Do Fundamentalist believe in doing penance?

  • Thread starter Thread starter benidict
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
You beat me to that answer. Yes, that’s exactly right. Also, in order to believe that God would wish you to atone for your sins by the works of your hands, you’d have to throw out a ton of scripture. When Jesus was asked what the works of the Father (God) were, he replied very curtly. Believe on him who He has sent. (Paraphrased of course.) Fath without works is indeed dead, but get to know God and He’ll tell you what He really wants you to do. (Trust me, He doesn’t want you to sin. It’s obvious enough without divine direction.)\

Edit: Don’t confuse that last parenthetical for an attack against penance, it’s direction was toward the comment of “if sin has no consequence, it’s easy to fall into” Sin has consequence even to the believer–each man will reap that which he sows. Bottom line is that the bible doesn’t call sinners to penance, but to repentance. If penance helps you renew your mind and strengthens you against sinning… to each his own. I rely on God’s glory (His GOODNESS, if you don’t believe me, read Moses’s encounter with God more carefully.)
 
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.
Repentance without penance is incomplete.
 
Repentance without penance is incomplete.
Perhaps you could expand on this point with scripture (original Greek or Hebrew translation please.) I mean, if you really think Jesus didn’t get it done on the cross. If you think that somehow the Father looks on us and sees nothing but sin unless we run around replacing every quarter we “found” as a child. If you think that God isn’t a GOOD God, better than you or I could ever imagine.
 
The Necessity and Practice of Orally Confessing Sins
James 5:16 - James clearly teaches us that we must confess our sins to one another, not just privately to God. James 5:16 must be read in the context of James 5:14-15, which is referring to the healing power (both physical and spiritual) of the priests of the Church. Hence, when James says therefore in verse 16, he must be referring to the men he was writing about in verses 14 and 15 these men are the ordained priests of the Church, to whom we must confess our sins.

Acts 19:18 - many came to orally confess sins and divulge their sinful practices. Oral confession was the practice of the early Church just as it is today.

Matt. 3:6; Mark 1:5 - again, this shows people confessing their sins before others as an historical practice (here to John the Baptist).

1 Tim. 6:12 - this verse also refers to the historical practice of confessing both faith and sins in the presence of many witnesses.

1 John 1:9 - if we confess are sins, God is faithful to us and forgives us and cleanse us. But we must confess our sins to one another.

Num. 5:7 - this shows the historical practice of publicly confessing sins, and making public restitution.

2 Sam. 12:14 - even though the sin is forgiven, there is punishment due for the forgiven sin. David is forgiven but his child was still taken (the consequence of his sin).

Neh. 9:2-3 - the Israelites stood before the assembly and confessed sins publicly and interceded for each other.

Sir. 4:26 - God tells us not to be ashamed to confess our sins, and not to try to stop the current of a river. Anyone who has experienced the sacrament of reconciliation understands the import of this verse.

Baruch 1:14 - again, this shows that the people made confession in the house of the Lord, before the assembly.

1 John 5:16-17; Luke 12:47-48 - there is a distinction between mortal and venial sins. This has been the teaching of the Catholic Church for 2,000 years, but, today, most Protestants no longer agree that there is such a distinction. Mortal sins lead to death and must be absolved in the sacrament of reconciliation. Venial sins do not have to be confessed to a priest, but the pious Catholic practice is to do so in order to advance in our journey to holiness.

Matt. 5:19 - Jesus teaches that breaking the least of commandments is venial sin (the person is still saved but is least in the kingdom), versus mortal sin (the person is not saved).
 
The truely wonderful thing about Confession is that it is so right for human psychology. It’s a confrontation with the self, which is then revealed to another, in the person of the priest. So in one action Confession takes away complacancy, selfishness. and the idea of sinlessness.
Then you are placed at the feet of the Crucified One, and are confronted with your wretchedness, and His saving love.
 
The Necessity and Practice of Orally Confessing Sins
James 5:16 - James clearly teaches us that we must confess our sins to one another, not just privately to God. James 5:16 must be read in the context of James 5:14-15, which is referring to the healing power (both physical and spiritual) of the priests of the Church. Hence, when James says therefore in verse 16, he must be referring to the men he was writing about in verses 14 and 15 these men are the ordained priests of the Church, to whom we must confess our sins.

Acts 19:18 - many came to orally confess sins and divulge their sinful practices. Oral confession was the practice of the early Church just as it is today.

Matt. 3:6; Mark 1:5 - again, this shows people confessing their sins before others as an historical practice (here to John the Baptist).

1 Tim. 6:12 - this verse also refers to the historical practice of confessing both faith and sins in the presence of many witnesses.

1 John 1:9 - if we confess are sins, God is faithful to us and forgives us and cleanse us. But we must confess our sins to one another.

Num. 5:7 - this shows the historical practice of publicly confessing sins, and making public restitution.

2 Sam. 12:14 - even though the sin is forgiven, there is punishment due for the forgiven sin. David is forgiven but his child was still taken (the consequence of his sin).

Neh. 9:2-3 - the Israelites stood before the assembly and confessed sins publicly and interceded for each other.

Sir. 4:26 - God tells us not to be ashamed to confess our sins, and not to try to stop the current of a river. Anyone who has experienced the sacrament of reconciliation understands the import of this verse.

Baruch 1:14 - again, this shows that the people made confession in the house of the Lord, before the assembly.

1 John 5:16-17; Luke 12:47-48 - there is a distinction between mortal and venial sins. This has been the teaching of the Catholic Church for 2,000 years, but, today, most Protestants no longer agree that there is such a distinction. Mortal sins lead to death and must be absolved in the sacrament of reconciliation. Venial sins do not have to be confessed to a priest, but the pious Catholic practice is to do so in order to advance in our journey to holiness.

Matt. 5:19 - Jesus teaches that breaking the least of commandments is venial sin (the person is still saved but is least in the kingdom), versus mortal sin (the person is not saved).
First off, sorry for completely ignoring the practices of the Old Covenant contained in the Old Testament scriptures. I love to learn from the Old Testament, but Old Covenant practices are made obsolete by the New Covenant.

I agree with the scriptures in James that it is very healthy to do such a thing, but that scripture only addresses the healing of the sick.
Edit: Sorry for not originally addressing 1 John 1:9, you took it out of context and added connotation not in the original Greek.

Historical practices of confession really don’t do much to move me on such a thing either. Jesus didn’t care for people who did things just because they’ve been doing them for years either. Once again, sorry if I seem dismissive, but I focus on the commandments of my saviour and avoid any extra chaff.

Regarding venial and mortal sin, I know of only one mortal sin. The blaspheming of the Holy Ghost (denying Jesus Christ as Lord.)

God is good. Ridiculously, gloriously, amazingly, awesomely, infinitely good. He doesn’t want us to be crushed under the burden of sin nor the remembrance of sin. Repentance is the action he wishes of us because repentance is a change of heart, not just asking for forgiveness and sinning again. We are transformed into his likeness by the renewing of our minds and genuine repentance led by the Holy Spirit is the method of renewal. God sits on the throne smiling at us, not weeping for us. He looks upon us with joy and love, not condemnation. That’s not even a sliver of God’s goodness. I’m gonna let Jesus be the High Priest that I commune with cause I prefer to drink of living waters from the source.

I’m on zero hours of sleep, so forgive me if this message was fragmented. It merely reflects the state of my brain function at this moment.
 
I guess what I’m attempting to convey is that confession of sin one to another is healthy, but it’s not what was commanded.
 
Penance isn’t punishment. The idea of producing fruit in keeping with repentance, is a biblical concept. The fruit in this case is prayer and the idea of prayer, especially where repentance is concerned is very important. It demonstrates that we not only understand that sin is really an issue and the sin we committed serious but it also shows that we are seeking help from god to help to avoid sin in the future.
The way many christians talk about sin today, I wonder if they really understand what sin is, or if they fully understand the cost of forgiveness.
Confession is not hiding behind forgiveness when we sin.
Penance is the logical accompaniment to true repentance. If you steal then a penance may be to return what you stole. If you don’t, have you really repented and if you haven’t repented have you been forgiven?
 
Penance isn’t punishment. The idea of producing fruit in keeping with repentance, is a biblical concept. The fruit in this case is prayer and the idea of prayer, especially where repentance is concerned is very important. It demonstrates that we not only understand that sin is really an issue and the sin we committed serious but it also shows that we are seeking help from god to help to avoid sin in the future.
The way many christians talk about sin today, I wonder if they really understand what sin is, or if they fully understand the cost of forgiveness.
Confession is not hiding behind forgiveness when we sin.
Penance is the logical accompaniment to true repentance. If you steal then a penance may be to return what you stole. If you don’t, have you really repented and if you haven’t repented have you been forgiven?
Well put. I believe we merely misunderstood eachother on this topic to cause such a gap in opinion. God bless.
 
The two words at the end of the verse are μετάνοιαν (meh-tah-noi-ahn) and χωρῆσαι (core-eh-sigh). The first word means repentance and is nearly always translated that way. The full def. is “a change of mind, as it appears to one who repents, of a purpose he has formed or of something he has done.” The second word means “contain, make room, receive, have a place,” and the full def. is “to leave space (which may be filled or occupied by another), to make room, give place, yield.”

This is an example of one act being expressed by two Greek words that doesn’t flow directly into English as smoothly as many other words do, but “repentance” is the best Greek-to-English translation. I can’t speak for the Latin translation because I don’t know Latin (nor do I really feel like I need to), so it’s entirely possible that something happened a little differently in the Greek-to-Latin process and something was lost between that translation and the additional step between Latin and English. It wouldn’t be the first time I’ve seen that sort of thing happen with no outright errors in any step- although it’s also quite possible that it is simply an error of translation. We don’t really have to deal with it, though, because we know what the best translation is going straight from Greek to English. And the best translation is “repentance.”

I guess some of this has to do with the way English has changed over time, too. There was a time when penance and repentance were used far more interchangeably. If you look in the Wycliffe translation, you’ll see 53 uses of the word “penance.” John did a baptism of penance (mentioned at least a half-dozen times), Christians are supposed to “do ye works unto penance,” you should do penance for the kingdom “of heavens” is at hand, there’s more joy in heaven over one man’s penance than over 99 who don’t need penance, if your brother does penance you should forgive him, Esau found no “place of penance” though he sought it with tears. But that just has to do with how English has changed over the last 500 years.

No translator from this century or the last one can legitimately argue that “penance” (as it is now used) is a better option than “repentance” in these kinds of situations. That’s a simple fact of life, and it’s borne out in every major translation of the modern day. “Reformation” and “turned from their evil ways” are the only minor deviations that you’ll see in some of the more dynamic translations. “Penance” is only used in translations that were made when the English word “penance” meant something different from what it means today.

If you really want to look up the Latin and find out if the right Latin word was used, have at it. I don’t think your buddy’s going to care, though. Latin means a lot more to you than it does to him.
 
The two words at the end of the verse are μετάνοιαν (meh-tah-noi-ahn) and χωρῆσαι (core-eh-sigh). The first word means repentance and is nearly always translated that way. The full def. is “a change of mind, as it appears to one who repents, of a purpose he has formed or of something he has done.” The second word means “contain, make room, receive, have a place,” and the full def. is “to leave space (which may be filled or occupied by another), to make room, give place, yield.”

This is an example of one act being expressed by two Greek words that doesn’t flow directly into English as smoothly as many other words do, but “repentance” is the best Greek-to-English translation. I can’t speak for the Latin translation because I don’t know Latin (nor do I really feel like I need to), so it’s entirely possible that something happened a little differently in the Greek-to-Latin process and something was lost between that translation and the additional step between Latin and English. It wouldn’t be the first time I’ve seen that sort of thing happen with no outright errors in any step- although it’s also quite possible that it is simply an error of translation. We don’t really have to deal with it, though, because we know what the best translation is going straight from Greek to English. And the best translation is “repentance.”

I guess some of this has to do with the way English has changed over time, too. There was a time when penance and repentance were used far more interchangeably. If you look in the Wycliffe translation, you’ll see 53 uses of the word “penance.” John did a baptism of penance (mentioned at least a half-dozen times), Christians are supposed to “do ye works unto penance,” you should do penance for the kingdom “of heavens” is at hand, there’s more joy in heaven over one man’s penance than over 99 who don’t need penance, if your brother does penance you should forgive him, Esau found no “place of penance” though he sought it with tears. But that just has to do with how English has changed over the last 500 years.

No translator from this century or the last one can legitimately argue that “penance” (as it is now used) is a better option than “repentance” in these kinds of situations. That’s a simple fact of life, and it’s borne out in every major translation of the modern day. “Reformation” and “turned from their evil ways” are the only minor deviations that you’ll see in some of the more dynamic translations. “Penance” is only used in translations that were made when the English word “penance” meant something different from what it means today.

If you really want to look up the Latin and find out if the right Latin word was used, have at it. I don’t think your buddy’s going to care, though. Latin means a lot more to you than it does to him.
After Jesus is resurrected and He ask Peter 3 times if he loved Him, what do you think is going on in that scene?
 
Why would fundamentalists do penance if they believe in OSAS?

What I see in the fundamentalism in my area is OSAS-therefore-it-doesn’t-matter-what-I-do. It’s so sad.
 
After Jesus is resurrected and He ask Peter 3 times if he loved Him, what do you think is going on in that scene?
When you move from Bible translations prior to the 16th century to Bible translations in the past century and you see 53 separate examples of the word “penance” become the word “repentance” in each and every major translation regardless of denomination or creed, what do you think is going on there?
 
Perhaps you could expand on this point with scripture (original Greek or Hebrew translation please.) I mean, if you really think Jesus didn’t get it done on the cross. If you think that somehow the Father looks on us and sees nothing but sin unless we run around replacing every quarter we “found” as a child. If you think that God isn’t a GOOD God, better than you or I could ever imagine.
Was it finished on the cross? Yes and no. We have no salvation without the resurrection. Also you ave to remember that the Sacrifice is outgoing, and is not rooted to a single moment in time. Penance is what naturally follows from repentance. Repentance is a change of mind, but penance is an act of justice, in other words to give God what He is owed.
 
When you move from Bible translations prior to the 16th century to Bible translations in the past century and you see 53 separate examples of the word “penance” become the word “repentance” in each and every major translation regardless of denomination or creed, what do you think is going on there?
Is there a reason you didnt answer the question? Did you not want to or are you not familiar with the scene? The question was put to you first and I genuinely want to know what YOU think is happening. I know what I think but thats not a conversation. The bible reveals truths to us that God want us to know wouldnt you agree? So the event where Jesus ask Peter 3 times if he loves Him must reveal some truth that God things is important for us to know. So PLEASE tell me what is happening in that scene.
 
Also you ave to remember that the Sacrifice is outgoing, and is not rooted to a single moment in time.
You really have to come up with a better way of explaining this. Awhile back, I spent about a month trying to figure out whether or not some Catholics believe Jesus’ body, blood, soul, and divinity travels through time in some way.

Here’s a suggestion: Maybe clarify that Jesus actually went through the sacrificial process only once, and there were specific temporal boundaries at which the passion began and ended. But there’s also the concept of Jesus presenting Himself to the Father and continuing to re-present Himself after the Crucifixion. The way you described it, it’s really difficult to avoid the conclusion that maybe you believe Jesus is experiencing the passion at many different moments in time rather than re-presenting Himself well after the fact.

I realize that must be exactly what you mean by “the Sacrifice is ongoing//not rooted to a single moment in time,” and I’m sure it clears things up very nicely when you’re talking to other Catholics. But when you’re talking to Protestants, it has quite the opposite effect.
 
Is there a reason you didnt answer the question? Did you not want to or are you not familiar with the scene? The question was put to you first and I genuinely want to know what YOU think is happening. I know what I think but thats not a conversation. The bible reveals truths to us that God want us to know wouldnt you agree? So the event where Jesus ask Peter 3 times if he loves Him must reveal some truth that God things is important for us to know. So PLEASE tell me what is happening in that scene.
I didn’t feel like I was done with the translation stuff yet, and you provided no credible link between that topic and whatever passage it was, I didn’t look at that one yet. What are your comments on the choice between “penance” and “repentance”? What do you see when you compare various translations through time? Not just 2 Peter 3:9, either- how about all those other places where words like μετάνοιαν come up?
 
You really have to come up with a better way of explaining this. Awhile back, I spent about a month trying to figure out whether or not some Catholics believe Jesus’ body, blood, soul, and divinity travels through time in some way.

Here’s a suggestion: Maybe clarify that Jesus actually went through the sacrificial process only once, and there were specific temporal boundaries at which the passion began and ended. But there’s also the concept of Jesus presenting Himself to the Father and continuing to re-present Himself after the Crucifixion. The way you described it, it’s really difficult to avoid the conclusion that maybe you believe Jesus is experiencing the passion at many different moments in time rather than re-presenting Himself well after the fact.

I realize that must be exactly what you mean by “the Sacrifice is ongoing//not rooted to a single moment in time,” and I’m sure it clears things up very nicely when you’re talking to other Catholics. But when you’re talking to Protestants, it has quite the opposite effect.
At Mass it it is we the participants who are transported to the foot of the cross not the other way around.
 
I didn’t feel like I was done with the translation stuff yet, and you provided no credible link between that topic and whatever passage it was, I didn’t look at that one yet. What are your comments on the choice between “penance” and “repentance”? What do you see when you compare various translations through time? Not just 2 Peter 3:9, either- how about all those other places where words like μετάνοιαν come up?
The topic is on “…doing penance” is it not? In my opinion the scene I am talking about between Jesus and Peter speaks specifically to the topic of “…doing penance” whereas I think the issue of translations is much more off topic. Why dont you read the scene between Jesus and Peter in whatever translation you like and then come back and tell us what you think is going on in that scene?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top