How do Protestants interpret 2 Corinthians 5:18?

[Third_Day]

=jericho777;7605263]KJV with Strong’s
Heb 5:6 As he saith also in another place Thou (Jesus) art a priest (2409.hiereus) for ever after the order of Melchisedec. Here even Jesus is identified with the word you say is only used for pagan priests.

Hiereus is a "general " term for a priest who gives a sacrifice. That is why hiereus can be used for Jesus.

There is no office of priest in the NT Jesus only specified Pastor/shepheard for the church

.
The apostles held the office of Bishop. ( Acts 1:20) Matthias was chosen by lot to the office of Bishop. It was by lot that priests were chosen to go into the temple.
Luke 1:8 " Now while serving as priest before God when his division was on duty, according to the custom of the priesthood, it fell to him **by lot **to enter the temple of the Lord and burn incense."

Paul says the “ministry” of reconciliation.
The Greek word Paul uses for ministry is “leitourgia” where the word liturgy comes from.
From Strongs Greek Dictionary Leitourgia 3009 public function as priest, liturgy, or almsgiver, ministration.

Scripture tells us there was a change in the priesthood (Hebrews 7:12)
There was now a better ministry (Hebrews 6:8) than the Levitical priesthood

Paul had a “priestly service”
“But I have written very boldly to you on some points so as to remind you again, because of the grace that was given me from God, to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles, in the priestly service of the gospel of God, so that my offering of the Gentiles may become acceptable, sanctified by the Holy Spirit.” (Romans 15:15-16)

At the Last Supper Jesus told the Apostles “Do THIS in remembrance of me.” Do what? Offer the Eucharist which is a priestly service for the faithful as Paul does in 1 Cor. 11:23-30

Authority to forgive or NOT forgive sin was given to men. ( Matt. 9:8) and John 20:23)

Paul exercises this authority in 1 Cor. 5:3 “I have already pronounced judgment in the name of the Lord Jesus on the man who has done such a thing…you are to deliver this man to Satan…”

Paul forgave sin in the “person of Christ” 2 Cor. 2:20

If anyone is sick you should call the elders ( Greek-presbyters -English-priests) so they can anoint the sick man with oil and pray over him and forgive his sins. (Functions of a priest)

The early Christians had an altar. ( Hebrews 13:10) What is an altar used for/ Sacrifice which can only be done by a priest.

 

[Third_Day]

=Esdra;7605458]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.

Correct. Christ established The Church. He didn’t establish denominations.

I was, according to that commentary, right to say that noone can forgive sins, except Jesus

.
Sins are forgiven by God through the priest.

The remitting and retaining of the sins is done by preaching of the Word by the Church (which is the community of all believers).

So when you hear preaching your sins are forgiven? Where is that stated in scripture?

The Church retains once sins, when they preach, but the word is willingly rejected. Then the sins are rejected.

This interpretation of John 20:23 doesn’t make sense to me. Can you expound on it please.

 

[Third_Day]

=

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?

DIdn’t Paul excommunicate a man in 1 Cor.5:5? Didn’t Paul say he forgave sin in 2 Cor.2:10?
Why did the apostles ordain men to be bishops if they were to have no authority?

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?

Healing takes place all the time. Padre Pio healed a blind woman. She is still alive today. She has no pupils but she can see. Over the centuries, saints have raised the dead.

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?

You are a true doubting Thomas.“Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe.” John 20:29

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

One has to be first purified of all sin (cleansed) before the Holy spirit is infused within the soul through the sacrament of baptism.

Once the believer is washed by Water and the Spirit, the believer has died to self and raised in Christ, regenerated into the body of Christ who are partakers of his divinity (2 Peter 1:4 Through these, he has bestowed on us the precious and very great promises, so that through them you may come to share in the divine nature, after escaping from the corruption that is in the world because of evil desire.

The Church is the body of Christ, never a “community of believers”.

Colossians 1:16
For in him 8 were created all things in heaven and on earth, the visible and the invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers; all things were created through him and for him.
17
He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.
18
**He is the head of the body, the church. **

You may be confusing the biblical teaching of who the Church is the body of Christ and those in “communion”. A Catholic “communion” unites both heaven and earth in the body of Christ united to her head Jesus Christ.

The body of Christ = the Church is not a building or any “community all believers” believing differently. I don’t know if you can exhaust the body of Christ = the Church in "nothing more and nothing less, from a “community of believers”? Because the Church exists both in heaven and on earth in the body of Christ.

Peace be with you

Esdra;7606755]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.

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicea325
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.

Yes…and? Apparently you do not read the lives of saints apart from the Apostles.There seems to be no biblical basis for limiting the gift of miracles to the authentication of apostolic authority;but that doesn’t mean the gift of miracles has ceased.

More important, the overwhelming historical evidence for post-apostolic miracles and miracle-workers—argues against opponents. Mark 16:17–18 lists various miraculous signs that will accompany believers, and nothing in the text suggests such signs were to cease with the close of the Apostolic Era.

Quote:
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?

And who says a miracle is binded to specifics? Take a jab at the following:

Athanasius

"So take these as an example, beloved Dracontius, and do not say, or believe those who say, that the bishop’s office is an occasion to sin. . . . For we know both bishops who fast and monks who eat. We know bishops who drink no wine as well as monks who do. We know bishops who work miracles as well as monks who do not" (Letters 49:9 [A.D. 354]).

Basil the Great

“But where shall I rank the great Gregory (Bishop of Rome) [the Wonderworker] and the words uttered by him? Shall we not place among the apostles and prophets a man who walked by the same Spirit as they? . . . For by the fellow-working of the Spirit, the power which he had over demons was tremendous and so gifted was he with the grace of the word . . . that, though only seventeen Christians were handed over to him, he brought the whole people alike in town and country through knowledge to God. He too by Christ’s mighty name commanded even rivers to change their course and caused a lake . . . to dry up. Moreover his predictions of things to come were such as in no way to fall short of the great prophets” (The Holy Spirit 74 [A.D. 375]).

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

And when and where did God cease to work through bishops today? Simply because none has occurred as of late,does not prove your position,unless you know for a fact no miracle will EVER be performed by any current bishop?

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?

So in other words,ALL miracles ceased with the Apostles,despite countless of historical records?

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

Yes.

Quote:
“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?

Did St.Paul witness Jesus’ resurrection? Was he not an Apostle?

 

[jericho777]

Hiereus is a "general " term for a priest who gives a sacrifice. That is why hiereus can be used for Jesus.

.
The apostles held the office of Bishop. ( Acts 1:20) Matthias was chosen by lot to the office of Bishop. It was by lot that priests were chosen to go into the temple.
Luke 1:8 " Now while serving as priest before God when his division was on duty, according to the custom of the priesthood, it fell to him **by lot **to enter the temple of the Lord and burn incense."

Paul says the “ministry” of reconciliation.
The Greek word Paul uses for ministry is “leitourgia” where the word liturgy comes from.
From Strongs Greek Dictionary Leitourgia 3009 public function as priest, liturgy, or almsgiver, ministration.

Scripture tells us there was a change in the priesthood (Hebrews 7:12)
There was now a better ministry (Hebrews 6:8) than the Levitical priesthood

Paul had a “priestly service”
“But I have written very boldly to you on some points so as to remind you again, because of the grace that was given me from God, to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles, in the priestly service of the gospel of God, so that my offering of the Gentiles may become acceptable, sanctified by the Holy Spirit.” (Romans 15:15-16)

At the Last Supper Jesus told the Apostles “Do THIS in remembrance of me.” Do what? Offer the Eucharist which is a priestly service for the faithful as Paul does in 1 Cor. 11:23-30

Authority to forgive or NOT forgive sin was given to men. ( Matt. 9:8) and John 20:23)

Paul exercises this authority in 1 Cor. 5:3 “I have already pronounced judgment in the name of the Lord Jesus on the man who has done such a thing…you are to deliver this man to Satan…”

Paul forgave sin in the “person of Christ” 2 Cor. 2:20

If anyone is sick you should call the elders ( Greek-presbyters -English-priests) so they can anoint the sick man with oil and pray over him and forgive his sins. (Functions of a priest)

The early Christians had an altar. ( Hebrews 13:10) What is an altar used for/ Sacrifice which can only be done by a priest.

But you said Hiereus was a pagan word and not used in the “Christian” context.

For sure the apostles were elders but casting lots was to let God make the decision on Matthias.

Priests are go betweens to offer sacrifices for the sins of the people. We now have no need for an earthly priest because Christ is our Heavenly high priest having offered the perfect sacrifice. Christ has appointed shepherds for the church.

3009 leitourgía(a feminine noun derived from 3011 /leitourgós, “an official servant,” “sacred ministering”) – properly, official (technical) service offered by a duly authorized minister; used of believers ministering to the Lord as His duly-commissioned priests – a sacred ministering that always serves (impacts) those who witness it. Also describes the priesthood of all believers as we are servants of the Lord. This is how we are to live our lives.

A priest has to offer sacrifices but when we celebrate the Lord’s Supper we are not reoffering the sacrifice. Christ was the only one qualified to once offer that perfect sacrifice. We only receive that which has already been offered on our behalf in remembrance. That’s why we can go to the throne of grace with boldness because we are entering by the blood that was once offered. We do not need to reoffer that which has already been offered to gain entrance.

In 1 Cor. 11:23-30 Paul is admonishing them for their bad behavior during the Lords supper. He then goes on to explain how it should take place. It is interesting this letter is addressed to the general body of the Corinthian church and Paul in no way specifies who must administer the Lords supper.

The priestly service in Rom 15:15-16 is the offering of the gentiles on the altar of salvation. This also is part of the duties of the priesthood of all believers who minister the gospel to the unsaved.

Elder by definition is not associated with the role of a priest. Why in Eph 4:10-12 did Jesus not ordain priests as an office for the body? They were clearly excluded because Jesus is the only priest the body needs. We do not need earthly priests to do what Jesus has accomplished.

 

[Zenas]

This interpretation of John 20:23 doesn’t make sense to me. Can you expound on it please.

Third Day, you are asking for a better explanation of what Esdras said about John 20:23. He said,* “The Church retains once sins, when they preach, but the word is willingly rejected. Then the sins are rejected.” *
I think what he means is that the apostles, and all others who are called, will preach the gospel. Part of the gospel message is that when people accept Christ their sins are forgiven. When they reject Him their sins are not forgiven. That is the main Protestant explanation of this verse. The apostles were not given any special graces that enabled them to grant absolution. Rather, they can proclaim to a new convert that his sins are forgiven, and they can tell those who don’t accept Christ that their sins are retained.

Another approach to this verse (probably a minority view among Protestants) is that the apostles were given the authority to forgive sins but when they died this gift died with them.

 

[Third_Day]

=Zenas;7608748]Third Day, you are asking for a better explanation of what Esdras said about John 20:23. He said,* “The Church retains once sins, when they preach, but the word is willingly rejected. Then the sins are rejected.” *
I think what he means is that the apostles, and all others who are called, will preach the gospel.

Of course the apostles were commissioned to preach the gospel

Part of the gospel message is that when people accept Christ their sins are forgiven.

Where in scripture does it say just accept Christ and your sins are forgiven. Don’t you need to confess your sins fro them to be forgiven?

That is the main Protestant explanation of this verse.

To come to that conclusion you have to ignore what Jesus said. " As the Father has sent me, even so I send you."John 20:21
Was Jesus only sent to preach the good news? Wasn’t Jesus sent for the forgivenss of sins? Immediately after saying this Jesus told them “If you forgive the sins of any they are forgiven. If you retain the sins of any they are retained.” The only way they could retain a sin was to be told what the sin was.

The apostles were not given any special graces that enabled them to grant absolution.

They did receive a special grace. "And when he said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit.”

Rather, they can proclaim to a new convert that his sins are forgiven, and they can tell those who don’t accept Christ that their sins are retained.

The context of the verse doesn’t suggest anything like that.

Another approach to this verse (probably a minority view among Protestants) is that the apostles were given the authority to forgive sins but when they died this gift died with them.

Paul was not there when Jesus said these words to the eleven apostles yet Paul forgave sins.

 

[Third_Day]

=jericho777;7608705]But you said Hiereus was a pagan word and not used in the “Christian” context.

No I said that Hiereus was a general term for a priest that offers sacrifice. Show me a Jewish website where Hiereus is used to denote a Jewish priest. They were only called called kohen. Heireus was used in scripture as a general term for any priest that offers sacrifice.

For sure the apostles were elders but casting lots was to let God make the decision on Matthias.

According to scripture the apostles were Bishops (Episkope) Acts 1:20

Priests are go betweens to offer sacrifices for the sins of the people

.
That is why Hebrews 13:10 tells us Christians had an altar.
Why do you think Christians had an altar which is used for sacrifice?

We now have no need for an earthly priest because Christ is our Heavenly high priest having offered the perfect sacrifice. Christ has appointed shepherds for the church.

WHen Christ told the apostles “Do this” at the Last Supper he gave the apostles the power to “Do this”. The power to consecrate. That is the function of a priest. Christ gave the apostles the authority to forgive sins ( John 20:23) That is the function of a priest

3009 leitourgía(a feminine noun derived from 3011 /leitourgós, “an official servant,” “sacred ministering”) – properly, official (technical) service offered by a duly authorized minister; used of believers ministering to the Lord as His duly-commissioned priests – a sacred ministering that always serves (impacts) those who witness it. Also describes the priesthood of all believers as we are servants of the Lord. This is how we are to live our lives.

In the OT, the structure of the priesthood looked like this:

1. Aaron, high priest
2. Levites, ministerial priests
3. Israel, a nation of priests

We see a similar structure in the NT

A priest has to offer sacrifices but when we celebrate the Lord’s Supper we are not reoffering the sacrifice

.
It is the same sacrifice.

Christ was the only one qualified to once offer that perfect sacrifice. We only receive that which has already been offered on our behalf in remembrance. That’s why we can go to the throne of grace with boldness because we are entering by the blood that was once offered. We do not need to reoffer that which has already been offered to gain entrance

.
The Mass is the same sacrifice which is eternal.
Christ is the Lamb "standing as though slain."Rev 5:6
Rev 13:8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of **the Lamb **slain from the foundation of the world

In 1 Cor. 11:23-30 Paul is admonishing them for their bad behavior during the Lords supper. He then goes on to explain how it should take place. It is interesting this letter is addressed to the general body of the Corinthian church and Paul in no way specifies who must administer the Lords supper.

Why should he have to specify? They all knew that only a priest can offer sacrifice.

The priestly service in Rom 15:15-16 is the offering of the gentiles on the altar of salvation. This also is part of the duties of the priesthood of all believers who minister the gospel to the unsaved.

Priestly service includes sacrifice, forrgivenees of sin. THe Old Covenant priesthood was perfected in the New Covenant.

Elder by definition is not associated with the role of a priest

.
ELder (Presbyter) is associated with a priest. Read Church History.

Why in Eph 4:10-12 did Jesus not ordain priests as an office for the body? They were clearly excluded because Jesus is the only priest the body needs. We do not need earthly priests to do what Jesus has accomplished.

WHere is priest excluded? The apostles were priests, a pastor is a priest. This was written to Jews who understood the role of the priesthood.

 

[jericho777]

No I said that Hiereus was a general term for a priest that offers sacrifice. Show me a Jewish website where Hiereus is used to denote a Jewish priest. They were only called called kohen. Heireus was used in scripture as a general term for any priest that offers sacrifice.

According to scripture the apostles were Bishops (Episkope) Acts 1:20

.
That is why Hebrews 13:10 tells us Christians had an altar.
Why do you think Christians had an altar which is used for sacrifice?

WHen Christ told the apostles “Do this” at the Last Supper he gave the apostles the power to “Do this”. The power to consecrate. That is the function of a priest. Christ gave the apostles the authority to forgive sins ( John 20:23) That is the function of a priest

In the OT, the structure of the priesthood looked like this:

1. Aaron, high priest
2. Levites, ministerial priests
3. Israel, a nation of priests

We see a similar structure in the NT
.
It is the same sacrifice.

.
The Mass is the same sacrifice which is eternal.
Christ is the Lamb "standing as though slain."Rev 5:6
Rev 13:8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of **the Lamb **slain from the foundation of the world

Why should he have to specify? They all knew that only a priest can offer sacrifice.

Priestly service includes sacrifice, forrgivenees of sin. THe Old Covenant priesthood was perfected in the New Covenant.

.
ELder (Presbyter) is associated with a priest. Read Church History.

WHere is priest excluded? The apostles were priests, a pastor is a priest. This was written to Jews who understood the role of the priesthood.

Hi Third Day
Jews don’t read the NT they speak Hebrew as their religious language just as the CC uses Latin. So I wouldn’t see them using the Greek word for priest. Furthermore Jews don’t even have priests today.

They were both elders and overseers.

The alter in Heb 13:10 is the cross which our Lord was sacrificed upon. Only those in Christ can receive the benefit from that sacrifice.

The Last Supper is the reenactment of Passover. At the Last Supper Christ was identifying Himself with the original sacrifice presented on that first Passover. Just as the first and subsequent did not require a priest to offer the Matzo (bread) and Yayin (wine) neither do we need a priest. Remember this is a sacrifice that could not be offered by no one less than Jesus. There is none Holy enough to offer that sacrifice.

Jesus did not authorize priests as you define them in the NT. See Eph 4:10-12

We are to remember the sacrifice on the cross. We accept that which was already offered.

There is a new priesthood in the NT Jesus is the only priest that believers need. Remember we enter the Holies of Holies in the heavenlies and go to the Throne of Grace boldly only by the Blood of the Lamb. We need no earthly priest to gain that which has been given us by Christ Himself.

Just as Jesus didn’t specify the need for a priest neither did Paul.

In the book to the Hebrews which is written to the Jews it shows how there is no more need for the earthly priesthood because it is superseded by Christ as our heavenly high priest. He is perfect is role and application having offered once for all the perfect sacrifice.

 

[Zenas]

Where in scripture does it say just accept Christ and your sins are forgiven. Don’t you need to confess your sins fro them to be forgiven?

Not necessarily. As I’ve been told, when an unbaptized person enters the Catholic Church he is first baptized and all sins are forgiven without the need for confession. As with most other issues, the Protestants are divided on whether a new Christian must confess his sins. Some say all you have to do is believe; others say you must believe and make a public profession of your faith; still others require belief + public profession + confession of sins.

You asked where it says in scripture that you just accept Christ and your sins are forgiven. Try Acts 16:31: * “They said, ‘Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.’”*Now for people who are already Christians, most would agree that confession is necessary for forgiveness. However, many protestants (indeed the overwhelming majority of evangelicals) believe that when a person is saved, all sins are forgiven—past, present and future. Those people see no compelling need for confession or forgiveness.

To come to that conclusion you have to ignore what Jesus said. " As the Father has sent me, even so I send you."John 20:21
Was Jesus only sent to preach the good news? Wasn’t Jesus sent for the forgivenss of sins? Immediately after saying this Jesus told them “If you forgive the sins of any they are forgiven. If you retain the sins of any they are retained.” The only way they could retain a sin was to be told what the sin was.

I’m just saying.

They did receive a special grace. "And when he said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit.”

I’m just saying.

The context of the verse doesn’t suggest anything like that.

I didn’t say it did.

Paul was not there when Jesus said these words to the eleven apostles yet Paul forgave sins.

Scripture is not 100% clear on this, indeed a lot less clear than it is about Jesus’ gift to the apostles permitting them to proclaim the absolution of sins. If Protestants can side step that one, side stepping Paul’s statement about forgiving someone in the person of Christ would be a cakewalk.

 

[Third_Day]

=jericho777;7611800]Hi Third Day
Jews don’t read the NT they speak Hebrew as their religious language just as the CC uses Latin. So I wouldn’t see them using the Greek word for priest. Furthermore Jews don’t even have priests today.

We’re talking about first century Jews

They were both elders and overseers.

Priests and bishops.

The alter in Heb 13:10 is the cross which our Lord was sacrificed upon. Only those in Christ can receive the benefit from that sacrifice.

That doesn’t make sense.
Hebrews 13:10 “for we have an altar from which those who serve the tabernacle have no right to eat.”
Read the context of Hebrews 13. The writer is clearly contrasting the ceremonial foods eaten by the Jews with the food from the altar of the Christians. Those who continue in the old covenant sacrifice have no right to eat the food from altar, the Euchrist.

The Last Supper is the reenactment of Passover. At the Last Supper Christ was identifying Himself with the original sacrifice presented on that first Passover.

Exactly. Just as the Passover lamb had to be eaten the New Passover Lamb of God must be eaten.

Just as the first and subsequent did not require a priest to offer the Matzo (bread) and Yayin (wine) neither do we need a priest.

But Jesus is a priest according to the order of Melchizedek.

Remember this is a sacrifice that could not be offered by no one less than Jesus. There is none Holy enough to offer that sacrifice.

Jesus told His apostles to “Do this.”

Jesus did not authorize priests as you define them in the NT. See Eph 4:10-12

All the language Jesus uses at the Last Supper is sacrifical language. He tells the apostles to "Do this"just as He had done. He was ordaining them priests.

We are to remember the sacrifice on the cross. We accept that which was already offered.

THe Greek word for rememberance is *anamnesis *which is a sacrificial word

There is a new priesthood in the NT Jesus is the only priest that believers need. Remember we enter the Holies of Holies in the heavenlies and go to the Throne of Grace boldly only by the Blood of the Lamb. We need no earthly priest to gain that which has been given us by Christ Himself.

Hebrews 9:23 " better sacrifices" Plural

The early Church had a priesthood. They offered the sacrifice of the Mass.

 

[Third_Day]

=Zenas;7612235]Not necessarily. As I’ve been told, when an unbaptized person enters the Catholic Church he is first baptized and all sins are forgiven without the need for confession.

That’s because Baptism forgives all sins.“Baptism now saves you.” 1 Peter 3:21

As with most other issues, the Protestants are divided on whether a new Christian must confess his sins. Some say all you have to do is believe; others say you must believe and make a public profession of your faith; still others require belief + public profession + confession of sins.

" IF we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteouness." 1 John 1:9
Notice the IF.

You asked where it says in scripture that you just accept Christ and your sins are forgiven. Try Acts 16:31: * “They said, ‘Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.’*
Notice that they immediately were baptised, the whole household. Where does that verse say your future sins are already forgiven? What if you believe but you backslide and commit adultery. Are you still saved without confessing and asking forgivenss from God?

Now for people who are already Christians, most would agree that confession is necessary for forgiveness. However, many protestants (indeed the overwhelming majority of evangelicals) believe that when a person is saved,all sins are forgiven—past, present and future.

But where is that in scripture? Jesus told the apostles that when they pray say "Our Father who art in heaven…Forgive us our sins.” Luke 11:4
If future sins where already forgiven why would Jesus tell them to ask the Father to forgive their sins?

Those people see no compelling need for confession or forgiveness.
I’m just saying. I’m just saying. I didn’t say it did.

That’s not biblical

Scripture is not 100% clear on this, indeed a lot less clear than it is about Jesus’ gift to the apostles permitting them to proclaim the absolution of sins

.
John 20:23 is very clear as is Matthew 9:8 and the early Church forgave sins through the priesthood. Why did they do that?

If Protestants can side step that one, side stepping Paul’s statement about forgiving someone in the person of Christ would be a cakewalk.

There is no getting around that one

 

[po18guy]

The first thing we have to establish here is that Paul is talking to all Corinthian believers and he is saying that God has reconciled the world to Himself through the sacrifice of His Son Jesus Christ, but not only this. He has also given us a ministry. A ministry of reconciliation. In other words God has made us ambassadors to the world. To tell the world about the reconciliation that Jesus has bought for us on the cross. Pretty neat huh?

Paul was speaking of the Apostles and their appointees being ambassadors, not his audience, and not you or I. Don’t think so? Notice his constant use of “we” and “you” throughout 2 Corinthians 5. An ambassador is an officially appointed representative, given full authority from above. Paul wrote and boasted about the authority given him (and those who travelled with him) by God (2 Corinthians 10:8). Where did you get your authority? Not from the bible, as it is not an authority, but only speaks of authority. So, from where do you get your authority? What Apostolic traditions (2 Thessalonians 2:15) were handed on to you by word of mouth? The answer is none, as non-Apostolic Churches have no Apostolic Traditions, or Apostolic anything.

If you are preaching a gospel in which you need not be reconciled to God for post-baptismal sin, is that not a “different Gospel”? It is different from what Paul preached. He was preaching to already baptized Christians. And you claim that they needed no reconciliation? Paul taught that they did! Your message does not agree with Paul’s.

Our Lord made Apostles and sent them forth with authority. They passed that authority on by the laying on of hands. Once that chain is broken, the authority evaporates, bible or no bible. Then, you get nothing but an increasing number of disagreeing denominations.

Catholics hold fast to the original meaning of Paul’s words, not modern revisions of them.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

That’s nice but it does not complete the fullness of Truth it appears to lack substance of action of a member in the body of Christ, who was given authority by God to engage in a ministry handed to the Church, that deals with the mysteries of God. God gave this ministry of reconciliation and to administer the mysteries of God to the STEWARDS of God.

1Corinthians 4:1
Thus should one regard us: as servants of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God.

God has sent these stewards (apostles not all the Corinthian members of the body) to administer their God given ministry of reconciliation and forgiving of sins;

As Gabriel of 12 has pointed out ambassador doesn’t refer to the everyday Corinthian Christian. Paul is talking about himself and Timothy as ordained ministers.

Paul was speaking of the Apostles and their appointees being ambassadors, not his audience, and not you or I. Don’t think so?

You folks are denying, ignoring, or deliberately wresting the passage in question. Here it is again

2Cor.5
10For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.

I added this v. so that there can be no doubt as to whom Christ is talking. He is talking to everyone who will stand before the judgement seat of God and this does not exclude everyone but Catholic priests.

14For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead:

15And that he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again.

16Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more.

17Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.

18And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and **hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation; **

19To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and **hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation. **

20 Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ’s stead, be ye reconciled to God.

21For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

Paul is talking to those who are alive in Christ v. 15 and that includes all believers.

 

[po18guy]

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.

If those Bishops had no authority, then the bible must be questioned. But, we trust the authority of those Bishops, even in the Presbyterian Church, do we not? Unless you teach a form of scriptural Calvinism, in which certain writings were somehow just destined to be inspired.

 

[po18guy]

You folks are denying, ignoring, or deliberately wresting the passage in question. Here it is again…

Question: Who gave you the authority to interpret scripture? The bible, you say? Well, then we are both correct, aren’t we? Actually, since I currently have 12 bibles, I have 12X authority to interpret, right?

Quoting scripture is meaningless, when you are privately interpreting it. It means anything and everything without proper interpretation.Satan quotes scripture! Is he right? The bible tells us that scripture needs authoritative interpretation. Need the cites?

Who has that authority?

Why did Jesus send forth Apostles to interpret? Why did He open only their minds to the meaning of scripture?

He gave them all authority.

And, it is not “you folks”, unless that term encompasses the 1.2 billion member, 1,978 year old Church which traces directly back to Christ. It does not trace back only to a book (no matter how holy it is).

 

[po18guy]

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.

They could, and did, once our Lord gave them the power and authority to do so. He gave them power over sin. Do you deny this?

 

[jericho777]

We’re talking about first century Jews

Priests and bishops.

That doesn’t make sense.
Hebrews 13:10 “for we have an altar from which those who serve the tabernacle have no right to eat.”
Read the context of Hebrews 13. The writer is clearly contrasting the ceremonial foods eaten by the Jews with the food from the altar of the Christians. Those who continue in the old covenant sacrifice have no right to eat the food from altar, the Euchrist.

Exactly. Just as the Passover lamb had to be eaten the New Passover Lamb of God must be eaten.

But Jesus is a priest according to the order of Melchizedek.

Jesus told His apostles to “Do this.”

All the language Jesus uses at the Last Supper is sacrifical language. He tells the apostles to "Do this"just as He had done. He was ordaining them priests.

THe Greek word for rememberance is *anamnesis *which is a sacrificial word

Hebrews 9:23 " better sacrifices" Plural

The early Church had a priesthood. They offered the sacrifice of the Mass.

First century Jews used Hebrew as their religious language so they would not use Greek.

Jesus was sacrificed on the cross. That makes the cross an alter. Since His sacrifice was once offered then we receive the sacrifice from the alter of cross. As you said those who are not Christians can’t eat the sacrifice from the cross.

At the Passover seder there is no priest necessary to offer the bread and wine is there? We are celebrating the same thing but we recognize Jesus as the sacrifice revealed.

You are correct about Jesus’ priest hood. And he is the only one in that priest hood. He is Melchizedek in the OT. Jesus is sitting at the right hand of the Father because His sacrifice has been already once offered. There is no need to re offer that which has already been offered. So no priest is needed for the Lords’ Supper.

Yes again we must do this in remembrance of Him. Just as the Jews had been doing it without a priest for about a thousand years before.

Remembrance 364. anamnesis (“bring to mind”) – properly, deliberate recollection, done to better appreciate the effects (intended results) of what happened; active, self-prompted recollection especially as a memorial (memorial sacrifice). . We bring to mind that sacrifice that was made. It doesn’t mean to redo it. That sacrifice could only be offered once.

There is no need for sacrifices plural from Christ. Heb 9:25,26 Nor did he enter heaven to offer himself again and again, the way the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood that is not his own. 26so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many;

We do not need an earthly priest because Christ’s priest hood does away with the need to offer any more sacrifices.

 

[po18guy]

At the Passover seder there is no priest necessary to offer the bread and wine is there? We are celebrating the same thing but we recognize Jesus as the sacrifice revealed.

You are not following the Church of the Book of Acts. Bishops and Presbyters (Priests) are in there, if you just look.

You are correct about Jesus’ priest hood. And he is the only one in that priest hood. He is Melchizedek in the OT. Jesus is sitting at the right hand of the Father because His sacrifice has been already once offered. There is no need to re offer that which has already been offered. So no priest is needed for the Lords’ Supper.

It is not “re-offered” Please do not claim this. The one sacrifice for all time is made present to us at the sacrifice of the mass. It is one and the same sacrifice. Please do not confine or compartmentalize the greatest event in human history to the past. He is living. Both Jesus and His sacrifice are made present to us at the mass. It is not a “service”, it is the sacrifice of all time.

Yes again we must do this in remembrance of Him. Just as the Jews had been doing it without a priest for about a thousand years before.

Jesus did not command the Apostles to “remember”, but to “Do this” in remembrance. Do what? “Take, eat, this is My Body”. “Take and drink, all of you, this is the cup of My Blood”. It’s all there in Matthew 26, John 6 and 1 Corinthians 10:16 and 1 Corinthians 11:17-33, if you don’t twist the scriptures.

There is no need for sacrifices plural from Christ. Heb 9:25,26 Nor did he enter heaven to offer himself again and again, the way the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood that is not his own. 26so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many;

Again, there is no plural sacrifice. That is impossible. Catholic mass is the same exact sacrifice. At mass, we are at Calvary. We are in the upper room with Jesus. Really.

We do not need an earthly priest because Christ’s priest hood does away with the need to offer any more sacrifices.

Catholics go by the bible 100%. Bishops and Presbyters (Priests) iare in the early Church, and they remain in the Catholic Church. That’s biblical.

You have this all backward: Do not ask why Catholics have Priests and Bishops (since the Church in Acts did), but ask, rather, why your church does not. Since Christ sent forth Apostles with authority, why does your church not have them? The bible doesn’t say that their power died when they did. Let’s look at the bible: Acts 1:15-26 - the replacement of Judas. His office continued, even when he did not. Now, that’s biblical.