How do Protestants interpret 2 Corinthians 5:18?

[Esdra]

Since you believe the other group is wrong and is teaching error, do you still hold that everyone is sent by the Holy Spirit to preach?

That’t not what the text says. The apostles, by God-given authority, could forgive sins or they could retain sins. Matthew 9:8 says that same authority **that Jesus had **to forgive sins on earth was given to MEN.

.
It is somthing to thnk about.

Please do. I will be interested in what he says.

We were talking about John 20:23:

23 Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.

I’ve just read in a (German) Bible commentary that the Church is meant.
I was, according to that commentary, right to say that noone can forgive sins, except Jesus.
The remitting and retaining of the sins is done by preaching of the Word by the Church (which is the community of all believers).
The Church retains once sins, when they preach, but the word is willingly rejected. Then the sins are rejected.
As I said the text is sadly enough in German only (and it’s too much to translate…), but it would actually answer in depth our question!

 

[SyCarl]

Jesus clearly told the apostle," As the Father has sent me, even so I send you" Wasn’t Jesus sent to forgive the sins of all men?

Jesus then tells the apostles, “Whose sins you forgive they are forgiven, whose sins you retain they are retained.”
Clearly the apostles were sent, just like Jesus was, to forgive the sins of all men not just men that they personally offended.
Can you forgive the sins of any man?

No. I can’t forgive anyone sins. If someone offends me I can forgive them personally but I hcan’t forgiven the sin they commited against God. If somone bears false witness against me that is not only an offense against me but it is also a sin against God.

Christ gave the power to “retain” sins. If we are to go to God alone, how can you retain a sin?

It is clear that Jesus gave the Apostles authority to do many things. Where does it say that such authority was passed on to successors?

In Matthew 10:1 Jesus gave authority to his Apostles to heal disease and every kind of sickness. Was this paased on to successors? The Apostles raised the dead and cured the lame. Can Catholic bishops and priests do this?

I am sorry but it seems that the only authority from the Apostles claimed for bishops and priests is the kind that can’t be confirmed. A dead man being brought back from the dead can be seen, the change claimed for transubstantiation can’t. Healing a cripple can be seen, forgiving of sin through confession can’t. Curing sickness can be seen, the giving of the Holy Spirit through confirmation can’t. Why is only objectively nonverifiable passed to successors but not the verifiable?

 

[Nicea325]

We were talking about John 20:23:

23 Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.

I’ve just read in a (German) Bible commentary that the Church is meant.
I was, according to that commentary, right to say that noone can forgive sins, except Jesus.
The remitting and retaining of the sins is done by preaching of the Word by the Church (which is the community of all believers).
The Church retains once sins, when they preach, but the word is willingly rejected. Then the sins are rejected.
As I said the text is sadly enough in German only (and it’s too much to translate…), but it would actually answer in depth our question!

Sorry,but the above is full of errors. So you do not believe the Apostles were given authority to forgive sins? So I guess that means you also deny the fact the Apostles themselves could remove demons and evil spirits?

 

[Nicea325]

We were talking about John 20:23:

23 Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.

I’ve just read in a (German) Bible commentary that the Church is meant.
I was, according to that commentary, right to say that noone can forgive sins, except Jesus.
The remitting and retaining of the sins is done by preaching of the Word by the Church (which is the community of all believers).
The Church retains once sins, when they preach, but the word is willingly rejected. Then the sins are rejected.
As I said the text is sadly enough in German only (and it’s too much to translate…), but it would actually answer in depth our question!

Sorry,but the above is full of errors. So you do not believe the Apostles were given authority to forgive sins? So I guess that means you also deny the fact the Apostles themselves could remove demons and evil spirits?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

It is clear that Jesus gave the Apostles authority to do many things. Where does it say that such authority was passed on to successors?

In Matthew 10:1 Jesus gave authority to his Apostles to heal disease and every kind of sickness. Was this paased on to successors? The Apostles raised the dead and cured the lame. Can Catholic bishops and priests do this?

I am sorry but it seems that the only authority from the Apostles claimed for bishops and priests is the kind that can’t be confirmed. A dead man being brought back from the dead can be seen, the change claimed for transubstantiation can’t. Healing a cripple can be seen, forgiving of sin through confession can’t. Curing sickness can be seen, the giving of the Holy Spirit through confirmation can’t. Why is only objectively nonverifiable passed to successors but not the verifiable?

How many dead have you raised?

Most Protestants assume that anything spoken to the Apostles can be taken personally, as confirmed by Esdra’s beliefs listed in this thread.

There are recorded miracles performed through people of the Church. If you remember, Christ preached the faith of a mustard seed to His Apostles. We even have the example of Thomas doubting the resurrection. My point is, people have different ‘levels’ of faith.

Christ clearly told the Apostles, ‘what sins they forgave would be forgiven and what sins they retained would be retained.’ Christ did not tell ‘multitudes’ that they could bind and loose, or forgive sins and retain sins, and it would be so in heaven.

It was for the authoritative Church to decide who could act in absence of the bishop/Apostle.

It always amazes me the objections raised, since the reformation. Martin Luther did not have all the objections of today. It appears the ‘faith’ has watered down with every more ‘modern’ obejction raised since the reformation because it’s not specified in the modern day language.

Below, see how the first Christians discussed the subject of confession.

The Didache

Confess your sins in church, and do not go up to your prayer with an evil conscience. This is the way of life. . . , On the Lord’s Day gather together, break bread, and give thanks, after confessing your transgressions so that your sacrifice may be pure (Didache 4:14,14:1 [A.D.70]).

The Letter of Barnabas

You shall judge righteously. You shall not make a schism, but you shall pacify those that contend by bringing them together. You shall confess your sins. You shall not go to prayer with an evil conscience. This is the way of light (Letter of Barnabas 19 [A.D. 74]).

Ignatius of Antioch

For as many as are of God and of Jesus Christ are also with the bishop. And as many as shall, in the exercise of penance, return into the unity of the Church, these, too, shall belong to God, that they may live according to Jesus Christ (Letter to the Philadelphians 3 [A.D. 110]).

For where there is division and wrath, God does not dwell. To all them that repent, the Lord grants forgiveness, if they turn in penitence to the unity of God, and to communion with the bishop (ibid. 8).

 

[Nicea325]

We were talking about John 20:23:

23 Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.

I’ve just read in a (German) Bible commentary that the Church is meant.
I was, according to that commentary, right to say that noone can forgive sins, except Jesus.
The remitting and retaining of the sins is done by preaching of the Word by the Church (which is the community of all believers).
The Church retains once sins, when they preach, but the word is willingly rejected. Then the sins are rejected.
As I said the text is sadly enough in German only (and it’s too much to translate…), but it would actually answer in depth our question!

Sorry,but the above is full of errors. So you do not believe the Apostles were given authority to forgive sins? So I guess that means you also deny the fact the Apostles themselves could remove demons and evil spirits?

 

[Nicea325]

It is clear that Jesus gave the Apostles authority to do many things. Where does it say that such authority was passed on to successors?

In Matthew 10:1 Jesus gave authority to his Apostles to heal disease and every kind of sickness. Was this paased on to successors? The Apostles raised the dead and cured the lame. Can Catholic bishops and priests do this?

I am sorry but it seems that the only authority from the Apostles claimed for bishops and priests is the kind that can’t be confirmed. A dead man being brought back from the dead can be seen, the change claimed for transubstantiation can’t. Healing a cripple can be seen, forgiving of sin through confession can’t. Curing sickness can be seen, the giving of the Holy Spirit through confirmation can’t. Why is only objectively nonverifiable passed to successors but not the verifiable?

And where does the Bible claim to teach explicity and absolute? That is one of the many errors of many Protestants,the belief the Bible must explicitly state everything. Where does Jesus’ say to write a single word and to have 27 NT books?

 

[SyCarl]

How many dead have you raised?

Of course I haven’t raised any but then I don’t claim to have the authority given to the Apostles. So the question remains, if the authoriy given to the Apostles was passed on to their successors, where are the Catholic bishops who are raising the dead, healing the lame and curing the sick? If these haven’t been passed on, why should we believe that others have been?

Most Protestants assume that anything spoken to the Apostles can be taken personally, as confirmed by Esdra’s beliefs listed in this thread.

There are recorded miracles performed through people of the Church. If you remember, Christ preached the faith of a mustard seed to His Apostles. We even have the example of Thomas doubting the resurrection. My point is, people have different ‘levels’ of faith.

Christ clearly told the Apostles, ‘what sins they forgave would be forgiven and what sins they retained would be retained.’ Christ did not tell ‘multitudes’ that they could bind and loose, or forgive sins and retain sins, and it would be so in heaven.

It was for the authoritative Church to decide who could act in absence of the bishop/Apostle.

It always amazes me the objections raised, since the reformation. Martin Luther did not have all the objections of today. It appears the ‘faith’ has watered down with every more ‘modern’ obejction raised since the reformation because it’s not specified in the modern day language.

Below, see how the first Christians discussed the subject of confession.

I agree that we should confess our sins in church. We do this by silent prayer. This is in accordance with the Didache and Barnabas which don’t mention oral confession or absolution by a priest.

With respect to schism, it could be argued that the Catholic Church is the author of schism by casting out those that don’t agree with it. Luther didn’t ask to be excommunicated.

 

[SyCarl]

And where does the Bible claim to teach explicity and absolute? That is one of the many errors of many Protestants,the belief the Bible must explicitly state everything. Where does Jesus’ say to write a single word and to have 27 NT books?

You are avoiding the question which really has nothing to do with Scripture alone. Why do bishops not have all the authority given to the Apostles? If they weren’t given it all why should we believe that they were given any, especially when the authority claimed relates only to matters that are not visible and not verifiable.

 

[Nicea325]

You are avoiding the question which really has nothing to do with Scripture alone. Why do bishops not have all the authority given to the Apostles? If they weren’t given it all why should we believe that they were given any, especially when the authority claimed relates only to matters that are not visible and not verifiable.

And you dodge another,where is explicity taught? Where does Jesus say to write? The bishopric is an office and if it was not meant to be succeeded by anyone AFTER them,then why bother to replace Judas? Now where does the NT explicitly state: All authority will cease after the last Apostle is dead?

Care to provide me a list of all the miracles all the 11 performed?

 

[Nicea325]

Of course I haven’t raised any but then I don’t claim to have the authority given to the Apostles. So the question remains, if the authoriy given to the Apostles was passed on to their successors, where are the Catholic bishops who are raising the dead, healing the lame and curing the sick? If these haven’t been passed on, why should we believe that others have been?

I agree that we should confess our sins in church. We do this by silent prayer. This is in accordance with the Didache and Barnabas which don’t mention oral confession or absolution by a priest.

With respect to schism, it could be argued that the Catholic Church is the author of schism by casting out those that don’t agree with it. Luther didn’t ask to be excommunicated.

If the CC is the author of schism,then Protestants are the Masters of it-how many denominations today?

 

[SyCarl]

And you dodge another,where is explicity taught? Where does Jesus say to write? Tell me what authority bishops do not have that the Apostles did? BTW: Your claim is bogus and rather absurd. The bishopric is an office and if it was not meant to be succeeded by anyone AFTER them,then why bother to replace Judas? Now where does the NT explicitly state: All authority will cease after the last Apostle is dead?

This thread is not about whether Scripture is sufficient. However assuming it isn’t, it still tells us that Jesus gave authority to the Apostles to cure disease and sickness.

Jesus summoned His twelve disciples and gave them authority over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal every kind of disease and every kind of sickness.
(Mat 10:1 NASB)

What bishop today can claim the authority to heal disease and sickness?

Both Peter and Paul raised the dead. What bishop today can claim that authority?

There may well be other authority that was given to the Apostles not recorded in Scripture. The question remains, we know at least some of the authority given to the Apostles. If some of this was not passed on to bishops, why should we accept that any was?

When a successor was chosen for Judas some strict qualifications were imposed.

“Therefore it is necessary that of the men who have accompanied us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us-- beginning with the baptism of John until the day that He was taken up from us–one of these must become a witness with us of His resurrection.”
(Act 1:21-22 NASB)

What bishop today meets these qualifications?

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Blessings SyCarl;

Here is one of many writings that pertain to apostolic succession;

Acts 1:20
**For it is written in the Book of Psalms: ‘Let his encampment become desolate, and may no one dwell in it.’ And: ‘May another take his office.’ **21
Therefore, it is necessary that one of the men who accompanied us the whole time the Lord Jesus came and went among us,
22
beginning from the baptism of John until the day on which he was taken up from us, become with us a witness to his resurrection."
23
So they proposed two, Joseph called Barsabbas, who was also known as Justus, and Matthias.
24
Then they prayed, “You, Lord, who know the hearts of all, show which one of these two you have chosen
25
to take the place in this apostolic ministry from which Judas turned away to go to his own place.”
26
8 Then they gave lots to them, and the lot fell upon Matthias, and he was counted with the eleven apostles.

Jesus reveals that this faith is to succeed from them, just as Jesus and the Father are one, so it is that the apostles and their successors remain one in Jesus, see John 17:1-26. Paul also states to Timothy whom the scriptures relate to Paul as Timothy’s “father” in the faith as still practiced today, that Timothy is to take care whom he lays hands on to succeed or as overseer.

Although this may be getting off topic a bit, here, the OP scripture quote does not deal directly with apostolic succession, But who has been given charge over the ministry of reconciliation differ from the members who are to live it out.

Although confession, repentance, penance, baptism, along with the preaching of Christ crucified are all components in the ministry of reconciliation, to which Paul makes reference to “as if God were appealing through us”, "as ambassadors for Christ.

Catholic saints, popes, bishops and priests have been giving life to the dead since pentecost and have not ceased. Healing of the sick has never ceased in the Catholic Church both physical and spiritual. If you don’t believe Jesus then believe in his works.

Luke 10:16
Whoever listens to you listens to me. Whoever rejects you rejects me. And whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me."

Matthew 18:15
11 "If your brother 12 sins (against you), go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have won over your brother.
16
13 If he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, so that ‘every fact may be established on the testimony of two or three witnesses.’
17
**If he refuses to listen to them, tell the church. 14 If he refuses to listen even to the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector. **
18
15 Amen, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Peace be with you

SyCarl;7605852]It is clear that Jesus gave the Apostles authority to do many things. Where does it say that such authority was passed on to successors?

 

[Jim_Dandy]

How do Protestants interpret 2 Corinthians 5:18? Let me count the ways! As many ways as there are Protestants.

The salient question is, how did the first Christians understand it, who were taught not by interpreting words on a page 21 centuries after Paul wrote them, but from the Apostle’s own lips? Paul taught the Corinthians orally before he appointed bishops to replace him and moved on to establish other local Churches. Paul is responding both to questions addressed to him in letters from the Corinthians which were lost and to situations of which he had been informed.

The Catholic Church excluded any writings that did not mirror her teachings from the canon of the NT So any interpretation in opposition to the Catholic understanding of the entire NT is incorrect.

Jim Dandy
(former Protestant)

 

[Esdra]

Sorry,but the above is full of errors. So you do not believe the Apostles were given authority to forgive sins? So I guess that means you also deny the fact the Apostles themselves could remove demons and evil spirits?

Noone can forgive sins, cast out demons or evil spirits, except Jesus.
So, no, the Apostles couldn’t do the things above! BUT, Jesus in them, the Holy Spirit, could do it.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Of course I haven’t raised any but then I don’t claim to have the authority given to the Apostles. So the question remains, if the authoriy given to the Apostles was passed on to their successors, where are the Catholic bishops who are raising the dead, healing the lame and curing the sick? If these haven’t been passed on, why should we believe that others have been?

I agree that we should confess our sins in church. We do this by silent prayer. This is in accordance with the Didache and Barnabas which don’t mention oral confession or absolution by a priest.

With respect to schism, it could be argued that the Catholic Church is the author of schism by casting out those that don’t agree with it. Luther didn’t ask to be excommunicated.

Reading everything Christ said, without considering who He was addressing, is assuming an authority. Much of the Protestant authority is exhibited on these forums in the form of telling Catholics they are wrong, even though we are told there are many rights, according to the denomination telling us. Scriptures do not give any examples of such a widespread authority.

Where does scriptures tell us to confess our sins in Church, by silent prayer? If it’s not in scriptures, explicitly, are we to assume that is ‘another’ man made tradition?

We have to read scriptures with scriptures, or we will be tempted to exclude some passages.

**Jas 5:16 Confess therefore your sins one to another: and pray one for another, that you may be saved. For the continual prayer of a just man availeth much. **

How do we confess our sins to one to another in silent prayer?

Next, we still have scriptures showing that Christ told the men He chose and appointed over His Church that they had the authority to forgive and retain sins.

God set the hierarchy of His Church, first telling one he was given the keys to the kingdom of heaven and the power to bind and loose. Then, in asserting the authority of His Church, He told the men chosen and appointed the Church has the power to bind and loose. In His teachings exclusively to the Apostles He said, ‘(John 20:23) Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them: and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.’

Now for your last statement, are we to judge and lay blame on the cause of the schism? The Church has authority, given by Christ. Where did Christ tell us there would be perfect men to be in charge of His Church?

**What are those traditions we are to hold to, whether by word or epistle?**Where in scriptures does it teach us to separate ourself from the Church and start a new one, if we don’t like what is going on in the Church?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Noone can forgive sins, cast out demons or evil spirits, except Jesus.
So, no, the Apostles couldn’t do the things above! BUT, Jesus in them, the Holy Spirit, could do it.

What about Jesus being with His Church until the consummation of the world? What about Jesus sending the Holy Spirit to be with His Church? What about His Church and the gates of hell?

 

[Esdra]

What about Jesus being with His Church until the consummation of the world? What about Jesus sending the Holy Spirit to be with His Church? What about His Church and the gates of hell?

Jesus is in everyone of us through His Holy Spirit.
He was in the Apostles and in all those who heard the Gospel by them, who believed in Jesus and were sent the Holy Ghost.

The Church is “only” the community of all believers. Nothing more and nothing less.

 

[m8g8]

Hello,

Sorry I haven’t been contributing much, but I’ve been reading everything and I’ve learnt a lot so thank you everyone who has been posting. It’s been really interesting to learn different interpretations.

Noone can forgive sins, cast out demons or evil spirits, except Jesus.
So, no, the Apostles couldn’t do the things above! BUT, Jesus in them, the Holy Spirit, could do it.

The Son received His authority from The Father, but then said he was passing it down to the Apostles. That’s why they were given this authority. They then chose successors after lots of prayer to continue what Catholics call ‘Apostolic Succession’.

Priests today still perform exorcisms, although I believe that this is rare- probably rare or rarer than a Marian apparition- but I haven’t been researching into exorcisms, so maybe someone else can correct me. Anyway, exorcisms and reconciliation etc, are the effects of Christ working through his priests- his ministry. It’s a bit like when St. Michael kicked satan into hell by saying, “May the Lord rebuke thee”- God worked through St. Michael.

Regarding the healing, this can happen during the Annointing of the Sick, which is spoken of in James 5:14 at the same time mentioning reconciliation:

Is any man sick among you? Let him bring in the** priests of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord**. [15] And the prayer of faith shall save the sick man: and the Lord shall raise him up: and if he be in sins, they shall be forgiven him.

The Anointing of the Sick and Reconciliation has been known for their physical healing. Although I haven’t received the Anointing of the Sick, I have experienced the physical healing of Reconciliation for an illness which Doctors couldn’t solve, and this was life changing .

This website explains it well:

Continuing Jesus’ healing ministry, the Church brings comfort in times of physical distress through the sacrament of anointing of the sick. The miracles of Jesus in the New Testament testify to cures and much of Jesus’ ministry was spent healing the sick. Recorded in Mark 6:7 Jesus commissioned the apostles to heal and we find in the Acts of the Apostles that people brought the sick to Peter and John for healing. The healing power of the Lord continued in the early Church through prayers and simple anointing. Gradually this healing rite developed into a church ceremony performed by clergy and was named a sacrament at the Second Council of Lyons. Vatican II revised the ritual for anointing of the sick including pastoral care of the sick, the overall ministry to the sick, and supports the sick and the dying and their families.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Jesus is in everyone of us through His Holy Spirit.
He was in the Apostles and in all those who heard the Gospel by them, who believed in Jesus and were sent the Holy Ghost.

The Church is “only” the community of all believers. Nothing more and nothing less.

I disagree.

**
1Co 12:28 And God indeed hath set some in the church; first apostles, secondly prophets, thirdly doctors: after that miracles: then the graces of healings, helps, governments, kinds of tongues, interpretations of speeches**

.

God, according to scriptures, clearly set the hierarchy of the Church.

Christ told twelve that they were chosen and appointed. Christ was only speaking to them starting at John 13 on through until He was arrested. He was NOT addressing the multitude. You are distinguishing no difference between an office of the Church and the laity. That is not supported with scriptures.

Please show me any instance of anyone appointing themselves to an office of the Church, without it being done through men chosen and appointed or men who received their appointment through others. Even Paul was sent to a disciple to have hands imposed upon Him once Christ chose Him. Once confirmed, Paul went to Peter. Things were done in order.

You’ll have to use scriptures to prove what you’re saying and I don’t believe it can be done.