S
SteveVH
Guest
It is the desires of the flesh that destroy our souls.
- Status
K
Kliska
Guest
But we are talking here of specifically binding and loosing, and/or retaining or forgiving. It says “I have decided to deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of his flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus”
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
(1) Many interpreters see this as some sort of excommunication (“turn this man over to Satan”) which in turn leads to the man’s physical death (“the destruction of the flesh”), resulting in the man’s ultimate salvation (“that [his] spirit may be saved…”).
(2) Others see the phrase “destruction of the flesh” as referring to extreme physical suffering or illness that stops short of physical death, thus leading the offender to repentance and salvation.
(3) A number of scholars (e.g. G. D. Fee, First Corinthians [NICNT], 212-13) take the reference to the “flesh” to refer to the offender’s “sinful nature” or “carnal nature,” which is “destroyed” by placing him outside the church, back in Satan’s domain
(exactly how this “destruction” is accomplished is not clear, and is one of the problems with this view).
1] In keeping with excommunication would place one outside of communion with the Church
2] This shunning properly understood should lead one back into communion through repentance thus salvation.
3] The carnal nature succumbs to the world thus satan which through choice man condemns himself thus the soul.
That’s how the damnation “destruction” occurs, or on the flip side repentance thus communion and salvation.
(4) More recently some have argued that neither the “flesh” nor the “spirit” belong to the offender, but to the church collectively.
This I have to think about, two points come to mind, one being a strict view of no salvation outside the Church since the Church is the body of Christ. Also double predestination “the elect” with issues of free will can be read into this.
(2) Others see the phrase “destruction of the flesh” as referring to extreme physical suffering or illness that stops short of physical death, thus leading the offender to repentance and salvation.
(3) A number of scholars (e.g. G. D. Fee, First Corinthians [NICNT], 212-13) take the reference to the “flesh” to refer to the offender’s “sinful nature” or “carnal nature,” which is “destroyed” by placing him outside the church, back in Satan’s domain
(exactly how this “destruction” is accomplished is not clear, and is one of the problems with this view).
1] In keeping with excommunication would place one outside of communion with the Church
2] This shunning properly understood should lead one back into communion through repentance thus salvation.
3] The carnal nature succumbs to the world thus satan which through choice man condemns himself thus the soul.
That’s how the damnation “destruction” occurs, or on the flip side repentance thus communion and salvation.
(4) More recently some have argued that neither the “flesh” nor the “spirit” belong to the offender, but to the church collectively.
This I have to think about, two points come to mind, one being a strict view of no salvation outside the Church since the Church is the body of Christ. Also double predestination “the elect” with issues of free will can be read into this.
L
ltwin
Guest
Well I wouldn’t say it in those terms. I believe the authority any Christian exercises in proclaiming the gospel and undertaking a ministry of reconciliation is the literal meaning of the term.
The way I understand this passage, it is about both church discipline (“Expel the wicked person from among you”) and about handing over the immoral brother’s body over to Satan so that the immoral brother can experience the temporal consequences of his sin and be driven to repentance.What is the Apostle Paul talking about here…
Sound literal? Just asking.
I was in a service once where we actually did this. The congregation gathered at the front of the church, and we prayed corporately for an individual who had fallen into immorality and as a last resort we prayed that he be turned over to Satan and would experience as much of the temporal consequences of his sin (but not death) until he returned to repentance. On the bright side, he’s now back in church and living for God, but his life did get quite bad while he was out in the world.
In terms of why Paul needed to judge him in the Spirit, I believe this is because the leaders of the congregation physically present had refused to remove him from fellowship. This thus necessitated Paul to take it upon himself to judge him. (The whole chapter is revolving around the refusal of the church at Corinth to judge immoral persons. If they had done so in the beginning, Paul would not have needed to do it.)
L
ltwin
Guest
Oh, I forgot, when I talk about subjects like this I have to include every part of the process or else someone will point out that I missed something and therefore am wrong.
I do confess my sins. Confession to God is required to be forgiven. Repentance is turning away from sins. To repent is to stop sinning. When I confess my sins to God, I am to “go and sin no more.” If I keep on sinning after having already asked God for forgiveness, then I commit the sin of presumption, and should confess and repent of that as well. If I have sinned against another person, I am to seek reconciliation with that person.
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
The Church was Apostolic, then the one who had the authority handed down to him would have indeed had this authority. The fact that they dropped the ball initiates Pauls intercession, apparently through a member of that community since Paul “heard” then acted immediately.Well I wouldn’t say it in those terms. I believe the authority any Christian exercises in proclaiming the gospel and undertaking a ministry of reconciliation is the literal meaning of the term.
The way I understand this passage, it is about both church discipline (“Expel the wicked person from among you”) and about handing over the immoral brother’s body over to Satan so that the immoral brother can experience the temporal consequences of his sin and be driven to repentance.
I was in a service once where we actually did this. The congregation gathered at the front of the church, and we prayed corporately for an individual who had fallen into immorality and as a last resort we prayed that he be turned over to Satan and would experience as much of the temporal consequences of his sin (but not death) until he returned to repentance. On the bright side, he’s now back in church and living for God, but his life did get quite bad while he was out in the world.
In terms of why Paul needed to judge him in the Spirit, I believe this is because the leaders of the congregation physically present had refused to remove him from fellowship. This thus necessitated Paul to take it upon himself to judge him. (The whole chapter is revolving around the refusal of the church at Corinth to judge immoral persons. If they had done so in the beginning, Paul would not have needed to do it.)
The point being regardless how this is read and in greek, the power to bind and loose is in effect. And at least at this point the apostolic succession is a known. For they, the Church, being the “they”, had the authority to bind and loose. Certainly we can’t assume the newest member had this authority, nor can we assume this authority was a collective whole without authority, there was for sure an individual given charge by the Apostles. for this can be read with Mark being sent to Alexandria and unless that Church went astray which as I see they haven’t they still abide by this very understanding.
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
Not to distract yet the First Epistle to the Church at Corinth, A.D. 96
by His Holiness Pope St. Clement I confirms the above. This was thought to be inspired in some of the early church’s.
Chapter 44
Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those presbyters already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry. We are of opinion, therefore, that those appointed by them, or afterwards by other eminent men, with the consent of the whole Church, and who have blame-lessly served the flock of Christ in a humble, peaceable, and disinterested spirit, and have for a long time possessed the good opinion of all, cannot be justly dismissed from the ministry. For our sin will not be small, if we eject from the episcopate those who have blamelessly and holily fulfilled its duties. Blessed are those presbyters who, having finished their course before now, have obtained a fruitful and perfect departure [from this world]; for they have no fear lest any one deprive them of the place now appointed them. But we see that you have removed some men of excellent behaviour from the ministry, which they fulfilled blamelessly and with honour.
``Where the Bishop is, there let the multitude of believers be;
even as where Jesus is, there is the Catholic Church’’ Ignatius of Antioch, 1st c. A.D
While its difficult to read the primacy into St Ignatius of Antioch, the apostolic succession is indeed apparent. Which is consistent to scripture thus the authority to bind and loose. No-where in antiquity has this been denial. Only in recent times has the systematic denial of Christ’s Church been so prevalent. For without denial here, then is must be conceded any other upsert has no claim of authority in Christs established mystical body, thus the further systematic convoluted verse.
First in antiquity the divinity of Christ was denied, just as in scripture as this was the first plan of Lucifer, today through the systematic denial of various belief such this one, doctrines of Mary, the Saints, Eucharist and so on, the faithful are led astray, which leads to the ultimate denial; of the divinity of Christ. More sublime and assured to led more astray by the systematic placed doubt, but just as deadly as is witnessed by the further separation in various cults which originally followed the protestant method, such as Mormon, LDS, JWs, SDA, and so on.
This is vanity and its no different than Adam and Eve who looked to circumvent the Word of God in their own pride. The first fall of man was to severe “communion” with the Lord.
Every Sunday the Church rise’s to pronounce victory over Arius and the systematic denial that leads to this very path. Which is about the same as suggesting you wouldn’t have needed to be in Noah’s Ark for you can swim it on your own
Pope Julius to Antioch in defense of St Athanasius …
"For if really, as you say, they did some wrong, the judgment ought to have been given according to the ecclesiastical canon and not thus.
You should have written to all of us, so that justice might have been decreed by all. For it was Bishops who were the sufferers; and it was not obscure Churches which have suffered, but Churches which Apostles in person ruled. With regard to the Church of Alexandria in particular, why were we not consulted?
Do you now know that this has been the custom, first to write to us, and thus for what is just to be defined from hence? If, therefore, a suspicion of this sort fell upon the bishop of that place, it was necessary to write to the Church here [Rome]. But now, though you gave us no information, but have done as you pleased, you ask us to give our agreement, though we have not ourselves condemned. These are not the statutes of Paul, these are not the traditions of the Fathers; this is another rule, a new custom. I beseech you to bear willingly what I say, for I write for the common welfare, and what we have received from Blessed Peter the Apostle, that I declare to you."
And isn’t this indeed what occurred with St Paul in regards to Corinth. Here above we see the same sequence.
by His Holiness Pope St. Clement I confirms the above. This was thought to be inspired in some of the early church’s.
Chapter 44
Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those presbyters already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry. We are of opinion, therefore, that those appointed by them, or afterwards by other eminent men, with the consent of the whole Church, and who have blame-lessly served the flock of Christ in a humble, peaceable, and disinterested spirit, and have for a long time possessed the good opinion of all, cannot be justly dismissed from the ministry. For our sin will not be small, if we eject from the episcopate those who have blamelessly and holily fulfilled its duties. Blessed are those presbyters who, having finished their course before now, have obtained a fruitful and perfect departure [from this world]; for they have no fear lest any one deprive them of the place now appointed them. But we see that you have removed some men of excellent behaviour from the ministry, which they fulfilled blamelessly and with honour.
``Where the Bishop is, there let the multitude of believers be;
even as where Jesus is, there is the Catholic Church’’ Ignatius of Antioch, 1st c. A.D
While its difficult to read the primacy into St Ignatius of Antioch, the apostolic succession is indeed apparent. Which is consistent to scripture thus the authority to bind and loose. No-where in antiquity has this been denial. Only in recent times has the systematic denial of Christ’s Church been so prevalent. For without denial here, then is must be conceded any other upsert has no claim of authority in Christs established mystical body, thus the further systematic convoluted verse.
First in antiquity the divinity of Christ was denied, just as in scripture as this was the first plan of Lucifer, today through the systematic denial of various belief such this one, doctrines of Mary, the Saints, Eucharist and so on, the faithful are led astray, which leads to the ultimate denial; of the divinity of Christ. More sublime and assured to led more astray by the systematic placed doubt, but just as deadly as is witnessed by the further separation in various cults which originally followed the protestant method, such as Mormon, LDS, JWs, SDA, and so on.
This is vanity and its no different than Adam and Eve who looked to circumvent the Word of God in their own pride. The first fall of man was to severe “communion” with the Lord.
Every Sunday the Church rise’s to pronounce victory over Arius and the systematic denial that leads to this very path. Which is about the same as suggesting you wouldn’t have needed to be in Noah’s Ark for you can swim it on your own
Pope Julius to Antioch in defense of St Athanasius …
"For if really, as you say, they did some wrong, the judgment ought to have been given according to the ecclesiastical canon and not thus.
You should have written to all of us, so that justice might have been decreed by all. For it was Bishops who were the sufferers; and it was not obscure Churches which have suffered, but Churches which Apostles in person ruled. With regard to the Church of Alexandria in particular, why were we not consulted?
Do you now know that this has been the custom, first to write to us, and thus for what is just to be defined from hence? If, therefore, a suspicion of this sort fell upon the bishop of that place, it was necessary to write to the Church here [Rome]. But now, though you gave us no information, but have done as you pleased, you ask us to give our agreement, though we have not ourselves condemned. These are not the statutes of Paul, these are not the traditions of the Fathers; this is another rule, a new custom. I beseech you to bear willingly what I say, for I write for the common welfare, and what we have received from Blessed Peter the Apostle, that I declare to you."
And isn’t this indeed what occurred with St Paul in regards to Corinth. Here above we see the same sequence.
S
SteveVH
Guest
Dustin, I understand completely that you “confess your sins” in a general confession. We do as well during the Confiteor, and ask for God’s mercy (Kyrie Eleison) and then again just prior to receiving communion (Lamb of God). That is all fine and good; one of the Catholic things that you retained.I am not stating, or has any other Episcopalian, that we should allow our sins to go unconfessed. We do confess our sins daily and on Sunday. Your Tradition tells you that you must go to a priest in a private confession in order to be forgiven of a mortal sin and my Tradition does it in the general confession. That saying about “All or not required, many should, some must” is simply a saying that people use. Is it a good one? Probably not. It is kind of like the saying “TEC is Catholicism with less guilt.” Neither one really serves the soul of the individual.
We should ALWAYS confess our sins. Your Tradition requires private confession and mine Tradition does not. We confess our sins to the priest or bishop. We also, just like Catholics, can go straight to God if a priest is not around. The only difference is private or general.
But the reason I placed the words “confess your sins” in quotation marks is because we do not really confess our sins in a general confession. We confess that we are sinners, in our thoughts and in our words, in what we have done and in what we have failed to do. But we say nothing about what we thought or what we said or what we did or what we failed to do.
Is this enough? Again, we are talking about a relationship, a spousal relationship, a family relationship. Is it enough, when one has deeply offended their spouse through a specific act, to say “I know I’ve done some things wrong. Sorry about that.” Or must we, in order to truly repair the relationship, be honest enough to address exactly what it was that hurt our beloved and express authentic regret and sorrow for hurting them?
The bottom line, however, is that the Church, which received the authority to forgive and retain sins and the power to bind and loose, has spoken. Reconciliation is a sacrament, and a necessary sacrament in order to receive forgiveness of sins subsequent to our Baptism. While I understand that you are not under any authority of the Catholic Church, do you not think that this question is worth exploring? Should the Anglican Church have thrown out private confession as a necessary sacrament and treat it instead as an option? Could it have been a mistake to do so?
E
EvangelCatholic
Guest
Lets keep in mind that the use of private confession among Catholics, Anglicans and Lutherans is only a fraction of those communing at the altar. People don’t go back to church more than once a week. We are bracing for near bizarre conditions. Holy Absolution is offered before Mass [both private and public].
A
aidanbradypop
Guest
Indeed but private confession is not needed for this.
The Anglican Tradition did not throw out private confession. I have been to low or broad churches that have it by appt only and I have been to anglo-catholic parishes that actually have confessionals and do it every week. I do not believe private confession to be the only way to be forgiven.
Some parishes do it differently, but before absolution is given we are asked to silently reflect on our sins and ask God to forgive us. The priest even states that if one is in need of private confession then they are asked to speak with him after the service.
I would say the mistake would be a faith tradition that has completely done away with the Sacrament of Reconciliation.
S
SteveVH
Guest
And why is that? Do you spill your personal sins in front of the congregation during your general confession?
And I have not said that they have. What I said is that it is treated as optional rather necessary. Knowing human nature, the great majority will avoid confessing their personal, intimate sins and opt for the general confession.
If it is available and one is not restrained by something out of their control, it is necessary. So, extenuating circumstances aside, Christ instituted the sacrament as the normal means of reconciling with God.
We would agree. But it is also a mistake to relegate a sacrament to the status of optional. It’s not a very long walk from the Episcopalian position to the Baptist position of “I just confess my sins directly to God.” If the sacrament is not necessary, then I would have to agree with them.
A
aidanbradypop
Guest
Silently
Well then that falls on the individual. Same goes with Catholicism and any other tradition that practices confession to a priest.
Agree
Reconciliation is necessary. One must confess and have absolution from a priest or bishop. We confess our sins and we are forgiven. TEC is not stating one should just pray at night for God to forgive them of their sins like the Baptist tradition. Although one can do that in certain cases, we are to also confess as well. Private confession is “optional” although I believe that word gives the wrong impression to many.
S
SteveVH
Guest
Thanks for this, Gary. Excellent! What stands out to me is that ancient forms of public confession were just that. One actually confessed their sins in public and had to suffer the humiliation, as well as possible years of penance. Private confession is done out of mercy and kept between the penitent and the priest. But the important point here is that one had to actually confess their sins in both cases. In no case did the Church ask us to stand, profess we are sinners (in a general way) and receive absolution, especially when grave sin is involved. This is a uniquely Protestant invention.
E
EvangelCatholic
Guest
When was public confession as it is found in the Catholic Mass included in the liturgy?
A
aidanbradypop
Guest
The majority of non Catholics still confess their sins to either God directly and/or a priest. The OSAS bunch would probably fall under the uniguely Protestant invention you speak of. Many OSAS believers I have met believe that the sins are already forgiven…past, present and future ones so when you accept the Lord…you are made clean. That is really thin ice IMO.
Even in the general confession, you still, or you should, silently state your sins to God. Many, like myself, do so in the “moment of silence” part of the general confession. My wife does it before the service starts.
Q
QNDNNDQDCE
Guest
I see that I was mistaken about the uniformity of translations on this verse. I suppose we will have to abandon the argument for now, learn Greek for ourselves and take it up at a later date.
A
aidanbradypop
Guest
Have fun lol
Y
YADA
Guest
You offer no support for this idea of binding and loosing being understood this way in Jewish thought. Now I am not Jewish - however, none of the Jewish individuals that I have asked this since reading your post would hold this view as you expressed it . They would place more emphasis upon seeking forgiveness from the individual wronged - where possible and … they believe that some sins are not fully forgivable and it is incumbent upon the sinner to seek forgiveness of the one they wronged - even if the person will not forgive them. The seek atonement with God during the period of time between Rosh Hosanna and Yom Kippur, along with the use of fasting and prayer. No where in that is the idea that binding and loosing - as used in this context - is already bound and loosed, a pronouncement of an accomplished act nor its use as a reminder …
Why would it be necessary in your view to “tell the Church” … ?
The Church is represented in the authority given to Peter [represented by the keys referring to the very gates of heaven - also a reference to the office of the Prime Minister who acts and speaks for the King in his absence - see Isaiah 22:20-22 along with the authority to bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven] followed by the authority to bind and loose given to the other apostles in Matthew 18 …
You are discounting that this authority to bind and loose sins includes the admonition to bring certain sinners and sins to the Church … this is the One Church - Jesus’ Church - and that Jesus founded upon Peter and to which Jesus gave certain authority - to teach the Good News of Salvation … the Church that Jesus promised would not fail - that He promised to protect from the very gates of Hell
- Status