthew 9 is a powerful argument in building the case for Confession, if you use it properly.

The point is, you have shown the Protestant that your belief about Confession is right there in black and white in the Bible. After which you simply ask, “Where does the Bible say that we should confess our sins to God and God alone? Can you please show me that verse?”

Is John 6 a “weak argument” for the Eucharist simply because most Protestants you talk to are not immediately bowled over by it? Absolutely not. Same can be said for Matthew 9 in regards to Confession.

 

[JTBT]

I would strongly disagree with your statement here. If you, as a Catholic, .

I’m a Protestant

The non-Catholic says that the Catholic teaching on Confession is not in the Bible. The Catholic goes to Matt 9:6 & 8 …The point is, you have shown the Protestant that your belief about Confession is right there in black and white in the Bible. .

the point of Matt 9, Luke 5, and Mark2 is not that men have authority to forgive sins, the point is that Jesus (who is God) has the authority to forgive sin. the other thing you have to take into account is who is speaking, the plural form of the word men is not said by Jesus it is said by the crowd, just because this is what the crowd said does nothing to prove for or against confession. Some members of the crowd also said Jesus was blaspheming is this true just because some members of the crowd said it; it is right there in black and white?

BTW Protestants don’t really believe “Bible Only” the way that is presented most of the time, we do have tradition

 

[rogue13]

I’m a Protestant

My apologies. Work schedule prevents me from keeping up very closely with an entire thread and knowing who is what.

the point of Matt 9, Luke 5, and Mark2 is not that men have authority to forgive sins, the point is that Jesus (who is God) has the authority to forgive sin. the other thing you have to take into account is who is speaking, the plural form of the word men is not said by Jesus it is said by the crowd, just because this is what the crowd said does nothing to prove for or against confession. Some members of the crowd also said Jesus was blaspheming is this true just because some members of the crowd said it; it is right there in black and white?

With all due respect, but that is what I would classify as a “weak argument.” Apostolic succession was not the point of the psalm that Peter quotes in Acts 1, was it? So, would you then say Peter is making a “weak argument” for apostolic succession by quoting that psalm?

Plus, by what authority do you declare that the point of Matt 9 is not that men have the authority on earth to forgive sin? Is that not simply your interpretation? An interpretation colored by the fact that you came to Scripture with the preconceived belief that men do not have the authority on earth to forgive sins? Forgive me, but doesn’t Jesus forgive this man’s sins in such a way that He makes the crowd believe that the authority on earth to forgive sins was given to “men”? Jesus knew what the crowd was thinking, didn’t He? Yet, does He say, “No, no. The point of this is that I alone have the authority to forgive sin”?

And, if one of the points isn’t that God gave men the authority on earth to forgive sins, then why does the Holy Spirit-inspired writer record that as the final word on this particular incident? He could have left out that last sentence completely, couldn’t he? Yet, he didn’t. I wonder why?

Do all the words of Scripture have meaning or not? If you believe they do, then what, pray tell, do you believe the words in Matt 9:6-8 to mean?

Which is the weaker argument:
a) I believe what Matt 9:6-8 says - I believe that God gave the authority on earth to forgive sins to men as it is clearly stated in these verses; or
b) I don’t believe what Matt 9:6-8 says - I don’t believe God gave the authority on earth to forgive sins to men - because I believe the crowd got it wrong?

So, I will return to what I said in the previous post. The Sacrament of Confession is all about men having authority on earth to forgive sins. It is God’s authority, but He exercises this authority through men. Sort of like those who have the gift of healing. It is God’s authority by which the healing is done, but He exercises that authority through men.

Does this verse say, yes or no, that God gave men the authority on earth to forgive sins? Indeed it does. In other words, what Catholics believe - God gave men authority on earth to forgive sins - is clearly stated in the inspired words of Scripture. So, having this evidence before you, will you deny that the Catholics have biblical justification for their belief in this particular matter?

Also, can you give me the verse of the Bible that states we are to confess our sins to God and God alone, if that is indeed your belief?

BTW Protestants don’t really believe “Bible Only” the way that is presented most of the time, we do have tradition

Oh, I know that Protestants have tradition. Unfortunately, you are one of the few Protestants I’ve ever come across who actually realizes that. Still, my arguments are valid whether Protestants recognize some sort of tradition or not.

 

[Subrosa]

the point of Matt 9, Luke 5, and Mark2 is not that men have authority to forgive sins, the point is that Jesus (who is God) has the authority to forgive sin.

Amen, brother, amen!

BTW Protestants don’t really believe “Bible Only” the way that is presented most of the time, we do have tradition

I have spoken to some that won’t admit this. God bless you, man!

Sub

 

[Subrosa]

the point of Matt 9, Luke 5, and Mark2 is not that men have authority to forgive sins, the point is that Jesus (who is God) has the authority to forgive sin. the other thing you have to take into account is who is speaking, the plural form of the word men is not said by Jesus it is said by the crowd, just because this is what the crowd said does nothing to prove for or against confession. Some members of the crowd also said Jesus was blaspheming is this true just because some members of the crowd said it; it is right there in black and white?

Y’know JTBT, what we got here is a failure to communicate!

But, really. All one needs do is look at the historical use of confession in the ealry church and we see that it has always been a church ministry.

I believe that it is the “ministry of reconciliation” spoken about by Paul in 2 Corinthians 5:18-21. It is unfortunate that Paul doesn’t go ahead and describe it to us. Instead he assumes that the people reading the letter already know what it is. had he the foresight to put down a description, much of this debate would have been settled now.

Just so you know, the Sacrament was a public event for the first six centuries of christendom. It became private later, I think for reasons you can figure out.

Here are some links to the sacrament in other confessions besides Catholic…
orthodoxinfo.com/praxis/communionprep.aspx
coptic.net/lessons/Confession.txt
geocities.com/athens/thebes/1089/confession.html
antiochian.org/node/16910

Sub

 

[JTBT]

With all due respect, but that is what I would classify as a “weak argument.”

that was my point. it was intended to be a weak argument , but it is the same argument you are using, just because some people in the crowd thought he was blaspheming doesn’t mean he was blaspheming. and the same goes for your argument, just because some people in the crowd thought God had given the authority to forgive sin to men does not mean that what they were saying was right.

as far Protestant Tradition (which is different than the RC tradition on many points), Protestant Authority, and the Eucharist, well I think those are 3 totally different threads.
but because it seems you will not value my opinion unless I address my Authority to read and understand the Bible I will say that I accept the general Priesthood of all Christians and their ability to rightly interpret the Bible though the leading of the Holy Spirit. but like I said I think that this is a totally different thread and I don’t want to go down another “Rabbit Hole”.

 

[rogue13]

that was my point. it was intended to be a weak argument , but it is the same argument you are using, just because some people in the crowd thought he was blaspheming doesn’t mean he was blaspheming. and the same goes for your argument, just because some people in the crowd thought God had given the authority to forgive sin to men does not mean that what they were saying was right.

Sorry, but it is not the same argument. You know, do you not, that the scribes were indeed wrong in what they said? You know because we know Jesus is God, and God cannot blaspheme. Do you know for certain that the crowds were wrong in what they said? If so, how so? Does it say that the crowds blasphemed?

We know for certain, and the passage itself confirms it, that the scribes were wrong. What in the passage tells, or even suggests, that the crowd got it wrong? Nothing. So, again, the arguments are not the same. The scribes were definitely wrong. Not so for the crowd.

as far Protestant Tradition (which is different than the RC tradition on many points), Protestant Authority, and the Eucharist, well I think those are 3 totally different threads. But because it seems you will not value my opinion unless I address my Authority to read and understand the Bible I will say that I accept the general Priesthood of all Christians and their ability to rightly interpret the Bible though the leading of the Holy Spirit. but like I said I think that this is a totally different thread and I don’t want to go down another “Rabbit Hole”.

I do not consider authority to be a “Rabbit Hole,” and my comments were wholly applicable because you stated in a seemingly infallible manner what the “point” of the passage was and what it wasn’t. So, forgive me if I ask for your authority to proclaim such a thing.

And, if you accept the “general Priesthood of all Christians and their ability to rightly interpret the Bible though [sic] the leading of the Holy Spirit,” then why do you not accept my interpretation of this verse that it pertains to the Sacrament of Confession? Do you believe your interpretation to be more valid than mine? Yes or no?

Now, back to my last post, I noticed you did not address several of my points. So, if you would like to stay on task and not go down any rabbit holes, would you please answer the following:

1. Apostolic succession was not the point of the psalm that Peter quotes in Acts 1, was it? So, would you then say Peter is making a “weak argument” for apostolic succession by quoting that psalm? Yes or no?
2. Is your interpretation of Matt 9 colored by the fact that you came to Scripture with the preconceived belief that men do not have the authority on earth to forgive sins? Yes or no?
3. If one of the points of Matt 9:1-8 isn’t that God gave men the authority on earth to forgive sins, then why does the Holy Spirit-inspired writer record that as the final word on this particular incident? He could have left out that last sentence completely, couldn’t he? Yet, he didn’t. Why?
4. Do all the words of Scripture have meaning or not? If you believe they do, then what, pray tell, do you believe the words in Matt 9:6-8 to mean?
5. Which is the weaker argument:
   a) I believe what Matt 9:6-8 says - I believe that God gave the authority on earth to forgive sins to men as it is clearly stated in these verses; or
   b) I don’t believe what Matt 9:6-8 says - I don’t believe God gave the authority on earth to forgive sins to men - because I believe the crowd got it wrong?
6. Does this verse say, yes or no, that God gave men the authority on earth to forgive sins?
7. Given what it says in Matt 9:6-8, will you deny that the Catholics have biblical justification for their belief in this particular matter? Yes or no?
8. Can you give me the verse of the Bible that states we are to confess our sins to God and God alone, if that is indeed your belief?

 

[JTBT]

Sorry, but it is not the same argument. You know, do you not, that the scribes were indeed wrong in what they said? You know because we know Jesus is God, and God cannot blaspheme. Do you know for certain that the crowds were wrong in what they said? If so, how so? Does it say that the crowds blasphemed?

it doesn’t say if the crowds were right or if they were wrong, you are reading that into the verse

We know for certain, and the passage itself confirms it, that the scribes were wrong…Not so for the crowd.

but there is nothing in this passage that says the crowds were right

I do not consider authority to be a “Rabbit Hole,” …

My apologies, I did not intended to offend you, by “Rabbit Hole” I was referring to another portion of this thread that was unintentionally lead off topic

And, if you accept the "general Priesthood of all Christians …Do you believe your interpretation to be more valid than mine? Yes or no?

1st lets see if we even disagree: is it confirmed in Matt 9, Luke 5, and Mark 2 that Jesus has the authority to forgive sins? I say yes what do you say, Yes or No?

1. Apostolic succession …Peter is making a “weak argument” for apostolic succession by quoting that psalm? Yes or no?

we all have our moments, but I wouldn’t call much of anything Peter did weak; however, this is off topic, we are discussing Confession, and I assure you we do not agree on Apostolic succession, so this topic would be another thread

1. Is your interpretation of Matt 9 colored by the fact that you came to Scripture with the preconceived belief that men do not have the authority on earth to forgive sins? Yes or no?

is yours? let me ask you did you read this verse before or after you were convenced of RC Confession

1. If one of the points of Matt 9:1-8 …Yet, he didn’t. Why?

Matthew is giving us a recorded fact, I hold that the Bible is inerrant, and does give us reliable facts about people and history so I believe that this is what the crowd actually said, but there is no comment in the department of the crowd being right or wrong so this doesn’t help or hurt your argument.

1. Do all the words of Scripture have meaning or not? If you believe they do, then what, pray tell, do you believe the words in Matt 9:6-8 to mean?

I have already answered this, I believe this passage along with Luke 5, and Mark 2 confirm Jesus’ authority to forgive sins on earth. do you disagree?

1. Which is the weaker argument:
   a) I believe what Matt 9:6-8 says - I believe that God gave the authority on earth to forgive sins to men as it is clearly stated in these verses; or
   b) I don’t believe what Matt 9:6-8 says - I don’t believe God gave the authority on earth to forgive sins to men - because I believe the crowd got it wrong?

a) if your conclusion is your 2nd statement then it doesn’t necessarily follow from your 1st statement.
I also believe what Matt 9:6-8 says, but it doesn’t necessarily follow that I believe in RC Confession, but it does necessarily follow that I believe that Jesus has the authority to forgive sins on earth
b) I’m not following this one at all, so i guess I would say this one is weaker. if you don’t believe what Matt 9:6-8 says, then you couldn’t believe the crowd got it wrong or right, because you wouldn’t believe that the crowd existed to say these words.

1. Does this verse say, yes or no, that God gave men the authority on earth to forgive sins?

it doesn’t say one way ot the other that is my point

1. Given what it says in Matt 9:6-8, will you deny that the Catholics have biblical justification for their belief in this particular matter? Yes or no?

Matt 9:6-8 does not give enough information to say conclusively one way or the other

1. Can you give me the verse of the Bible that states we are to confess our sins to God and God alone, if that is indeed your belief?

the Bible plainly says we are to confess our sins to other Christians, as well as God, now can you show me where the Bible state that we are to confess our sins to a RC Priest and a RC Priest alone?

now please if I may respectfully make a request that you do not use machine gun tactics, on me any further

 

[JTBT]

Y’know JTBT, what we got here is a failure to communicate!

perhaps you right so let me put my cards on the table and we will see. Here is what I would call “Protestant Confession”
Protestants do confess,at least Baptist do, but not in the Roman Catholic way, this is what usually happens when a person is Saved in a Baptist Church the person walks to the front of the church confessing that they are a sinner and in need of forgiveness, at which point the preacher and sometimes the lay people will lay hands on them and pray with them, afterwords, the person must then give a “public profession of faith” (which includes confessing the fact that you are a sinner and in need of salvation) after this the person is Baptized (by immersion)into membership of the Church. If a person “back slides” and wishes to rededicate their life the person actually walks to the front of the Church before the end of Sunday service to “rededicate and repent” in front of the whole church the minister and most of the time lay people will lay hands on the person and pray for them, granted usually people do not go into great detail of what put them into a “back slide”, but they confess and repent of what they have been doing, and ask the Church to pray for them and God to forgive them.

I know that there are probably differences between Protestants, but I can only speak to what Baptist do, and I really don’t know that I am doing it justice in the short paragraph above, but i think you get the Idea.

I believe that it is the “ministry of reconciliation” spoken about by Paul in 2 Corinthians 5:18-21. It is unfortunate that Paul doesn’t go ahead and describe it to us. Instead he assumes that the people reading the letter already know what it is. had he the foresight to put down a description, much of this debate would have been settled now.

indeed

Just so you know, the Sacrament was a public event for the first six centuries of christendom. It became private later, I think for reasons you can figure out.

Here are some links to the sacrament in other confessions besides Catholic…
orthodoxinfo.com/praxis/communionprep.aspx
coptic.net/lessons/Confession.txt
geocities.com/athens/thebes/1089/confession.html
antiochian.org/node/16910

Sub

there are some interesting links here I will visit them.

 

[ibetrippin07]

In regarding the confession issue, why do you feel that men have the power to forgive sins? Do you have the power to forgive your neighbors sins? Really is any man greater than the other? We are all priests, no pope… This ended according to Hebrews 5:1-4 “For every high priest taken from among men is appointed for men in things pertaining to God, that he may offer both gifts and savrifices for sins. HE CAN HAVE COMPASSION ON THOSE WHO ARE IGNORANT AND GOING ASTRAY, SINCE HE HIMSELF IS ALSO SUBJECT TO WEAKNESS. because of this he is required as for the people, so also for himself, to offer sacrifices for sins. And no man takes this honor to himself, but he who is called by God, just as Aaron was.”
Let say, no man takes this honor to himself. So if I am correct in this logic, what priest has the authority to take upon himself the ability to forgive sins??? If this ended with the Old human High priests who is then to take this responsiblily, it isnt Peter… Its Jesus Christ! Heb 5:9-11, “And having been perfected, He became the author of eternal salvation to all who obey Him, called by God as a high Priest according to the order of Melchizedek, of whom we have much to say, and hard to explain, since you have become dull of hearing.”

 

[ibetrippin07]

In honesty do Catholics believe in a “personal” relationship with Christ? And if so why does this include you and your local priest and God and not just you and God?