Do Fundamentalist believe in doing penance?

[ignatius777]

Are we not doing Jesus and Peter anymore?

All I asked you was what did YOU think was going on in that scene. I dont believe I have yet received an answer form you. Lets refocus and get back to it. All I wanted was YOUR understandinig of it not the greeks and latin translations which is mostly how you’ve responded.

 

[StTommyMore]

Repentance is the correct wording. Its not the baptism of penance. Its the baptism of reprentance. In looking at how the word is translated in other parts of the Bible. Translating it otherwise reflects a theological agenda.

Every English translation of the Bible has problems that reveal the bias of the translators

 

[Rightlydivide]

Every English translation of the Bible has problems that reveal the bias of the translators

This being such a case

 

[GeorgeTheWild]

Isnt it the protestant position that one can just say they are sorry to God? You could do that on your couch couldnt you? I’m being serious who is it that just sits on their couch and apologizes? Apparently its protestants

The Church is the body of believers (Romans 16:5 & Ephesians 1:22-23) so the physical place of repentance or worship is unimportant. The important part is the humility and reverence with which one approaches God. If you feel that you can exhibit humility and reverence during confession with a priest at a physical church, that’s fine. However, I don’t think it’s all that ridiculous for people to assume that they can be suitably reverent and humble on their couch.

As it is written in Hosea 6:6

For I desire mercy, not sacrifice,
and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings.

Which means to me that God is more interested in the attitude of ones heart than in a specific ritual.

Also, your tone is coming off as condescending and disrespectful. Maybe that’s not the tone you intended, but it’s the one that I read.

 

[ignatius777]

The Church is the body of believers (Romans 16:5 & Ephesians 1:22-23) so the physical place of repentance or worship is unimportant. The important part is the humility and reverence with which one approaches God. If you feel that you can exhibit humility and reverence during confession with a priest at a physical church, that’s fine. However, I don’t think it’s all that ridiculous for people to assume that they can be suitably reverent and humble on their couch.

As it is written in Hosea 6:6

Which means to me that God is more interested in the attitude of ones heart than in a specific ritual.

Also, your tone is coming off as condescending and disrespectful. Maybe that’s not the tone you intended, but it’s the one that I read.

It wasnt me who brought up the couch.

What sort of attitude is required to place yourself before another person and share your sins.

Its not my intention

 

[Cat_Herder]

The Church is the body of believers (Romans 16:5 & Ephesians 1:22-23) so the physical place of repentance or worship is unimportant.

So why even have church buildings then? After all, they aren’t in the Bible.

Which means to me that God is more interested in the attitude of ones heart than in a specific ritual.

Does that mean we should get rid of marriage the way the Southern Baptists got rid of sacramental confession?

 

[GeorgeTheWild]

So why even have church buildings then? After all, they aren’t in the Bible.

They’re convenient for meeting, but they aren’t necessary. We could meet in houses as the early church did or on the mountain side as Jesus frequently did.

Does that mean we should get rid of marriage the way the Southern Baptists got rid of sacramental confession?

Jesus quotes Hosea 6:6 a lot better than I do: Matthew 12:1-8

“1At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath. His disciples were hungry and began to pick some heads of grain and eat them. 2 When the Pharisees saw this, they said to him, “Look! Your disciples are doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath.”
3 He answered, “Haven’t you read what David did when he and his companions were hungry? 4 He entered the house of God, and he and his companions ate the consecrated bread—which was not lawful for them to do, but only for the priests. 5 Or haven’t you read in the Law that the priests on Sabbath duty in the temple desecrate the Sabbath and yet are innocent? 6 I tell you that something greater than the temple is here. 7 If you had known what these words mean, ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice,’[a] you would not have condemned the innocent. 8 For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath.””

The point I was trying to make is that one can hold to a specific ritual, as the Pharisees do in Matthew 12, and completely miss the heart of the matter. I don’t mean that people who go to confession are clinging to just the ritual. Rather, there are more ways to do confession with a humble and reverent heart than with a Catholic priest. Contrary to your belief, I don’t believe Southern Baptists have abandoned the sacrament of confession. (Though we might have to agree to disagree on that) We just don’t hold to the exact tradition of the Holy Roman Catholic Church. Most protestants will agree with most of CCC 1455. Where we begin to differ is CCC 1456.

Protestants tend to first and foremost confess directly to God since it is only by His grace and mercy that we were granted salvation. However, that does not mean that Southern Baptists do not confess sins one to another or to our church elders, deacons, and pastors. Just as Catholics do, we often approach church elders, deacons, and pastors to council us and pray for us as we go through the sanctification process and confront our sin. Often times seeking such council on how to confront sin leads to suggestions of prayer and changes we can make in our life. This is similar to parts of the penance process as I understand it from briefly reading the Catechism. The Catholic and Protestant approaches to sin are really not that different. The main difference as I see it is how involved a priest or pastor is through the repentance and sanctification process.

I hope that clears up what I said before.

 

[benidict]

So why even have church buildings then? After all, they aren’t in the Bible.

Does that mean we should get rid of marriage the way the Southern Baptists got rid of sacramental confession?

yes. good point. the only ones who are “biblical” on this would be the Amish. maybe we should copy them?

 

[Cat_Herder]

They’re convenient for meeting, but they aren’t necessary. We could meet in houses as the early church did or on the mountain side as Jesus frequently did.

Indeed, but the sheer fact that you have them means your church is adding a teaching to its doctrine that does not come from the Bible. There’s nothing wrong with that, it is not as if the tradition of having a church building contradicts Scripture. Just please don’t hold a double standard where Protestants are allowed to have tradition and Catholics aren’t.

The point I was trying to make is that one can hold to a specific ritual, as the Pharisees do in Matthew 12, and completely miss the heart of the matter. I don’t mean that people who go to confession are clinging to just the ritual.

That is a big problem in all churches, namely, that people frequent the sacraments (which in Protestant churches are baptism and marriage only) in vain. Look at the skyrocketing divorce rates and the people who lapse out of Christianity, thus profaning their baptismal promises. But that does not mean we should get rid of baptism or marriage—they are clearly biblical, as is sacramental confession, the laying on of hands that is otherwise known as confirmation, anointing the sick, and so on.

Protestants tend to first and foremost confess directly to God since it is only by His grace and mercy that we were granted salvation.

There isn’t an either-or choice here between confessing to the priest vs. confessing to God anymore than there is an either-or choice when you go before the altar* and marry your spouse. There is a minister there but no one would say you are marrying the minister just because he is there blessing your marriage.

There is a running gag in the Catholic clergy in which female parishioners walk up to clergy and ask “Father, I’ve just become engaged and I want for you to marry me.” Needless to say this causes much laughter in the pews, but it’s obvious that the woman is asking the priest to preside over her marriage, not to be the groom. Priests preside over confessions in much the same way; just as they announce that the couple is now “man and wife” the priest also announces that sins are forgiven, but he is not the one doing the forgiving anymore than he is the one being married.

However, that does not mean that Southern Baptists do not confess sins one to another or to our church elders, deacons, and pastors. Just as Catholics do, we often approach church elders, deacons, and pastors to council us and pray for us as we go through the sanctification process and confront our sin. Often times seeking such council on how to confront sin leads to suggestions of prayer and changes we can make in our life. This is similar to parts of the penance process as I understand it from briefly reading the Catechism. The Catholic and Protestant approaches to sin are really not that different. The main difference as I see it is how involved a priest or pastor is through the repentance and sanctification process.

It sounds to me like the only difference is whether the priest/pastor/elder/decaon has the authority to announce the forgiveness of sins in the name of God.

• The issue of why the table in your church is called an “altar” when no sacrifice takes there is a whole other topic…

 

[StTommyMore]

The simple fact is that in order to justify “confessing to God only; a priest is not necessary” requires a very selective reading of the Scriptures. If the ordained clergy are not needed for forgiveness of sin, then please explain John 21:21-23. If the Apostles (the first Bishops) were not to forgive sins, then what exactly was Jesus talking about?

 

[GeorgeTheWild]

The simple fact is that in order to justify “confessing to God only; a priest is not necessary” requires a very selective reading of the Scriptures. If the ordained clergy are not needed for forgiveness of sin, then please explain John 21:21-23. If the Apostles (the first Bishops) were not to forgive sins, then what exactly was Jesus talking about?

I think you meant to reference another piece of scripture, but…

21 When Peter saw him, he said to Jesus, “Lord, what about him?”
22 Jesus said to him, “What if I want him to remain until I come? What concern is it of yours? You follow me.”
23 So the word spread among the brothers that that disciple would not die. But Jesus had not told him that he would not die, just “What if I want him to remain until I come? (What concern is it of yours?)”

I think John 21:21-23 means that Jesus wants our focus to be following him and not worry about comparing our lives to someone else’s. In this case it was how Peter was going to die vs. how John was going to die.

Indeed, but the sheer fact that you have them means your church is adding a teaching to its doctrine that does not come from the Bible. There’s nothing wrong with that, it is not as if the tradition of having a church building contradicts Scripture. Just please don’t hold a double standard where Protestants are allowed to have tradition and Catholics aren’t.

I never meant to indicate that Catholics aren’t allowed to hold traditions. Most Protestants view the Catholic Church in complete communion with them because your beliefs and actions are nominally the same. It’s a Catholic view to see everyone else as in imperfect communion due to the way we perform and view the sacraments. I think the fact that you find the traditions of the Catholic Church glorifying to God and useful in your spiritual walk wonderful! I just don’t think I necessarily have to conform to all of them.

That is a big problem in all churches, namely, that people frequent the sacraments (which in Protestant churches are baptism and marriage only) in vain. Look at the skyrocketing divorce rates and the people who lapse out of Christianity, thus profaning their baptismal promises. But that does not mean we should get rid of baptism or marriage—they are clearly biblical, as is sacramental confession, the laying on of hands that is otherwise known as confirmation, anointing the sick, and so on.

I agree with you. Many people who participate in the sacraments lack the sincerity and reverence required. Regarding the sacraments among protestants, we just have different interpretations of how the sacraments should be implemented. We do all of the things that you listed, just differently. We confess sins one to another and to our church elders in order to gain guidiance through the process of sanctification. We use the laying on of hands when we pray for people becoming deacons or about to go do missionary work. We anoint the sick with prayers, but not with oil .

There isn’t an either-or choice here between confessing to the priest vs. confessing to God anymore than there is an either-or choice when you go before the altar* and marry your spouse. There is a minister there but no one would say you are marrying the minister just because he is there blessing your marriage.

There is a running gag in the Catholic clergy in which female parishioners walk up to clergy and ask “Father, I’ve just become engaged and I want for you to marry me.” Needless to say this causes much laughter in the pews, but it’s obvious that the woman is asking the priest to preside over her marriage, not to be the groom. Priests preside over confessions in much the same way; just as they announce that the couple is now “man and wife” the priest also announces that sins are forgiven, but he is not the one doing the forgiving anymore than he is the one being married.

It sounds to me like the only difference is whether the priest/pastor/elder/decaon has the authority to announce the forgiveness of sins in the name of God.

I agree with you here.

 

[StTommyMore]

Sorry. I meant John 20:21-23

 

[GeorgeTheWild]

Sorry. I meant John 20:21-23

21 (Jesus) said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you.”
22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the holy Spirit.
23 Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained.”

This is what the commentary in my Bible says about vs 23:
“Jesus was giving the disciples their Spirit-powered and Spirit-guided mission - to preach the Good News about Jesus so people’s sins might be forgiven. The disciples did not have the power to forgive sins (only God can forgive sins), but Jesus gave them the privilege of telling new believers that their sins have been forgiven because they have accepted Jesus’ message. All believers have this same privilege. We can announce the forgiveness of sin with certainty when we ourselves find repentance and faith.”

The real question of interpretation here was Jesus speaking specifically to the Apostles or to all believers through the apostles. The same question arises from the great commission in Matthew 28:19-20. The typical protestant interpretation is that with the spreading of the Holy Spirit to all believers came the same responsibilities and authorities of John 20 and Matthew 28 that were given to the apostles who happened to be there to receive the commission directly from Jesus.

 

[StTommyMore]

This is what the commentary in my Bible says about vs 23:
“Jesus was giving the disciples their Spirit-powered and Spirit-guided mission - to preach the Good News about Jesus so people’s sins might be forgiven. The disciples did not have the power to forgive sins (only God can forgive sins), but Jesus gave them the privilege of telling new believers that their sins have been forgiven because they have accepted Jesus’ message. All believers have this same privilege. We can announce the forgiveness of sin with certainty when we ourselves find repentance and faith.”

The real question of interpretation here was Jesus speaking specifically to the Apostles or to all believers through the apostles. The same question arises from the great commission in Matthew 28:19-20. The typical protestant interpretation is that with the spreading of the Holy Spirit to all believers came the same responsibilities and authorities of John 20 and Matthew 28 that were given to the apostles who happened to be there to receive the commission directly from Jesus.

First, since a proper hermeneutic requires us to “keep in mind the content and unity of Scripture” (CCC 112). This means that the Scriptures cannot contradict themselves. This being the case, we can see that when Jesus gave the gift of the Holy Spirit, it was to the Apostles alone, and NOT the whole Church. That gift came at Pentecost. Now we know that the gift before the Ascension was to the Apostles, we can also say that the ability to forgive sins was given to the Apostles. To suggest that the APostles were to simply thell that peoples sins were forgiven reads into the Passage something that isn’t there. As it stands, John 20:23 very explicitly establishes the Sacrament of Confession.

 

[Zooey]

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 Douay Rheims is the** :thumbsup:best** translation that I know of. It is a literal word for word translation.
Metanoia means a good deal more than you seem to think that it does, laddie.

 

[ignatius777]

The Douay Rheims is the** :thumbsup:best** translation that I know of. It is a literal word for word translation.
Metanoia means a good deal more than you seem to think that it does, laddie.

Any and all translation dont change the fact that penance must be done for repentance to be complete

 

[StTommyMore]

Any and all translation dont change the fact that penance must be done for repentance to be complete

This seems to be the point that Fundamentalists have the hardest time wrapping their brain around. Repentance is not simply a change of behavior. It is a true conversion of heart, of which expression of sorrow for sin is a crucial element. This sorrow aspect is really what penance is bound up in.

 

[ignatius777]

This seems to be the point that Fundamentalists have the hardest time wrapping their brain around. Repentance is not simply a change of behavior. It is a true conversion of heart, of which expression of sorrow for sin is a crucial element. This sorrow aspect is really what penance is bound up in.

Excellent post. I struggle with finding some effective way of tramsmitting this very message to them. It seems clear to me in all of scripture that penance must accompany repentance for it to be fulfilled.

 

[Cat_Herder]

This is what the commentary in my Bible says about vs 23:
“Jesus was giving the disciples their Spirit-powered and Spirit-guided mission - to preach the Good News about Jesus so people’s sins might be forgiven. The disciples did not have the power to forgive sins (only God can forgive sins), but Jesus gave them the privilege of telling new believers that their sins have been forgiven because they have accepted Jesus’ message. All believers have this same privilege. We can announce the forgiveness of sin with certainty when we ourselves find repentance and faith.”

The real question of interpretation here was Jesus speaking specifically to the Apostles or to all believers through the apostles. The same question arises from the great commission in Matthew 28:19-20. The typical protestant interpretation is that with the spreading of the Holy Spirit to all believers came the same responsibilities and authorities of John 20 and Matthew 28 that were given to the apostles who happened to be there to receive the commission directly from Jesus.

The problem with the “typical protestant interpretation” is that the Bible depicts only three groups of people as having received the Holy Spirit:

1. The Apostles (and the Blessed Virgin) and maybe Stephen. (Acts 2:1-4, 6:5)
2. The first batch of Gentile converts. (Acts 10:47)
3. Those on whom the Apostles laid hands. (Acts 8:14–17)

Clearly not everyone has the power to convey the Holy Spirit, as Simon found out:

[BIBLEDRB]Acts of the Apostles 8:18-23[/BIBLEDRB]

And that, by the way, is why buying a sacrament is called “simony.”

 

[fons_vitae]

• The issue of why the table in your church is called an “altar” when no sacrifice takes there is a whole other topic…

I’m also confused by this. That’s why we never called it an “altar” back at my childhood church.