Indulgences, Do they contridict grace?

[unacanta]

Vincent, since you seem to be knowledgable here, hopefull you can help me work through the following. It is in the Fourth Chapter of the Apostolic Constitution Of Pope Paul. Of course anyone else is welcome to join in.

10. Likewise, the religious practice of indulgences reawakens trust and hope in a full reconciliation with God the Father, but in such a way as will not justify any negligence nor in any way diminish the effort to acquire the dispositions required for full communion with God. Although indulgences are in fact free gifts, nevertheless they are granted for the living as well as for the dead only on determined conditions. To acquire them, it is indeed required on the one hand that prescribed works be performed, and on the other that the faithful have the necessary dispositions, that is to say, that they love God, detest sin, place their trust in the merits of Christ and believe firmly in the great assistance they derive from the Communion of Saints.

We are completely reconciled by Christ’ death. Now, can an indulgence with Christ merits, remember also the merits of Mary and the saints are mixed in, or at least to my understanding, can the indulgence add something to the assurance that Christ’s death alone is sufficient to reconcile me ot the Father? (Rom5:10-11)

Again, from what I read and see, the addition of human action or merit (Mary and the saints were human) is a doctrine taught by the Magisterium of the Church. You think that human action is not involved? Observe the following:

n. 7—To acquire a plenary indulgence it is necessary to perform the work to which the indulgence is attached and to fulfill three conditions: sacramental confession, Eucharistic Communion and prayer for the intentions of the Supreme Pontiff. It is further required that all attachment to sin, even to venial sin, be absent.

Also in the part of this post:

it is indeed required on the one hand that prescribed works be performed

The prescribed works are done only, and the necessary to perform the work is only done by us…the humans.

I have a long ways in understanding all of this in light of what scripture reveals. I know I am just an old “Wyoming Cow Poke”, but under the skies full of stars and around the camp fire, we still believe Sola Scripture…

 

[MarcoPolo]

So again I say, why do we need Paul, Mary or any other Saint to suffer for us when Christ’s suffering which was for our atonment for sin was sufficient?

Because their suffering IS a participation in Christ’s suffering (Rm 8:17, Phil 3:10, etc…). You know, through Him, with Him, etc… You can’t separate it as “Mary’s suffering” vs. “Christ’s suffering.” The question doesn’t make sense.

And Paul clearly states that his suffering in Christ is for others (2 Cor 1:6-7).

And the same reason why the servant “needed” the centurian to intercede for him (Mt. 8:5-13).

There are a multitude of examples in Scripture where person A benefits from the faith of person B. We are members of the same Body. That Body is Christ. Indulgences are a grace in this vein. And they hardly are in opposition to grace, but in harmony with grace. Now you know.

 

[unacanta]

Because their suffering IS a participation in Christ’s suffering (Rm 8:17, Phil 3:10, etc…). You know, through Him, with Him, etc… You can’t separate it as “Mary’s suffering” vs. “Christ’s suffering.” The question doesn’t make sense.

And Paul clearly states that his suffering in Christ is for others (2 Cor 1:6-7).

And the same reason why the servant “needed” the centurian to intercede for him (Mt. 8:5-13).

There are a multitude of examples in Scripture where person A benefits from the faith of person B. We are members of the same Body. That Body is Christ. Indulgences are a grace in this vein. And they hardly are in opposition to grace, but in harmony with grace. Now you know.

Because their suffering IS a participation in Christ’s suffering (Rm 8:17, Phil 3:10, etc…). You know, through Him, with Him, etc… You can’t separate it as “Mary’s suffering” vs. “Christ’s suffering.” The question doesn’t make sense.

And Paul clearly states that his suffering in Christ is for others (2 Cor 1:6-7).

And the same reason why the servant “needed” the centurian to intercede for him (Mt. 8:5-13).

There are a multitude of examples in Scripture where person A benefits from the faith of person B. We are members of the same Body. That Body is Christ. Indulgences are a grace in this vein. And they hardly are in opposition to grace, but in harmony with grace. Now you know.

I would not dispute that we can and do benefit from the faith of a person. In fact his suffering help birth a new Church and we who are Gentiles place our faith in Him whom he preached.

What I fail to see and I will try to bring us back on topic is why you would say “Indulgences are a grace in this vein”

I am quoting from the Apostolic Constitution Of Pope Paul VI

n. 7—To acquire a plenary indulgence it is necessary to perform the work to which the indulgence is attached and to fulfill three conditions: sacramental confession, Eucharistic Communion and prayer for the intentions of the Supreme Pontiff. It is further required that all attachment to sin, even to venial sin, be absent.

If this disposition is in any way less than complete, or if the prescribed three conditions are not fulfilled, the indulgence will be only partial, except for the provisions contained in n.11 for those who are “impeded.”

n. 8—The three conditions may be fulfilled several days before or after the performance of the prescribed work; nevertheless it is fitting that Communion be received and the prayers for the intentions of the Supreme Pontiff be said the same day the work is performed.

As you can see from the underlined portions of the text, the Indulgences requires we who are receiving it to “work”. It is a far cry from grace.

Now, from Scripture:

Titus 3:5
He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit,

Rom1:4 Now to the one who works, his wage is not credited as a favor, but as what is due.

Scripture says we are not saved by our deeds, nor are they even credited to us, since what ever we have done was due anyway. So the granting of the indulgences is mute. What ever good deed I am led to do by the Holy Spirt are the works he prepared for me at foundation of the world.

Ephesians 2:10
For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them.

Anyway,
Blessings
Len

 

[ryanoneil]

John 20:22-23 And when He had said this, He breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, their sins have been forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they have been retained.”

Matt.18:18 Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.

Isn’t it fair to say the power to remit/retain sin is also the power to remit/retain punishment due to sin?

If Christ’s ministers can forgive the eternal penalty of sin, don’t they also remit the temporal penalty of sin? (which is called an “indulgence”).

 

[MarcoPolo]

Let’s look at the Scripture you use to deny the efficacy of indulgences or works done by the faithful:

Titus 3:5
He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit,

That’s right, without Christ no one can be saved…outside of Him, our works do not merit us salvation. Nothing confusing here. It also says we must be baptized, i.e. “washing” and receiving the Holy Spirit (cf. Acts 2:28).

Rom1:4 Now to the one who works, his wage is not credited as a favor, but as what is due.

I think you mean Rom 4:4. I’m fairly sure I told you in another thread (I apologize if that wasn’t you) that often when Paul speaks of work in Romans, he is assuring the Romans that the works of the Old Covenant Law are not necessary for the Gentile Romans to attain salvation. You can see the difference clearly in Romans 2:6-10 when Paul assures us we will be judged by our works…good works merit eternal life. You must read Romans in context. Of course these good works must be done in the boundaries of grace, such as charity, or patience, or yes, even indulgences which I demonstrated in Scripture in my last post. Not works of the OT, like getting circumcised. See also works done in “grace” in Acts 11:23,2 Cor 8:5-7, etc…

Without grace, what we do, including indulgences merit nothing. With it, there is merit, as shown above.

Scripture says we are not saved by our deeds, nor are they even credited to us, since what ever we have done was due anyway.

And we now know that’s certainly not true from my last paragraph.

Too much of Scripture must be discarded in order to believe indulgences contradict grace.

 

[unacanta]

Let’s look at the Scripture you use to deny the efficacy of indulgences or works done by the faithful:
That’s right, without Christ no one can be saved…outside of Him, our works do not merit us salvation. Nothing confusing here.

Titus 3:5 specifically states “He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness” Deeds done out of righteousness of course would not be considered in any equation. By your own words you state, “our works do not merit us salvation”, are we to assume that you agree then that we are not saved by deeds done in righteousness or unrighteousness?

It also says we must be baptized, i.e. “washing” and receiving the Holy Spirit (cf. Acts 2:28).

You seem to indicate with the quotation of this passage all believers must be Baptized in order to attain salvation, true? I fail to see how this applies to an Indulgent offered to an applicant, for if our sins are forgiven by baptism than why would there be need of anything else. The problem lies in the fact, RCC doctrine seems to indicate sin after baptism needs to be atoned by some other way than the finished works of Christ on the cross…

I think you mean Rom 4:4. I’m fairly sure I told you in another thread (I apologize if that wasn’t you) that often when Paul speaks of work in Romans, he is assuring the Romans that the works of the Old Covenant Law are not necessary for the Gentile Romans to attain salvation. You can see the difference clearly in Romans 2:6-10 when Paul assures us we will be judged by our works…good works merit eternal life. You must read Romans in context.

Thank you for the correction, yes, it is Rom 4:4. Slip of the finger

First problem when you quote NIV from Biblegateway.com. is we have no indication Paul was quoting Old Testament Scripture.
Observe the passage from the NASB
Rom2: 6 who WILL RENDER TO EACH PERSON ACCORDING TO HIS DEEDS:
Notice the words are in uppercase. This denotes Paul is quoting from the Old Testament.

Prov 24:12 If you say, "See, we did not know this,"Does He not consider it who weighs the hearts? And does He not know it who keeps your soul? And will He not render to man according to his work?
The Proverb is of course speaking of works within the Mosaic Law, there was no other at the time of its revelation. So, men were indeed judged by their deeds.

Upon closer inspection of the passage reveals “WILL RENDER TO EACH PERSON ACCORDING TO HIS DEEDS”. Paul is addressing an issue of judging one another. It is because of our “stubbornness and unrepentant heart” we store up wrath for ourselves. If we do have rendered to each person according to their deeds, then the deeds must be apart from Christ. Paul knew full well of Jesus’ words in which were spoken of by John in the 5th chapter 24th verse:

24"Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.

We have the words spoken by Christ assuring us in this passage that He will not “RENDER TO EACH PERSON ACCORDING TO HIS DEEDS” but rather it is a matter of believing “Him who sent Me”
1.We now have assurance by Tit 3:5 that we are not saved by our deeds done in righteousness.
2.When Paul says that the person with the stubborn and unrepentant heart will be judged according to his deeds in verse 5 of Romans 2, he is refering to an unbeliever.
3.Words of Christ assure us in John 5:24 that by believing in Him whom sent Christ we will not come into judgment.

Of course these good works must be done in the boundaries of grace, such as charity, or patience, or yes, even indulgences which I demonstrated in Scripture in my last post. Not works of the OT, like getting circumcised. See also works done in “grace” in Acts 11:23,2 Cor 8:5-7, etc…

Coming back to this point, I must remind the reader that if the most precious Law given to Moses by the Lord can not save us, then how can any other means be possible accept by the blood of Christ.

Without grace, what we do, including indulgences merit nothing. With it, there is merit, as shown above.

And we now know that’s certainly not true from my last paragraph.

Too much of Scripture must be discarded in order to believe indulgences contradict grace.

Fact is too much scripture has been discard trying to prop up Indulgences

 

[unacanta]

John 20:22-23 And when He had said this, He breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, their sins have been forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they have been retained.”

Matt.18:18 Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.

Isn’t it fair to say the power to remit/retain sin is also the power to remit/retain punishment due to sin?

If Christ’s ministers can forgive the eternal penalty of sin, don’t they also remit the temporal penalty of sin? (which is called an “indulgence”).

I would say that it would never be fair to not remit a sin nor its punishment excluding the sin of blasphemy of the Holy Spirit and that should and can only be judged by Him. Sin is the very reason which Christ died on the cross.

1 John 1:9
If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

Notice the confession is to God, not man.

James 5:16
Therefore, confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another so that you may be healed Notice the confession is to man to be healed not forgiven of sin.

I do encourage you to come back on topic with us, your opinion is most valued.

Blessings,
Len

 

[Nicholas_II]

Notice the confession is to God, not man.

James 5:16
Therefore, confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another so that you may be healed Notice the confession is to man to be healed not forgiven of sin.

Blessings,
Len

With that Len you show your ignorance of the Catholic belief.

Anyway, I would just say about this thread that Tertullian is right. This debate comes down the validity or otherwise of Penal Substitutionary Atonement. A false gospel. I encourage all catholics to read Tertullians posts and learn their way out of this the greatest of all traps. Seemingly pious but piting the father against the son and saying God changed his mind without us changing, and finally that Christ became sin and was momentary reprobated for us by God.

best regards
Nicholas

 

[ryanoneil]

I would say that it would never be fair to not remit a sin nor its punishment excluding the sin of blasphemy of the Holy Spirit and that should and can only be judged by Him. Sin is the very reason which Christ died on the cross.

1 John 1:9
If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

Notice the confession is to God, not man.

James 5:16
Therefore, confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another so that you may be healed Notice the confession is to man to be healed not forgiven of sin.

I do encourage you to come back on topic with us, your opinion is most valued.

Blessings,
Len

James 5:14-15 Is anyone among you sick? He should summon the presbyters of the church, and they should pray over him and anoint him with oil in the name of the Lord, and the prayer of faith will save the sick person, and the Lord will raise him up. If he has committed any sins, he will be forgiven.

I think we may all be talking past one another. 1 Tim. 2:5 - Christ is the only mediator, but He was free to decide how His mediation would be applied to us. The Lord chose to use priests of God to carry out His work of forgiveness.

Lev. 5:4-6; 19:21-22 - even under the Old Covenant, God used priests to forgive and atone for the sins of others.

2 Cor. 5:18 - In the New Covenant the ministry of reconciliation was given to the ambassadors of the Church. This ministry of reconciliation refers to the sacrament of reconciliation, also called the sacrament of confession or penance.

Peace,

Ryan

 

[MarcoPolo]

Coming back to this point, I must remind the reader that if the most precious Law given to Moses by the Lord can not save us, then how can any other means be possible accept by the blood of Christ.

Regarding your very long post which did just what I said (ignore too much of Scripture instead of taking it all, like our call to participate in the Cross, or Scripture that clearly states we are judged by works in Him), I already addressed the value of works outside of Christ. They have no merit. I’m not going over that again for the third time. Our works, outside of Christ merit nothing. In Him, they do. Without the cross, we have no salvation. Again I ask you to stop creating straw men out of Catholic teaching that we deny the sufficiency of the cross. Stop saying that we think it is OUR doing apart from Christ that has merit.

Fact is too much scripture has been discard trying to prop up Indulgences

That sentence sounds awfully familiar. Imitation is the finest form of flattery.

 

[unacanta]

Regarding your very long post which did just what I said (ignore too much of Scripture instead of taking it all, like our call to participate in the Cross, or Scripture that clearly states we are judged by works in Him), I already addressed the value of works outside of Christ. They have no merit. I’m not going over that again for the third time. Our works, outside of Christ merit nothing. In Him, they do. Without the cross, we have no salvation. Again I ask you to stop creating straw men out of Catholic teaching that we deny the sufficiency of the cross. Stop saying that we think it is OUR doing apart from Christ that has merit.

That sentence sounds awfully familiar. Imitation is the finest form of flattery.

I actually appreciate your comments. He,he,he,…guess I have not found the scripture where it says To love is of God, to irriatate is devine. I’ll do a check on it.

Concerning your scriptures, it is true you have given some scriptures, I have tried to address each scripture within the confines of the editor. It does limit our responses by so many words (which is actually a good thing). My responses continually demonstrate RCC straw leg which they try to prop up their teaching on Indulgences.

Now for example, I will re-post this again since it seems to have been ignored.

I am quoting from the Apostolic Constitution Of Pope Paul VI

n. 7—To acquire a plenary indulgence it is necessary to perform the work to which the indulgence is attached and to fulfill three conditions: sacramental confession, Eucharistic Communion and prayer for the intentions of the Supreme Pontiff. It is further required that all attachment to sin, even to venial sin, be absent.

If this disposition is in any way less than complete, or if the prescribed three conditions are not fulfilled, the indulgence will be only partial, except for the provisions contained in n.11 for those who are “impeded.”

n. 8—The three conditions may be fulfilled several days before or after the performance of the prescribed work; nevertheless it is fitting that Communion be received and the prayers for the intentions of the Supreme Pontiff be said the same day the work is performed.

As you can see from the underlined portions of the text, the Indulgences require we who are receiving the Indulgence to “work”. Not only do we have prescribed works which we must do, but if they are not done complete manner, well the indulgent is only partially effective. This is a far cry from grace which is taught by scripture. The RCC teaching Magistrate upholds and teaches the doctrines of works within the Indulgence teaching.

The scriptures I have provided illustrate the futility of men trying to “do”, when they should be “believing”.

LOL, not irrated in Wyoming

 

[MarcoPolo]

As you can see from the underlined portions of the text, the Indulgences require we who are receiving the Indulgence to “work”.

I’m confident I explained those “underlined portions” already.
Hope I didn’t irritate if that’s what you meant. I’m working on the whole humility/charity thing still…

This whole thing seems to me a bit of irony…for it isn’t the Catholic who denies the meaning of the Cross. Because it is the Catholic who is true to participating in the Cross, of dying to himself…it is the true Catholic who opens himself to the all-sufficient work of the Cross and cooperates with it, and lets the Cross work through him. Ironically, it seems to me that those who criticize Catholics working in this way are the ones who truly deny the work of the Cross. :whacky:

 

[unacanta]

I’m confident I explained those “underlined portions” already.
Hope I didn’t irritate if that’s what you meant. I’m working on the whole humility/charity thing still…

This whole thing seems to me a bit of irony…for it isn’t the Catholic who denies the meaning of the Cross. Because it is the Catholic who is true to participating in the Cross, of dying to himself…it is the true Catholic who opens himself to the all-sufficient work of the Cross and cooperates with it, and lets the Cross work through him. Ironically, it seems to me that those who criticize Catholics working in this way are the ones who truly deny the work of the Cross. :whacky:

All that you say maybe true, but considering the teachings by the RCC Magistrate Authority on Indulgences what you state and what is taught are two different things. Hmmmm, considering the past and what we have today, at least those whom question now are not burned LOL. I consider that a giant step forward out of the dark ages into our century. Of course viewing the bloody trail, left by both sides, we are indeed lucky we can have our discussion.

Blessings,
Len

 

[unacanta]

James 5:14-15 Is anyone among you sick? He should summon the presbyters of the church, and they should pray over him and anoint him with oil in the name of the Lord, and the prayer of faith will save the sick person, and the Lord will raise him up. If he has committed any sins, he will be forgiven.

I think we may all be talking past one another. 1 Tim. 2:5 - Christ is the only mediator, but He was free to decide how His mediation would be applied to us. The Lord chose to use priests of God to carry out His work of forgiveness.

Lev. 5:4-6; 19:21-22 - even under the Old Covenant, God used priests to forgive and atone for the sins of others.

2 Cor. 5:18 - In the New Covenant the ministry of reconciliation was given to the ambassadors of the Church. This ministry of reconciliation refers to the sacrament of reconciliation, also called the sacrament of confession or penance.

Peace,

Ryan

Thanks for your post Ryan. I am forever grateful that we are out of the Old Covenat and living under a new one purchased by our Lord where it is no longer necessary to have access to God through priest. We are now able to enjoy a relationship with our Father through the one and only mediator His Son.

Concerning 2Cor5:18 we must read the scripture before and after.

**17Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come.

18Now all these things are from God, who reconciled us to Himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation,

19namely, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and He has committed to us the word of reconciliation**.

** 20Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were making an appeal through us; we beg you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.

21He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him. **

As new creatures we have been reconciled through Christ unto God. The ministry of reconciliation is namely this; it was God in Christ reconciling the world. We have been given the word of this reconciliation to bring to the world lost it its sins. There is nothing in these scriptures which hint at ***“sacrament of reconciliation ***, also called the sacrament of confession or penance.” Furthermore, in VS 20 &21 it is we (not the sacrament) in which God is making the appeal on behalf of Christ! Since we are now the righteousness of God through Christ, we must review critically at any teaching which would tempt us to believe that we can obtain righteousness by works within the Indulgent doctrine.

If you but look at these scriptures you find quite the opposite of your statement. You find it is God reconciling the World through His Son Christ, not a sacrament but rather a sacrifice by Him. I would not dispute that there may be scriptures which are taught by the Teaching Magisterial which hint or directly state there is a confession or penance, however it would not be these

Blessings,
Len

 

[unacanta]

With that Len you show your ignorance of the Catholic belief.

Anyway, I would just say about this thread that Tertullian is right. This debate comes down the validity or otherwise of Penal Substitutionary Atonement. A false gospel. I encourage all catholics to read Tertullians posts and learn their way out of this the greatest of all traps. Seemingly pious but piting the father against the son and saying God changed his mind without us changing, and finally that Christ became sin and was momentary reprobated for us by God.

best regards
Nicholas

That is why I am here so that I might learn what RCC doctrine really is and be not quite so ignorant. Perhaps you should start a discussion concerning Penal Substitutionary Atonement and start a new thread concerning it.

BTW…
2Cor5:21
He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.

He made Him…to be sin on our behalf.

Sounds like he was made sin to me…but please, do tell.

Blessings,
Len

 

[ryanoneil]

Thanks for your post Ryan. I am forever grateful that we are out of the Old Covenat and living under a new one purchased by our Lord where it is no longer necessary to have access to God through priest. We are now able to enjoy a relationship with our Father through the one and only mediator His Son.

Concerning 2Cor5:18 we must read the scripture before and after.

**17Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come.

18Now all these things are from God, who reconciled us to Himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation,

19namely, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and He has committed to us the word of reconciliation**.

** 20Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were making an appeal through us; we beg you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.

21He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him. **

As new creatures we have been reconciled through Christ unto God. The ministry of reconciliation is namely this; it was God in Christ reconciling the world. We have been given the word of this reconciliation to bring to the world lost it its sins. There is nothing in these scriptures which hint at ***“sacrament of reconciliation ***, also called the sacrament of confession or penance.” Furthermore, in VS 20 &21 it is we (not the sacrament) in which God is making the appeal on behalf of Christ! Since we are now the righteousness of God through Christ, we must review critically at any teaching which would tempt us to believe that we can obtain righteousness by works within the Indulgent doctrine.

If you but look at these scriptures you find quite the opposite of your statement. You find it is God reconciling the World through His Son Christ, not a sacrament but rather a sacrifice by Him. I would not dispute that there may be scriptures which are taught by the Teaching Magisterial which hint or directly state there is a confession or penance, however it would not be these

Blessings,
Len

Of course God reconciled the World through His Son Christ. Jesus the sacrifice is the one who gave us the sacrament. I disagree with your interpretation of this scripture entirely. What do you think the ministry of reconciliation is? Its not saying a few words, its a priestly duty.

What is committed to us the word of reconciliation? Its not saying a few words, its forgiving sins.

John 20:21 - before He grants them the authority to forgive sins, Jesus says to the apostles, “as the Father sent me, so I send you.” As Christ was sent by the Father to forgive sins, so Christ sends the apostles and their successors forgive sins.

John 20:22 - the Lord “breathes” on the apostles, and then gives them the power to forgive and retain sins. The only other moment in Scripture where God breathes on man is in Gen. 2:7, when the Lord “breathes” divine life into man. When this happens, a significant transformation takes place.

John 20:23 - Jesus says, “If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven. If you retain the sins of any, they are retained.” In order for the apostles to exercise this gift of forgiving sins, the penitents must orally confess their sins to them because the apostles are not mind readers. The text makes this very clear.

Matt. 9:8 - this verse shows that God has given the authority to forgive sins to “men.” Do you acknowledge that the apostles had the authority to forgive sins? (which this verse demonstrates) If you do, then prove that this gift ended with the apostles. Otherwise, the apostles’ successors still possess this gift. Where in Scripture is the gift of authority to forgive sins taken away from the apostles or their successors?

Matt. 9:6; Mark 2:10 - Christ forgave sins as a man (not God) to convince us that the “Son of man” has authority to forgive sins on earth.

Luke 5:24 - Luke also points out that Jesus’ authority to forgive sins is as a man, not God. The Gospel writers record this to convince us that God has given this authority to men. This authority has been transferred from Christ to the apostles and their successors.

Peace,

Ryan

 

[Nicholas_II]

That is why I am here so that I might learn what RCC doctrine really is and be not quite so ignorant. Perhaps you should start a discussion concerning Penal Substitutionary Atonement and start a new thread concerning it.

BTW…
2Cor5:21
He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.

He made Him…to be sin on our behalf.

Sounds like he was made sin to me…but please, do tell.

Blessings,
Len

I have no inclination to start a thread.

The interpretation of that passage as christ literally becoming sin for us is wrong.

Christ offered himself to God (Eph 5:2) … Christ loved us and gave himself up for us as a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God.

Christ bore our sins, but the Prophet also says he would bear our infirmity, our weaknesses, our chastisements, and our iniquities.

Christ paid for our sins, yes, and bore the punishment for our sins yes, in the context of the wages of sin being death. Rom 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

best regards
Nicholas

 

[MarcoPolo]

All that you say maybe true, but considering the teachings by the RCC Magistrate Authority on Indulgences what you state and what is taught are two different things.

No, they are the same. It only seems that way if you isolate the Pope’s teachings from the rest of already understood teaching. And blessings to you as well!

 

[japhy]

Perhaps what’s being forgotten is that, while we are never worthy of the gift we receive, we are called to live worthily of it after we have received it. That includes avoiding sin and doing good works.

And as far as the broken window analogy goes, I’d much rather live in a world where people are forgiven and windows get fixed, than a world where people are forgiven and houses are drafty and rain gets in and bugs creep in and…

 

[unacanta]

I have no inclination to start a thread.

The interpretation of that passage as christ literally becoming sin for us is wrong.

Christ offered himself to God (Eph 5:2) … Christ loved us and gave himself up for us as a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God.

Christ bore our sins, but the Prophet also says he would bear our infirmity, our weaknesses, our chastisements, and our iniquities.

Christ paid for our sins, yes, and bore the punishment for our sins yes, in the context of the wages of sin being death. Rom 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

best regards
Nicholas

Interesting article, too bad your “is wrong” is linked to it. The article has some errors in it upon a quick glance, I did print it out and will look at it closer.

However, I do agree with everything past that point. It is difficult to argue with correct interpretation of scritpture.

May the Lord be honored in all things.
Len