How Should we Explain Colossians 2:13 to a Protestant

  • Thread starter Thread starter C794
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
You don’t come across as harsh. Again, the argument for the authority of the Church is not circular. You may not find it convincing (I would disagree) but it definitely is not circular.

The shortest answer to private interpretation of the Bible is found in the Bible itself in 2 Peter 1:20 - “But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation.” We can ask, if one cannot interpret Scripture individually, then who can? The answer is the Church b/c the Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth (1 Tim 3:15). We also see Christ established a Church (Matt 16:18), a Church to which he gives authority and the power to speak in His name (Luke 10:16). When a member of the 12 dies, we see that his place is not left vacant, but is filled with another (Act 1:26) so we know the Church continues to survive past the death of the last apostle. In fact, Christ promised that His Church would stand forever (Matt 16:18).

All of this is very important because the canon of Scripture (i.e. what books make up the Bible) is entirely based on the authority of the C. Church. We know the Gospels of Judas and Thomas are not the word of God and that the Letter to the Hebrews and Revelation are because the Church was given the power by Christ to determine such things. If the Catholic Church has the power to determine what is Scriptural and what is not, how can she lack the power to interpret Scripture?
First I want to commend you for an amazing explanation, it’s very thought provoking and not one that I will dismiss easily.

However, I must remind you that the words held within your Bible are the same as the words within mine. Therefore Protestants accept that Catholics are a part of the one true Church, but the belief remains that so are we. Pascals wager is almost enough for me to join the CC but my conscience will just not allow it. Basically, if I’m a Catholic I’m safe and if I’m a Protestant I am also safe, because Protestants believe that both are in the same Church. Catholics however reject the belief that Protestants are in the same Church.

It’s not how Catholics interprit Scripture that matters to me, its the tradition that comes after Scripture. (Edited)
 
You could emphasize verse 12 which tells how our sins were taken away through BAPTISM and not by reciting the “Sinner’s Prayer.” Couple that with the verse in 1 Peter 3:21 which says that “baptism saves you.”
Yes, ‘accepting the offer’ is meant to be expressed through our step of faith into Baptism, whereupon initial justification is accomplished. And ALL sins are forgiven.
 
The great Bishop John McEvilly says this…

Verse 13. When they were dead in their actual and original sins as well as in all the evils flowing from original sin, he raised them spiritually, with Christ, and made them desert their former vicious ways, and live to God, “and the uncircumcision of your flesh,” the sign, for the thing signified, the foreskin, for original sin, and the evils following from it.

Verse 14. In this verse, "some Expositors say, there is reference to the abolition of the obligation which every Jew had contracted to observe the law of Moses. Hence, by “handwriting” they understood the liability to observe “the decree,” or Mosaic law. Others, following the Greek reading, which is, τοις δογμασιν decrees, understood it to have the same meaning that it has in the passage to the Ephesians (2:15), “the law of commandments in decrees,” which refers to the abolition of the ceremonies of the Mosaic law, and the substituting of “the decrees,” or precepts of the Christian faith, in their stead. This interpretation, however, does not well accord with the next verse; for, how can it follow from his abolishing the Mosaic ceremonial law, that he was “despoiling principalities,” &c.? (15). Besides, the Mosaic law is never called a “decree;” and if we desert the Vulgate reading, to which the Ethiopic version is conformable, and read, “by decrees,” we must confine it to the Jews; whereas, it is clear that the Apostle refers to all, by saying, “you,” verse 13, “us,” this verse. Hence, the common interpretation is far the more probable, which makes “handwriting” refer to the liability to eternal death pronounced against us by the “decree” of God after the sin of Adam, of which, by an unsearchable judgment of God, we were all made sharers; and this liability or sentence is called “a handwriting,” either because we ourselves, by actual sin, subscribed to the justice of this sentence of punishment, or probably, to signify that it is as certain against us as is the debt against the debtor, whose bond or note of hand is in the possession of the creditors. “Fastening it to the cross;” this refers to the ancient custom of annulling bonds or covenants, by driving a nail through them. Hence, the words may be translated, driving a nail through it by his cross, i.e., by the satisfaction made on the cross. All this, therefore, refers to the atonement which Christ made for the sins of all mankind, by his death on the cross.

Verse 15. These words are very expressive of Christ’s triumph over his prostrate enemies; he first stripped them of the power which they had over mankind, during the time that this sentence of death was hanging over their heads. He afterwards publicly exposed them to derision, dragging them after his triumphal car, or rather driving them before it, as so many trophies of victory. This public exposure of the devils is now made before angels and men, who see it by faith; but it will be evidently seen, on the great day of judgment. The two orders, of "principalities " and “powers,” are put for all the orders of demons. There is but one word in the Greek corresponding with the words “confidently” and “open show,” εν παρρησια. The word, however, bears both the significations, given to it in our English version, after the Vulgate.
 
First I want to commend you for an amazing explanation, it’s very thought provoking and not one that I will dismiss easily.

However, I must remind you that the words held within your Bible are the same as the words within mine. Therefore Protestants accept that Catholics are a part of the one true Church, but the belief remains that so are we. Pascals wager is almost enough for me to join the CC but my conscience will just not allow it. Basically, if I’m a Catholic I’m safe and if I’m a Protestant I am also safe, because Protestants believe that both are in the same Church. Catholics however reject the belief that Protestants are in the same Church.
Thanks for the compliment.
As you know, the Church is the Bride of Christ (Eph 5:25-27). Christ is not a polygamist, therefore there can only be one Church. We agree on that. Do Protestants think they are in the same Church as Catholics? That depends on what Protestants we are talking about. Certain Protestants think the CC is the whore of Babylon and would reject the idea that they are in the same Church as Catholics. Martin Luther himself called the Pope Anti-Christ and believed Catholics to be in a false Church. Other Protestants take your view. This reveals a deeper problem though. What does it mean to be in the same Church? Christ prayed that His followers might all be one as He and the Father are one so that they might be “brought to complete unity” (John 17:22-23). Catholics and Protestants disagree on almost all important matters of doctrine and discipline in the Church. Is this the unity that Christ prayed for? For that matter, Protestants don’t even agree over such basic principals as whether or not you are saved by faith alone, whether baptism is regenerative, or many other essentials. How is this “complete unity?” And we see the expectation of unity in such places as Matt16:18 when Christ gives the Church authority (how can the “one Church” to which Prots and Caths belong exercise any authority?) He also commands us to take a brother who sins to the Church (Matt 18:15) but how can we do this if the “one Church” is both Protestant and Catholic? What if our brother is using contraception and won’t listen to our reproaches? Shall we take him to the “one Prot-Catholic Church”? The Methodists will tell him its a-okay and the Catholics will tell him its a mortal sin, what good is Christ’s command then, it solves nothing?

Further, let’s assume the Catholic Church is wrong. What do we make of her? She makes claims no Protestant church would make. She claims to speak with the very vox Dei and to interpret the scriptures without error. This is either true or incredibly deceitful. She claims to be empowered, through the ministry of her priests, to forgive sins, taking a Divine prerogative as her own. If this isn’t true, it is monstrous. And worse still, she commands her followers to worship, yes give the very worship due to God alone, to what is (if she be wrong) nothing more than common bread (even outside of the Mass). Blasphemous. In the end, the CC is either the sole bride of Christ or is in fact the whore of Babylon. There is no middle ground.
It’s not how Catholics interprit Scripture that matters to me, its the tradition that comes after Scripture. (Edited)
(Edited) No Catholic is required to pray in Latin or to pray to Mary. When we do pray to Mary (something Luther supported BTW) we simply ask her to pray for us in the same way we ask any Christian here on Earth to pray for us. As to repeating the prayer over and over again, there is nothing wrong with that. Would you not meditate on the love of Christ and pray “Jesus I love you with all my heart” over and over again? Christ condemned vain repetition (Matt 6:7) but there is nothing vain about repeating a heart-felt prayer. She was probably praying the Hail Mary, which consists primarily in repeating lines from Scripture.

Finally, ask yourself what right did Luther have to found his own Church? Was there corruption in the CC? Sure, and there still is and there always will be for Christ commanded the tares to be allowed to grow up with the wheat until judgement day (Matt 13:24-30). Does this give Luther the right to found a separate Church? Christ gave his apostles the authority to speak in his name, that authority passed on to their successors (the Catholic bishops) for 15 centuries before Luther (a monk) decided he didn’t have to listen to the Church and founded his own, but how is he different than Arius, or Donatus, or the Cathars who did the same thing before him? How do you include Wesley, Henry VIII, and Calvin in the “one Church” but leave out these men as heretics?

I’ll end with a quote from Hillaire Belloc who said:
HillarieBelloc:
"[t]here is no such thing as a religion called “Christianity” - there never has been such a religion.

“There is and always has been the Church, and various heresies proceeding from a rejection of some of the Church’s doctrines by men who still desire to retain the rest of her teaching and morals. But there never has been and never can be or will be a general Christian religion professed by men who all accept some central important doctrines, while agreeing to differ about others. There has always been from the beginning and will always be the Church, and sundry heresies either doomed to decay, or, like Mohammedanism, to grow into a separate religion. Of a common Christianity there never has been and never can be a definition, for it has never existed.”
God bless!
 
Our Church is centered on the Eucharist. We profess a unified faith (although in diversity of practice; there are 23 sui iuris Catholic Churches in communion with Rome observing different Rites) and we come together around the altar to offer one sacrifice. This sacrifice consists of the real Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ. The validity of the Eucharist is kept alive by an unbroken continuous Apostolic Succession which we can trace back to the Twelve. The Eucharist is the “source and summit of Christian life”. The proof of the Eucharist is right there in your Protestant Bible, John chapter 6. Yet Protestants blatantly deny the truth of this sacrament, holding that it is a mere symbol, or unimportant, and yet, look at Jesus’ own words regarding it!

Now I ask you, how in the world can you have a true Church without the Eucharist? It is true that sometimes Christians have lived in extremis deprived of priests and therefore most of the sacraments, sometimes for long periods, as in the case of Japanese kakure kirishitans. But “the gates of Hell shall not prevail” against her and we are assured to have a hierarchy until the end of the world. Why reject that hierarchy? Why strike out on your own and invent new beliefs and new traditions? You cannot. You must remain faithful to Christ’s foundation, the rock of Peter. Those who have not remained faithful have corrupted the Deposit of Faith and perverted the faithfulness of the Church for their own selfish fleshly concerns. And the irrefutable proof of this is that those ecclesial communities have lost the Eucharist and the ability to confect it.
 
But isn’t this refuted by verse 14 which is acknowledging a past event? 14having canceled the charge of our legal indebtedness, which stood against us and condemned us; he has taken it away, nailing it to the cross.

The nailing it to the cross would have been a past event, therefore wouldn’t it be all future sins after the nailing of sins to the cross? Or would you say that this is only for Christians who lived before Jesus’s death and therefore only the sins they committed before their sins were nailed to the cross have been taken away?

Perhaps this passage no longer applies to us, but rather only to those who lived before Jesus took away their sins? Or maybe it is speaking of all sins after the nailing of the cross, since it does in fact say all sins.
You are hung up on a misunderstanding of the word “all.” Your reading is not the only possible reading nor even the preferrable reading. If our sins are compared to ancredit card statement, Christ pays all the bills we have accumulated. The Protestant position is that he calls the bank and asks them to mail all the statements to his address. Even if Christ only paid off the bills you accumulated to that point in time, you wouldn’t say, “You didn’t really pay off all my bills. What about my future bills?” The word “all” most usually refers to what actually exists at that moment. For example, if I said that Christ nailed all my shoes to the cross, we would understand that Christ nailed only those shoes that I owned and not all the shoes that I would ever acquire.

I am not sure what you are trying to say in your second paragraph.
 
Compare the constant bloody sacrifices of the Jews to the sacrifice made by Christ on the Cross, once and for all. Jesus took away the debt of sin that the Jews were doomed to constantly repay by offering sacrifice through their priests. In the Eucharistic sacrifice, we offer a single, unbloody sacrifice, re-presenting the Passion, Death and Resurrection of Christ who took away all our sins. He replaced the Jewish system of cultic worship with the Christian Church and her sacraments, and granted His apostles the faculties to forgive sins in His name. Therefore, today we have Baptism, Penance, and the Eucharist, where we share in the death and resurrection of Christ and through the ministry of the Church, we gain eternal life.
 
dronald #19
Basically, if I’m a Catholic I’m safe and if I’m a Protestant I am also safe, because Protestants believe that both are in the same Church.
It is worthy of note that the circular reasoning myopia over the historical fact of the establishment of Christ’s Catholic Church, seen from the Sacred Scriptures, and the fact of that Church teaching all that Christ commanded, has been quietly dropped as spurious.

How can Christ’s Church be the same as many thousands of differing sects in Protestantism, when the Catholic Church is that which Christ founded with His Magisterium? The faithful “remained faithful to the teaching of the Apostles, to the brotherhood, to the breaking of bread, and to the prayers.” (Acts 2:42). So, as Jesus commanded, His Church has the Eucharist (Holy Mass), His seven sacraments, the Magisterium in the primacy and infallibility of the Pope, Her Tradition and Her Sacred Scriptures. Where else can you find this?
It’s not how Catholics interprit Scripture that matters to me, its the tradition that comes after Scripture
As the Bible is the creation of the Catholic Church and authorised as the Word of God, so is Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium part of the foundation of Christ’s Church by Him.

As a source of doctrine the Catholic Church has Sacred Tradition, not merely human tradition. This divine Tradition is the teaching of Christ, given orally to the Apostles and handed down in the Church, although not written in the New Testament.
 
Thanks for the compliment.
As you know, the Church is the Bride of Christ (Eph 5:25-27). Christ is not a polygamist, therefore there can only be one Church. We agree on that. Do Protestants think they are in the same Church as Catholics? That depends on what Protestants we are talking about. Certain Protestants think the CC is the whore of Babylon and would reject the idea that they are in the same Church as Catholics. Martin Luther himself called the Pope Anti-Christ and believed Catholics to be in a false Church. Other Protestants take your view. This reveals a deeper problem though. What does it mean to be in the same Church? Christ prayed that His followers might all be one as He and the Father are one so that they might be “brought to complete unity” (John 17:22-23). Catholics and Protestants disagree on almost all important matters of doctrine and discipline in the Church. Is this the unity that Christ prayed for? For that matter, Protestants don’t even agree over such basic principals as whether or not you are saved by faith alone, whether baptism is regenerative, or many other essentials. How is this “complete unity?” And we see the expectation of unity in such places as Matt16:18 when Christ gives the Church authority (how can the “one Church” to which Prots and Caths belong exercise any authority?) He also commands us to take a brother who sins to the Church (Matt 18:15) but how can we do this if the “one Church” is both Protestant and Catholic? What if our brother is using contraception and won’t listen to our reproaches? Shall we take him to the “one Prot-Catholic Church”? The Methodists will tell him its a-okay and the Catholics will tell him its a mortal sin, what good is Christ’s command then, it solves nothing?
Protestant’s are the bride just like those in the CC. Those who come to Christ shall never hunger, those who believe in Him shall never thirst. The Church are the believers gathered in His name, Catholic or not.

The Church are those dying in Pakistan spreading the love of Christ to all. The Church are those feeding the homeless in their own cities teaching the less fortunate about Christ. The Church are those handing out Gospels of John to passer by’s and opening up discussions on Jesus Christ. That’s the Church I’m in, and I know you don’t believe it, but that’s the Church that you’re in too!

Unity is found in all those who accept Christ’s divinity. I reject abortion as do you, and some Protestant’s may think that it’s okay but that doesn’t mean they do not have Christ in them. They are misguided on one belief within Christianity and it’s up to us to lead them to the truth, but if they never find it, it does not mean that the love of Christ and His Church does not abide in them.
Further, let’s assume the Catholic Church is wrong. What do we make of her? She makes claims no Protestant church would make. She claims to speak with the very vox Dei and to interpret the scriptures without error. This is either true or incredibly deceitful. She claims to be empowered, through the ministry of her priests, to forgive sins, taking a Divine prerogative as her own. If this isn’t true, it is monstrous. And worse still, she commands her followers to worship, yes give the very worship due to God alone, to what is (if she be wrong) nothing more than common bread (even outside of the Mass). Blasphemous. In the end, the CC is either the sole bride of Christ or is in fact the whore of Babylon. There is no middle ground.
I accept that you accept the CC is infallible in their interpretation of Scripture. What I will say is that Catholic’s accept Christ’s divinity, they believe He is the Son of God who died and rose again for our sins, therefore they are apart of Christ’s one true Church.
(Edited) No Catholic is required to pray in Latin or to pray to Mary. When we do pray to Mary (something Luther supported BTW) we simply ask her to pray for us in the same way we ask any Christian here on Earth to pray for us. As to repeating the prayer over and over again, there is nothing wrong with that. Would you not meditate on the love of Christ and pray “Jesus I love you with all my heart” over and over again? Christ condemned vain repetition (Matt 6:7) but there is nothing vain about repeating a heart-felt prayer. She was probably praying the Hail Mary, which consists primarily in repeating lines from Scripture.
You say that you simply ask her to pray in the same way we ask another Christian to pray for us, but is that true? Is it right for me to kneel before my friend, hands folded repeating; “Steven, pray for me a sinner” multiple times? What if it was a statue of my friend?
Finally, ask yourself what right did Luther have to found his own Church? Was there corruption in the CC? Sure, and there still is and there always will be for Christ commanded the tares to be allowed to grow up with the wheat until judgement day (Matt 13:24-30). Does this give Luther the right to found a separate Church? Christ gave his apostles the authority to speak in his name, that authority passed on to their successors (the Catholic bishops) for 15 centuries before Luther (a monk) decided he didn’t have to listen to the Church and founded his own, but how is he different than Arius, or Donatus, or the Cathars who did the same thing before him? How do you include Wesley, Henry VIII, and Calvin in the “one Church” but leave out these men as heretics?
It all comes down to the Divinity of Christ. If my Church begins teaching false doctrines I will leave it instantly, just as Luther felt the CC was doing.
 
You are hung up on a misunderstanding of the word “all.” Your reading is not the only possible reading nor even the preferrable reading. If our sins are compared to ancredit card statement, Christ pays all the bills we have accumulated. The Protestant position is that he calls the bank and asks them to mail all the statements to his address. Even if Christ only paid off the bills you accumulated to that point in time, you wouldn’t say, “You didn’t really pay off all my bills. What about my future bills?” The word “all” most usually refers to what actually exists at that moment. For example, if I said that Christ nailed all my shoes to the cross, we would understand that Christ nailed only those shoes that I owned and not all the shoes that I would ever acquire.
I disagree my friend.
 
Compare the constant bloody sacrifices of the Jews to the sacrifice made by Christ on the Cross, once and for all. Jesus took away the debt of sin that the Jews were doomed to constantly repay by offering sacrifice through their priests. In the Eucharistic sacrifice, we offer a single, unbloody sacrifice, re-presenting the Passion, Death and Resurrection of Christ who took away all our sins. He replaced the Jewish system of cultic worship with the Christian Church and her sacraments, and granted His apostles the faculties to forgive sins in His name. Therefore, today we have Baptism, Penance, and the Eucharist, where we share in the death and resurrection of Christ and through the ministry of the Church, we gain eternal life.
But aren’t Catholic’s “doomed” to repeat the same rituals over and over just like the Jews were? However, now the rituals have changed. Can we not be sure that all rituals were replaced by the blood of Jesus?
 
But aren’t Catholic’s “doomed” to repeat the same rituals over and over just like the Jews were? However, now the rituals have changed. Can we not be sure that all rituals were replaced by the blood of Jesus?
Protestants have rituals too!
 
It all comes down to the Divinity of Christ. If my Church begins teaching false doctrines I will leave it instantly, just as Luther felt the CC was doing.
My friend, you’ve made yourself the authority over and above the Church (however you want to define it). Look to the Gospel’s, did Christ give YOU the authority to bind and loose (cf Matt 16:19)? Did St. Paul tell us that the individual believer is the “pillar and foundation of the Truth?”( 1 Tim 3:15)? Who gives you the authority to declare the Divinity of Christ to be the one essential doctrine? Did you (or any Prot. denom) declare this doctrine at Nicea? My brother, you’ve essentially made yourself your own personal Pope, deciding what is an isn’t authentic Christianity. Is that something you are comfortable with? God bless you.
 
My friend, you’ve made yourself the authority over and above the Church (however you want to define it). Look to the Gospel’s, did Christ give YOU the authority to bind and loose (cf Matt 16:19)? Did St. Paul tell us that the individual believer is the “pillar and foundation of the Truth?”( 1 Tim 3:15)? Who gives you the authority to declare the Divinity of Christ to be the one essential doctrine? Did you (or any Prot. denom) declare this doctrine at Nicea? My brother, you’ve essentially made yourself your own personal Pope, deciding what is an isn’t authentic Christianity. Is that something you are comfortable with? God bless you.
Believing in the Divinity of Christ and Faith in Him is a doctrine we both agree on. How can you say I’m making myself a Pope by claiming a belief that Catholic’s hold fast to as well?
 
Believing in the Divinity of Christ and Faith in Him is a doctrine we both agree on. How can you say I’m making myself a Pope by claiming a belief that Catholic’s hold fast to as well?
  1. You make yourself the pope when you sit in judgement on the Church (however we define it), instead of being judged by the Church. You say you would leave a church that teaches heresy. Thus, you see yourself deciding whether or not a teaching is true, you see yourself as the pillar and foundation of the truth. That isn’t how Christ established things.
  2. The Church (the pillar and foundation of truth according to St Paul) cannot be the sum total of all believers regardless of denomination, for then the church would be teaching error and if the church teaches error it is not the pillar and foundation of the truth. Take baptism. Can we baptize infants? Suppose we disagree and decide to settle things by taking the issue to the Church (the pillar of the truth) as suggested in the gospel (cf Matt 18:15). With my ecclesiology, this is possible. We go to the Catholic Church, she tells us we can baptize an infant. The matter is settled. With your ecclesiology, this is impossible. We go to the Catholic Church (part of the Church in your view) and the Church says infant baptism is fine. We go to a Southern Baptist church (also part of the one Church in your view) and the Church contradicts herself by saying no to infant baptism. Does this seem like the pillar and foundation of the truth to you?
  3. The Divinity of Christ only seems like an easy standard because the Catholic Church fought off many heresies in the early Church over Christ’s full divinity. If the Catholic Church doesn’t have the authority to define heresies, whose to say Arius wasn’t right? Or the monophysites, or the modalists, or the gnostics, etc etc etc
  4. How can you trust the New Testament canon, if you distrust the authority that defined the canon (ie the Catholic Church)?
 
I disagree my friend.
Is there a rational ground for your disagreement? My interpretation is certianly a possible one and so it is not enough to propose another interpretation. We must also evaluate which is the correct intepretation. There is another point which I did not press in my previous post but I think it makes the position given by you and in the OP problematic, viz., St. Paul does not say that Christ has forgiven you “all your sins” but “all sins.” From this, read in conjunction with the following verse, it seems that the force of the word “all” is not the totality of the believer’s own sins, but to the extent of Christ’s forgiveness which is to all manner of sin. After all, the point of v. 14 is that Christ nailed all the charges of the law to the cross. After all, the sense of this is how God pleased to reconcile all things to himself through Christ (Col. 1:19). “All sins” therefore is in reference to the scope of the law and not to the scope of the Christian’s particular individual shortcomings.

Because Christ’s redemptive work extends to all humanity (or at least to all the elect according to the Reformed view) the verse preceding it ought to be read according to the the universality of that redemption. St. Paul speaks about how this universal redemption is applied to us as individuals (“in whom also ye are circumcised…”) but this is all in the context of the universal atonement. The transition is made in v. 13, after speaking of the nature of our circumcision, lays out the basis of it: “having [done this]… having [done that].” Since the phrase “all sins” occurs in the clause “having forgiven us all sins,” it seems that “all” should be taken not with regard to baptism but to the universal atonement, which occured at Calvary two thousand years ago.

What is the significance of this? If “all sins” means “all our personal sins past, present and future,” then that means that they were forgiven 2,000 years ago. What is the significance of this? If this is the true intention of the passage, then the justified are born justified! There is no need for salvation in the life of the elect. They are saved before they are born, and so the term “born again” has no significance. They are born again before they are ever born. Forget about the immaculate conception. All the elect are immaculately conceived! Is this an acceptable position? If not, then I do not think “all” can be taken in the “past, present, future” sense because this is the implication of that reading.

I would like you also to explain 2 Peter 1:9, which states, “But he that lacketh these things is blind, and cannot see afar off, and hath forgotten that he was purged from his old sins.” Why does St. Peter speak only of “old sins” if he means to include future sins as well?
 
But aren’t Catholic’s “doomed” to repeat the same rituals over and over just like the Jews were? However, now the rituals have changed. Can we not be sure that all rituals were replaced by the blood of Jesus?
Luke 18:13 - The tax collector kept beating his breast and praying “God be merciful to me, a sinner.” This repetitive prayer was pleasing to God.

Luke 22:19 - Jesus asks for a repetitive ritual (Eucharistic thanksgiving) to be performed in commemoration of Him.

Rev. 4:8 - The angels pray day and night without cessation the same words “Holy, Holy, Holy is the Lord God Almighty.” This is repetitious prayer that is pleasing to God.
 
Was this person trying to claim that we need not confess sins, since our Lord had already done all of that for us? Ask them to explain why Paul forgave sins in the person of Christ (2 Corinthians 2:10 KJV), and why Paul had a ministry of reconciliation (2 Corinthians 5:16-21) with God. Paul was writing to those already converted - that’s why it was a letter. Sounds to me like there was still some payment due for sin. Ask them to explain why the Apostle James admonishes us to “confess our sins to each other” (James 5:16) if our sins are somehow gone. It sounds like what you are confronting is “Me and Jesus” Kindergarten theology. In Christian history, it is very recently invented, and very shallow. CAF founder Karl Keating covers all of this in his book Catholicism and Fundamentalism.
.
For that matter, ask them to explain the words of Jesus to his apostles right after he rose from the dead: (John 20:20-23) “whose sins you forgive are forgiven them. Whose sins you retain are retained.”

Ishii
 
For that matter, ask them to explain the words of Jesus to his apostles right after he rose from the dead: (John 20:20-23) “whose sins you forgive are forgiven them. Whose sins you retain are retained.”
From the Council of Trent.

“If any one saith, that those words of the Lord the Saviour, Receive ye the Holy Ghost, whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them, and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained, are not to be understood of the power of forgiving and of retaining sins in the Sacrament of penance, as the Catholic Church has always from the beginning understood them; but wrests them, contrary to the institution of this sacrament, to the power of preaching the gospel; let him be anathema.”

😉
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top