Do Fundamentalist believe in doing penance?

  • Thread starter Thread starter benidict
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

benidict

Guest
Hello my friends. 2 Peter 3:9 reads as follows. “The Lord delayeth not his promise, as some imagine, but dealeth patiently for your sake, not willing that any should perish, but that all should return to penance.” In the N.I.V. and in the K.J.V. the word penance has been changed to repentance. I am in a conversation with a fundamentalist, who claims that penance is a Roman Catholic Dogma. I would think, given that faith is dead without works, that repentance not followed by penance is also dead. your thoughts? I think the Douay Rheims got the translation correct. Peace 🙂
 
When I was a fundamentalist over twenty years ago I remember them saying it was the Catholics who changed the word to penance to promote the sacrament of Confession. Later, after studying the Greek did I learn otherwise.
 
When I was a fundamentalist over twenty years ago I remember them saying it was the Catholics who changed the word to penance to promote the sacrament of Confession. Later, after studying the Greek did I learn otherwise.
Hi JustaServant. so the Greek word in 2nd peter 3:9 is translated correctly in the D.R. translation? its amazing how changing one word can alter the whole meaning of a verse. i agree with the D.R. translation. if it were not for this fundamentalist, i never would have caught it. this is pretty serious buisness, changing the meaning of a passage. Peace 🙂
 
Hi JustaServant. so the Greek word in 2nd peter 3:9 is translated correctly in the D.R. translation? its amazing how changing one word can alter the whole meaning of a verse. i agree with the D.R. translation. if it were not for this fundamentalist, i never would have caught it. this is pretty serious buisness, changing the meaning of a passage. Peace 🙂
Fundamentalist preachers tend to bet thier listeners do not learn the Greek or investigate further into their claims (which unfortunately, most don’t). When someone challegenges thier interpretation, you see a lot of stuttering and theological dancing.
Keep in mind most of these preachers went to a “Bible College” which simply ‘educates’ them in a philosophy, it doesn’t educate them much further than that.
 
When I was a FIB, penance was not part of our vocabulary. To be honest, I was naive enough to not think about issues like this.
 
Fundamentalist preachers tend to bet thier listeners do not learn the Greek or investigate further into their claims (which unfortunately, most don’t). When someone challegenges thier interpretation, you see a lot of stuttering and theological dancing.
Keep in mind most of these preachers went to a “Bible College” which simply ‘educates’ them in a philosophy, it doesn’t educate them much further than that.
Can I ask which “Bible College” you attended? It was a year at Hyles-Anderson that was instrumental in chasing me away from Fundamentalism.
 
Hello my friends. 2 Peter 3:9 reads as follows. “The Lord delayeth not his promise, as some imagine, but dealeth patiently for your sake, not willing that any should perish, but that all should return to penance.” In the N.I.V. and in the K.J.V. the word penance has been changed to repentance. I am in a conversation with a fundamentalist, who claims that penance is a Roman Catholic Dogma. I would think, given that faith is dead without works, that repentance not followed by penance is also dead. your thoughts? I think the Douay Rheims got the translation correct. Peace 🙂
While a fundamentalist only speaks scripture I have found the best way to address their understanding of scripture is with logic. They claim faith is all thats necessary for salvation yet believe faith without works is dead and cant save. So in this case your statement of repentance without penance directly challenges their logic. It would be like saying someone stole a womans pocketbook and when caught they said they were sorry (repentance) but didnt give back the pocketbook (penance). In that case what good would repentance without penance be to the victim? It just doesnt make sense in our real life and it doesnt make sense in our spiritual life.
 
Can I ask which “Bible College” you attended? It was a year at Hyles-Anderson that was instrumental in chasing me away from Fundamentalism.
Hi Carl.
I attended Liberty University. Jerry Falwell’s version of fundamentalism was far kinder IMHO.
Hyles-Anderson? Wow, that “college” has chased many away from Christianity period. :eek:
Anyway, back on topic. I think the foundation of thier view on penance stems from their once saved always saved POV. If they believe thier sin has no real consequence before God, then penance is illogical. Such an outlook lessens thier view of sin, and as a result, they fall easily into it.
Kinda explains the behavior of the founder of a certain Bible College.😉
 
While a fundamentalist only speaks scripture I have found the best way to address their understanding of scripture is with logic. They claim faith is all thats necessary for salvation yet believe faith without works is dead and cant save. So in this case your statement of repentance without penance directly challenges their logic. It would be like saying someone stole a womans pocketbook and when caught they said they were sorry (repentance) but didnt give back the pocketbook (penance). In that case what good would repentance without penance be to the victim? It just doesnt make sense in our real life and it doesnt make sense in our spiritual life.
That’s a good example. Another is, if you spill a gallon of milk, you say you’re sorry and you’re forgiven. Great. But you still have to clean up the milk!!
 
No 2 fundamentalist believe the same thing. The question is impossible to answer.
 
No 2 fundamentalist believe the same thing. The question is impossible to answer.
It would seem from the link I posted to a thread concerning this very thing from 2004…the same could be said for many Catholics…
 
It might depend what you mean by penance.

many would agree that if you have done a wrong to someone, you should make up for it. Many would agree that if you have trouble with a particular sin, there might be things you can do to help you avoid that sin in the future.

But I don’t imagine they would accept the more particularly Catholic view of penance, as something you need to accomplish to be forgiven for your sins. Of course other non-Catholic, non-Protestant Christians don’t either. As far as I am aware, it is an idea pretty much limited to Catholics and perhaps the most Romish Anglo-catholics.
 
It might depend what you mean by penance.

many would agree that if you have done a wrong to someone, you should make up for it. Many would agree that if you have trouble with a particular sin, there might be things you can do to help you avoid that sin in the future.

But I don’t imagine they would accept the more particularly Catholic view of penance, as something you need to accomplish to be forgiven for your sins. Of course other non-Catholic, non-Protestant Christians don’t either. As far as I am aware, it is an idea pretty much limited to Catholics and perhaps the most Romish Anglo-catholics.
It is also common in the eastern Catholic Churches and the Orthodox. The abandonment of penance was as innovation of the Protestant reformation.
 
It is also common in the eastern Catholic Churches and the Orthodox. The abandonment of penance was as innovation of the Protestant reformation.
The Orthodox do not understand penance the way Catholics do, which is why I specified what I meant by the Catholic understanding of penance. They do not understand it as something you need to do to atone for the temporal effects of sin. Many times they may not be given penance at all, and if they are it is understood as a way to help them avoid sin in the future, or better understand the nature of their sin.
 
The Orthodox do not understand penance the way Catholics do, which is why I specified what I meant by the Catholic understanding of penance. They do not understand it as something you need to do to atone for the temporal effects of sin. Many times they may not be given penance at all, and if they are it is understood as a way to help them avoid sin in the future, or better understand the nature of their sin.
Then you do not understand the Catholic understanding of penance.
 
Then you do not understand the Catholic understanding of penance.
Do please enlighten me. My understanding is that in the sacrament of Reconciliation, what is required of the sinner is penitence, confession, and satisfaction, that last being the issue here. the CCC describes it like this:

1459 Many sins wrong our neighbor. One must do what is possible in order to repair the harm (e.g., return stolen goods, restore the reputation of someone slandered, pay compensation for injuries). Simple justice requires as much. But sin also injures and weakens the sinner himself, as well as his relationships with God and neighbor. Absolution takes away sin, but it does not remedy all the disorders sin has caused.[62] Raised up from sin, the sinner must still recover his full spiritual health by doing something more to make amends for the sin: he must “make satisfaction for” or “expiate” his sins. This satisfaction is also called “penance.”

*1460 The penance the confessor imposes must take into account the penitent’s personal situation and must seek his spiritual good. It must correspond as far as possible with the gravity and nature of the sins committed. It can consist of prayer, an offering, works of mercy, service of neighbor, voluntary self-denial, sacrifices, and above all the patient acceptance of the cross we must bear. Such penances help configure us to Christ, who alone expiated our sins once for all. They allow us to become co-heirs with the risen Christ, “provided we suffer with him.”[63]
The satisfaction that we make for our sins, however, is not so much ours as though it were not done through Jesus Christ. We who can do nothing ourselves, as if just by ourselves, can do all things with the cooperation of “him who strengthens” us. Thus man has nothing of which to boast, but all our boasting is in Christ . . . in whom we make satisfaction by bringing forth “fruits that befit repentance.” These fruits have their efficacy from him, by him they are offered to the Father, and through him they are accepted by the Father.[64] *

Additionally I understand that normally if one fails to accomplish this penance, one’s confession is invalid, and that ultimately the satisfaction at least will be made in Purgatory, as is outlined in the Catholic encyclopedia:

*There remains, however, some indebtedness to Divine justice which must be cancelled here or hereafter (see PURGATORY). In order to have it cancelled here, the penitent receives from his confessor what is usually called his “penance”, usually in the form of certain prayers which he is to say, or of certain actions which he is to perform, such as visits to a church, the Stations of the Cross, etc. Alms deeds, fasting, and prayer are the chief means of satisfaction, but other penitential works may also be enjoined. The quality and extent of the penance is determined by the confessor according to the nature of the sins revealed, the special circumstances of the penitent, his liability to relapse, and the need of eradicating evil habits. Sometimes the penance is such that it may be performed at once; in other cases it may require a more or less considerable period, as, e.g., where it is prescribed for each day during a week or a month. But even then the penitent may receive another sacrament (e.g., Holy Communion) immediately after confession, since absolution restores him to the state of grace. He is nevertheless under obligation to continue the performance of his penance until it is completed. *

The OC does not require penance as a matter of satisfaction.
 
Do please enlighten me. My understanding is that in the sacrament of Reconciliation, what is required of the sinner is penitence, confession, and satisfaction, that last being the issue here. the CCC describes it like this:

1459 Many sins wrong our neighbor. One must do what is possible in order to repair the harm (e.g., return stolen goods, restore the reputation of someone slandered, pay compensation for injuries). Simple justice requires as much. But sin also injures and weakens the sinner himself, as well as his relationships with God and neighbor. Absolution takes away sin, but it does not remedy all the disorders sin has caused.[62] Raised up from sin, the sinner must still recover his full spiritual health by doing something more to make amends for the sin: he must “make satisfaction for” or “expiate” his sins. This satisfaction is also called “penance.”

*1460 The penance the confessor imposes must take into account the penitent’s personal situation and must seek his spiritual good. It must correspond as far as possible with the gravity and nature of the sins committed. It can consist of prayer, an offering, works of mercy, service of neighbor, voluntary self-denial, sacrifices, and above all the patient acceptance of the cross we must bear. Such penances help configure us to Christ, who alone expiated our sins once for all. They allow us to become co-heirs with the risen Christ, “provided we suffer with him.”[63]
The satisfaction that we make for our sins, however, is not so much ours as though it were not done through Jesus Christ. We who can do nothing ourselves, as if just by ourselves, can do all things with the cooperation of “him who strengthens” us. Thus man has nothing of which to boast, but all our boasting is in Christ . . . in whom we make satisfaction by bringing forth “fruits that befit repentance.” These fruits have their efficacy from him, by him they are offered to the Father, and through him they are accepted by the Father.[64] *

Additionally I understand that normally if one fails to accomplish this penance, one’s confession is invalid, and that ultimately the satisfaction at least will be made in Purgatory, as is outlined in the Catholic encyclopedia:

*There remains, however, some indebtedness to Divine justice which must be cancelled here or hereafter (see PURGATORY). In order to have it cancelled here, the penitent receives from his confessor what is usually called his “penance”, usually in the form of certain prayers which he is to say, or of certain actions which he is to perform, such as visits to a church, the Stations of the Cross, etc. Alms deeds, fasting, and prayer are the chief means of satisfaction, but other penitential works may also be enjoined. The quality and extent of the penance is determined by the confessor according to the nature of the sins revealed, the special circumstances of the penitent, his liability to relapse, and the need of eradicating evil habits. Sometimes the penance is such that it may be performed at once; in other cases it may require a more or less considerable period, as, e.g., where it is prescribed for each day during a week or a month. But even then the penitent may receive another sacrament (e.g., Holy Communion) immediately after confession, since absolution restores him to the state of grace. He is nevertheless under obligation to continue the performance of his penance until it is completed. *

The OC does not require penance as a matter of satisfaction.
The person saved by the death of Jesus is saved yet continuing sin makes us impure and not ready for heaven. Penance must be completed for anyone to be purified for heaven.
 
Hello my friends. 2 Peter 3:9 reads as follows. “The Lord delayeth not his promise, as some imagine, but dealeth patiently for your sake, not willing that any should perish, but that all should return to penance.” In the N.I.V. and in the K.J.V. the word penance has been changed to repentance. I am in a conversation with a fundamentalist, who claims that penance is a Roman Catholic Dogma. I would think, given that faith is dead without works, that repentance not followed by penance is also dead. your thoughts? I think the Douay Rheims got the translation correct. Peace 🙂
The word is repentance, not penance.

Here is the english translation from the oldest manuscript extant, the Codex Sinaiticus. This is a Greek manuscript and is dated to the mid fourth century. The Greek word, as it appears in the manuscript, is the same word found throughout the New Testament for “repentance.”

“The Lord delays not concerning the promise, as some count delaying, but is longsuffering for your sake, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance (metanoia) (appears in the manuscript as: μετανοια).”

The Douay Rheims is a bad translation.
 
The word is repentance, not penance.

Here is the english translation from the oldest manuscript extant, the Codex Sinaiticus. This is a Greek manuscript and is dated to the mid fourth century. The Greek word, as it appears in the manuscript, is the same word found throughout the New Testament for “repentance.”

“The Lord delays not concerning the promise, as some count delaying, but is longsuffering for your sake, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance (metanoia) (appears in the manuscript as: μετανοια).”

The Douay Rheims is a bad translation.
For reference, here are the other uses of metanoia in the New Testament.

Also some other interesting reading on the subject of the translation of metanoia.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top