Is THIS the Protestant interpretation of John 20?!

[sandusky]

(continued from post #20)

Veritas41:

Look at John 20:21-23 with the passages in Luke and Acts you cited. They speak of proclaiming forgiveness. Proclaiming forgiveness and forgiving sins are two different things. I can tell someone their sins can be forgiven in Christ, but I don’t have the authority from Christ to actually forgive their sins on His behalf.

“Again Jesus said, ‘Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.’ And with that he breathed on them and said, 'Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.” The only other time in Scripture when God breathes on someone is in Genesis, where it is says God breathed life into Adam. So Jesus is doing something more here than just telling the apostles they’re simply going to proclaim forgiveness. Why would He need to “breathe” on them to do that? God’s breathing into Adam brought spiritual and physical life, Jesus’ breathing the Holy Spirit onto the apostles signifies His life given through the sacrament of reconciliation. Jesus tells the apostles “if you forgive” and “if you do not forgive.” He doesn’t say, “proclaim forgiveness.”

First of all, how do you know that the only other time God breathed on someone was in Genesis? He could have done so at other times, and it is not recorded. I see no reason to connect the two passages unless one insists upon spiritualizing one, or the other.

I offered a literal interpretation of the passage by the Greek scholar Julius Mantey, concerning the translation of this passage and Mt 16:19; obviously you are rejecting that; so be it.

But the disciples understood Jesus as Dr. Mantey, and I, and many others understand Jesus. I would submit to you that if the apostles had the understanding you have, that we would see them in the book of Acts, and elsewhere in the epistles, sitting down to hear confessions and absolving others of their sin. But do we see them do that? What do they do? They go throughout the world proclaiming the forgiveness of sins by faith in the name of Jesus Christ. It is quite clear to me by the actions of the apostles how they understood what Jesus said to them in Jn 20:23, Mt 16:19. If you can supply an instance where anyone of them sat down to hear confessions, and forgive sins, I will stand corrected.

Veritas41:

You speak of “assisting” the Holy Spirit. Does He need our assistance, or does He condescend to allow us to share in His work of salvation?

As Paul did, so do I, and many others, assist the H.S. in my labors (1 Cor 15:10; 2 Cor 11:23; Col 1:29; 1 Tim 4:10); we see laboring for the Gospel in completely different ways; I see laboring for Christ as a blessing, an honor, and a responsibility given by God; you see it as God’s condescension. God condescended when He came in the likeness of sinful flesh; He blesses the believer with the task of proclaiming forgiveness of sins in the name of His Son.

Veritas41:

Jesus spoke to Peter in the second person singular when giving Peter the keys. Only Peter received the keys…

And yet you insist that everyone after Peter in this so-called papacy also has the keys. You are inconsistent in your insistence on who holds the keys. I reject most, if not all of the RCC typology. Why? Because Jesus is quite clear that the scriptures testify to Him (Jn 5:39). Therefore, typology should point to Christ, and the keys in Is 22 do point to Christ, and are fulfilled in Revelation 1:18; 3:7. Read the Isaiah passage with more care.

…please note that the binding/loosing is done first on earth and is followed by a reciprocal binding/loosing in heaven…

You are not reading carefully enough Joan.

thew 16:19 (NASB95)
19 “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.”

In the Greek:

estai dedemonon—“shall have been (already) bound”—future, perfect, passive
estai lelumenon—“shall have been (already) loosed”—future, perfect, passive

The Greek verbs are important. It is done in heaven, before it is done on earth. That is what the Greek says, and a good English translation will reflect that.

Jesus did not say that God would obey what they did on earth, but that they should do on earth whatever God had already willed. The church does not get man’s will done in heaven; it obeys God’s will on earth.

(continued)

 

[sandusky]

(continued from post #21)

Veritas41:

Forgiveness is an on-going need for the believer. Note Matt. 6:14-15, “For if you forgive men when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive men their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins.” If forgiveness of sins is just proclaimed because all sins past, present and future are immediately wiped out, this passage makes no sense. 1 John 1:9, “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness.” John is addressing Christians. See also James 5:15-16.

The reason that it makes no sense to you, Joan, is that your theology does not believe that Jesus’ death was a penal substitution. Until you come to that understanding, biblical forgiveness will not make sense to you.

The idea of substitution is that Jesus died for sinners (Mk 10:45; 2 Cor 5:14-15). With “for” (Gk huper) meaning “on behalf of,” this emphasizes the truth that Jesus took the place of sinners on the cross. As their substitute, “the Just for the unjust,” He bore the punishment of their sins (1 Pet 2:24; 3:18). In Matthew 20:28, “for (Gk. anti) means “instead of.”

That is what the “scapegoat,” or literally, “the goat of removal,” typifies in Lev 16. For the Jews, that was repeated each year. But the for the believer in the new covenant, it was once for all, and because of that once for all sacrifice, God does not remember sins and transgressions anymore for those who are in Christ (Heb 10:17).

Believer to believer forgiveness of sins is not God’s forgiveness of sins, but the believer overlooking and not remembering the wrongs of others against Him. Love covers a multitude of sins (Pro 10:12; 1 Pet 4:8).

Veritas:

I get to interact with another human being and actually hear the words of absolution spoken over me. I have to face my sins more honestly and thoroughly than if I confess them on my own… See also James 5:15-16.

James 5:15-16 is referring to a public confession of sins. One another means your peers. Try public confession to your peers, as James recommends, that will bring you to face your sins even more honestly and thoroughly.

Veritas41:

Jesus speaks to us through others.

Others who know His word.

Veritas41:

I have grown closer to Christ as a Catholic --much closer than I ever was as a Protestant.

For me, the opposite is true.

 

[Kitty_Chan]

hey sandusky

Thanks for explaining that all, I appreciate it. Im glad it was brought up, like I said I hadnt noticed this little gem hiding in there. Always something more to learn

just a question what about those “sin eaters” they must have figured into this scripture somehow???

 

[Lazerlike42]

sandusky:

That is probably my fault; I have assumed that you are with me in my thinking and understanding what scripture is saying, so let me explain…

I am not ruling out praying for others to be healed. I do believe that God is moved to heal at the supplication of His saints, but not always.

(continued)

Paul did not simply heal Timothy because he was not there with Timothy, for one. The other reason is that the Bible makes it clear, even if you believe the gifts were only temporary (which is a difficult position to hold for many reasons, but that is another thread), that healing was not always going to happen when it was asked for. It was always at the will of God to do or not to do.

As far as whether these things continue, look at Lourdes.

 

[Lazerlike42]

(continued from post #20)

First of all, how do you know that the only other time God breathed on someone was in Genesis? He could have done so at other times, and it is not recorded. I see no reason to connect the two passages unless one insists upon spiritualizing one, or the other.

It is absolutely amazing that you would make this arguement. If I were to say that Christ could very well have instituted Confession explicitly at some time that was simply not recorded, you would reject the entirenotion simply because it was not recorded in the Bible, because you would say that the Bible contains everything we need.

In saying this, you would be right, which is the other problem with this statement. If God truly gave us the Bible to teach us what we need to know about our faith, then He most certainly did not put things in there superfluously. In fact, 2 Tim 3:16 tells us this: all Scripture (that means every verse) is profitable for teaching. If He only mentioned the act of breathing on man twice, do you really intend to deny that God meant something by this? Even if you do, I would challenge you to find an interpretation of this event that is able to reconcile the fact that Christ supposedly gives the Holy Spirit here, but it is elsewhere said to first come at Pentecost. The Catholic understanding, as expressed by John Crystosom in the 4th century, makes perfect sense of it.

But the disciples understood Jesus as Dr. Mantey, and I, and many others understand Jesus. I would submit to you that if the apostles had the understanding you have, that we would see them in the book of Acts, and elsewhere in the epistles, sitting down to hear confessions and absolving others of their sin. But do we see them do that? What do they do? They go throughout the world proclaiming the forgiveness of sins by faith in the name of Jesus Christ. It is quite clear to me by the actions of the apostles how they understood what Jesus said to them in Jn 20:23, Mt 16:19. If you can supply an instance where anyone of them sat down to hear confessions, and forgive sins, I will stand corrected.

The practice by which the doctrine of reconcilliation was executed in the early Church was different from the way that it occurs today. In the early Church, confessions were done openly in church, a practice which is recorded in the Didache. They did not sit down to do this because it was not the way which confession was done, just as today confession is often done face to face in a room whereas in the past it was done in a confessional.

As Paul did, so do I, and many others, assist the H.S. in my labors (1 Cor 15:10; 2 Cor 11:23; Col 1:29; 1 Tim 4:10); we see laboring for the Gospel in completely different ways; I see laboring for Christ as a blessing, an honor, and a responsibility given by God; you see it as God’s condescension. God condescended when He came in the likeness of sinful flesh; He blesses the believer with the task of proclaiming forgiveness of sins in the name of His Son.

I have no idea where you get the notion of condescension.

And yet you… with more care.

Isaiah 22 cannot refer to Jesus. Isaiah 22 refers to the king giving the keys to the prime minister. Christ is the King. He cannot be the one receiving the keys.

thew 16:19 (NASB95)
19 “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.”

In the Greek:

estai dedemonon—“shall have been (already) bound”—future, perfect, passive
estai lelumenon—“shall have been (already) loosed”—future, perfect, passive

The Greek verbs are important. It is done in heaven, before it is done on earth. That is what the Greek says, and a good English translation will reflect that.

Jesus did not say that God would obey what they did on earth, but that they should do on earth whatever God had already willed. The church does not get man’s will done in heaven; it obeys God’s will on earth.

(continued)

This interpretation is by no means exclusively supported by the Greek. Many Protestant scholars admit this. In fact, there is no Protestant translation which translates the passage in the manner you suggest. Further, Jerome, whom was far more versed in the language than modern scholars, did not translate it this way. Most importantly of all, however, is the fact translating the passage that way does not contradict the Catholic interpretation. Either translation fits into the Catholic understanding fine. I am not well versed enough to explain this, however if you wish to understand it, please listen to the Catholic Answers Live segment with Mr. Akin from this past Tuesday (or Thursday… I think Tuesday, however).

 

[Lazerlike42]

(continued from post #21)

The reason that it makes… means “instead of.”

That is what the “scapegoat,” or literally, “the goat of removal,” typifies in Lev 16. For the Jews, that was repeated each year. But the for the believer in the new covenant, it was once for all, and because of that once for all sacrifice, God does not remember sins and transgressions anymore for those who are in Christ (Heb 10:17).

Penal substitution is completely untenable. If this theory of atonement were true, Christ would need to remain in hell for an eternity. What’s more problematic is that it does not mesh with the sacrificial system of the Jews which the Crucifixion is meant to fulfill.

And the notion that God doesn’t remember sins is just full of problems.

Believer to believer forgiveness of sins is not God’s forgiveness of sins, but the believer overlooking and not remembering the wrongs of others against Him. Love covers a multitude of sins (Pro 10:12; 1 Pet 4:8).

James 5:15-16 is referring to a public confession of sins. One another means your peers. Try public confession to your peers, as James recommends, that will bring you to face your sins even more honestly and thoroughly.

Others who know His word.

For me, the opposite is true.

James 5:14-16 is a very interesting passage. I will explain it in light of a quote of something larger I was working on:

St. Paul affirms this understanding [that I was talking about in the original work its not important right now] in 2nd Corinthians, when he indicates that the job of the Apostels is the “ministry of reconcilliation.” Of course part of this is the preaching of the gospel, for which reason he follows this statement by saying:

“That is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation. Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.”

Non-Catholics say that this passage proves that the ministry of the Apostles was only one of preaching the gospel. However, that fails to take into account the entire passage. If one reads this to say that God has given them only the message of reconcilliation, that is problematic, because this would indicate that everyone was already forgiven and all that was entrusted to the Apostles was the message. In other words, the first half of verse 19 (that God was reconcilling Himself to the world) isn’t the entire story , and neither is the second (being entrusted with the message). God has reconciled Himselgf to us, but we still need to reconcile ourselves to Him. At a bare minimum that all Christians agree on, we need to recognize Him as Lord and Savior. Similarly, the second half of the verse isn’t the entire story, eithe; the message is part of it, but there is more. Verse 20 indicates what this is: the Apostles are ambassadors of Christ. Ambassadors in our world do a lot more than simply conveying messages. They negotiate. They make agreements. They sign treaties on behalf of the president, or the king, or in this case, the King. What’s more, the word here that is translated as ambassador is nothing more than the verb form of the word presbeutero - the word that the Catholic term “priest” comes from. Priests are nothing more than ambassadors for Christ in this world. That is where the Catholic idea of the priesthood comes from in the first place: this idea of being an ambassador of Christ. All Catholic priests were originally seen as simply ambassadors for Christ.

The concept that there is more than the message to the role of the Apostles, in fact that an ambassadorship is their full role, is further supported by other passages in the Scriptures, for example James 5:14-15. Here we see James saying that if there is a sick person that the others should call for the presbyters of the Church. The presbyters will pray for the sick person in the name of the Lord and God will heal that person and his sins will be forgiven. What does an ambassador do? He speaks in the name of the kingp. Priests speak in the name of Christ, the technical term is in persona Christi, in the person of Christ. What do ambassadors do? They go in the person of the king, or in this case the King. In fact we know that there must be some special role for these presbyters, because if not then the people who called the presbyters could have prayed over the person. However, James does not instruct this. He says to call for the ambassadors of the Church.

 

[sandusky]

exoflare:

I’m curious, what is your interpretation of James 5:14?

I know it doesn’t have to do with your question directly, but I was reminded of that verse just now.

In verse 13, James asks two questions, and in v14, James asks a third question and then answers it fully: Is any one of you sick? A great deal of misunderstanding has resulted from these verses. Some seem to teach from this passage that full physical health is always just a prayer away. Others have found in this passage justification for “extreme unction” (a practice begun in the eighth century). Still others have tried to relate the process outlined by James to the modern practice of invoking God (“pray over him”) and using medicine (“anoint him with oil”)—prayer plus a physician.

The heart of the problem lies in just what James meant when he referred to the “sick.” Actually there is no reason to consider “sick” as referring exclusively to physical illness. The word asthenei literally means “to be weak.” Though it is used in the Gospels for physical maladies, it is generally used in Acts and the Epistles to refer to a weak faith or a weak conscience (cf Acts 20:35; Rom. 6:19; 14:1; 1 Cor. 8:9-12). That it should be considered “weak” in this verse is clear in that another Greek word (kamnonta) in James 5:15, translated sick person, literally means “to be weary.” The only other use in the New Testament (Heb. 12:3) of that word clearly emphasizes this same meaning.

James was not referring to the bedfast, the diseased, or the ill. Instead he wrote to those who had grown weary, who had become weak both morally and spiritually in the midst of suffering. These are the ones who should call for the help of the elders of the church. The early church leaders were instructed (1 Thes. 5:14) to “encourage the timid” and “help the weak” (asthenōn)

James said that the elders should pray over him and anoint him with oil. It is significant that the word “anoint” is aleipsantes (“rub with oil”) not chrio (“ceremonially anoint”). The former is the “mundane” word and the latter is “the sacred and religious word.” Therefore James is not suggesting a ceremonial or ritual anointing as a means of divine healing; instead, he is referring to the common practice of using oil as a means of bestowing honor, refreshment, and grooming, ie., the woman “poured” (aleipho) perfume on Jesus’ feet (Luke 7:38). A host “put oil” (aleipho) on the head of his guest (Luke 7:46). A person who is fasting should not be sad and ungroomed, but should “put oil” (aleipho) on his head, and wash his face (Matt. 6:17). Thus James’ point is that the “weak” (asthenei) and “weary” (kamnonta) would be refreshed, encouraged, and uplifted by the elders who rubbed oil on the despondents’ heads and prayed for them.

For the fallen, discouraged, distressed weary believer, restoration is assured and the elders’ prayer offered in faith will make the sick person (lit. “weary one”) well (ie., will restore him from discouragement and spiritual defeat), and the Lord will raise him up.

That the restoration is spiritual, not physical, is further clarified by the assurance, if he has sinned, he will be forgiven. Many physically ill Christians have called on elders to pray for them and to anoint them with oil, but a sizable percentage of them have remained sick. This fact suggests that the passage may have been mistakenly understood as physical restoration rather than spiritual restoration.

 

[sandusky]

Lazerlike42:

If God truly gave us the Bible to teach us what we need to know about our faith, then He most certainly did not put things in there superfluously. In fact, 2 Tim 3:16 tells us this: all Scripture (that means every verse) is profitable for teaching. If He only mentioned the act of breathing on man twice, do you really intend to deny that God meant something by this?

Please tell me your understanding.

Lazerlike42:

The Catholic understanding, as expressed by John Crystosom in the 4th century, makes perfect sense of it.

Assert and leave.

Lazerlike42:

The practice by which the doctrine of reconcilliation was executed in the early Church was different from the way that it occurs today.

Understated.

I have no idea where you get the notion of condescension.

It was Joan’s (Veritas41’s) word.

Lazerlike42:

Isaiah 22 cannot refer to Jesus. Isaiah 22 refers to the king giving the keys to the prime minister. Christ is the King. He cannot be the one receiving the keys.

And yet He is the one who is left holding them. I will offer an “assert and leave;” the Jews understood the passage to be referring to Messiah.

Lazerlike42:

This interpretation is by no means exclusively supported by the Greek. Many Protestant scholars admit this…Further, Jerome, whom was far more versed in the language than modern scholars, did not translate it this way.

Assert and leave.

Lazerlike42:

Penal substitution is completely untenable.

I agree; the teaching of God’s word concerning the penal substitutionary death of Christ is untenable to your position.

Lazerlike42:

Christ would need to remain in hell for an eternity.

Explain.

Lazerlike42:

What’s more problematic is that it does not mesh with the sacrificial system of the Jews which the Crucifixion is meant to fulfill.

What was the Crucifixion meant to fulfill with respect to the sacrificial system of the Jews?

Lazerlike42:

And the notion that God doesn’t remember sins is just full of problems.

Lazerlike42:

If God truly gave us the Bible to teach us what we need to know about our faith, then He most certainly did not put things in there superfluously. In fact, 2 Tim 3:16 tells us this: all Scripture (that means every verse) is profitable for teaching.

IMHO? Unbelief.

 

[sandusky]

Kitty Chan:

just a question what about those “sin eaters” they must have figured into this scripture somehow???

I am by that question.

 

[Church_Militant]

Sandusky seems to be contesting the idea that the suthority to forgive sins can be delegated to believers, and this places him in the position of the Pharisees of Jesus’ day.

Matthew 9: 1: And getting into a boat he crossed over and came to his own city.
2: And behold, they brought to him a paralytic, lying on his bed; and when Jesus saw their faith he said to the paralytic, “Take heart, my son; your sins are forgiven.”
3: And behold, some of the scribes said to themselves, “This man is blaspheming.”
4: But Jesus, knowing their thoughts, said, “Why do you think evil in your hearts?
5: For which is easier, to say, Your sins are forgiven,' or to say, Rise and walk’?
6: But that you may know that the Son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins” – he then said to the paralytic – “Rise, take up your bed and go home.”
7: And he rose and went home.
8: When the crowds saw it, they were afraid, and they glorified God, who had given such authority to men. Note that the passage does not say that the authority to forgive sins was given to “a man”, and so far as I can find no translation of this passage supports any other view. (The parallel passage in Mark 2 offers no insight, since it merely says, “We never saw anything like this!”). My point is that the New Testament is quite plain that man has been given the authority (and responsibility) to forgive sins.

The very prayer that Jesus Himself taught us, the Our Father, makes this equally clear when it says, (Matthew 6:12 ) “And forgive us our debts, As we also have forgiven our debtors;” and, along with many other passages points up that our own forgiveness is tied to our forgiveness of the sins of others. (See verse 14 & 15!)

This also ties in with the authority to bind & loose.
This is what the Christian church has believed and taught for over 2,000 years, and it has developed into the beautiful Sacrament of Reconcilliation that makes it all the more effective for us. I have never agreed with the absence of this sacrament among non-Catholics…as IMO nothing else makes sense from the Word of God.
Pax vobiscum,

 

[sandusky]

Church Militant:

Sandusky seems to be contesting the idea that the suthority to forgive sins can be delegated to believers, and this places him in the position of the Pharisees of Jesus’ day.

From my post #8 below:

It is talking about all Christians.

But you must understand what the verse does not give, as well. The verse does not give authority to Christians to forgive sins, because, as scripture states, only God can forgive sins. But any believer can boldly declare the certainty of a sinner’s forgiveness by the Father because of the work of His Son if that sinner has repented and believed the gospel. The believer with certainty can also tell those who do not respond to the message of God’s forgiveness through faith in Christ that their sins, as a result, are not forgiven.

Jesus was not setting aside the disciples (and their successors) as a “spiritual elite” to deal with the sins of the world. Remember, there were others in the room besides the disciples, and Thomas was missing!

I am not contesting the idea that the authority to forgive sins can be delegated to believers. I am saying that the authority has not been delegated only to an “elite” group, but to all true believers. That position is certainly in line with the passage you cited, Mt. 9:8, which speaks against your position that said authority has been delegated only to an “elite” few.

If a believer were to come to me and confess a sin, I would certainly look him in the eye and tell him that his sins are forgiven. Not because of my power to forgive sins, but because they have been forgiven already in heaven—according to Lazerlike42, that is compatible with Catholic theology.

God’s word says that if we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins. It is on the truth of that statement that I can tell someone “your sins are forgiven.”

As you say, CM, the authority was not given only to a man, nor was it given only to apostles, but to men. All men who believe in the forgiveness of sins through faith in Jesus Christ, on the authority of God’s word, can proclaim the forgiveness of sins.

“And forgive us our debts, As we also have forgiven our debtors;”

I have already commented on that. Love covers a multitude of sins.
Church Militant:

This is what the Christian church has believed and taught for over 2,000 years, and it has developed into the beautiful Sacrament of Reconcilliation that makes it all the more effective for us.

I disagree. As Lazerlike42 honestly, and rightly observes, your ritual of confession has developed over 2,000 years; the present form of confession in your rite, is unlike the initial form of confession in the N.T. church.

 

[Lazerlike42]

sandusky:

Please tell me your understanding.

Assert and leave.

In short:

The Father has a “role,” the Son a “role” and the Spirit a “role.” I use quotes because… well because of stuff that pertains to the inner working of the Trinity which is really irrelevant to this and which we may agree on anyways (if we don’t it’s a completely different topic). The Father’s “role” is creation. The Son’s “role” is forgiveness. The Spirit’s “role” is the gifts. Hence we talk about the Father creating the world, Christ forgiving our sins, and the Spirit giving the gifts of tongues etc.

We can see in Scripture the three persons of the Trinity each giving that which is applicable to His role at different times to the Apostles. First, the Father gives them creation (as Apostles) in that He calls them. This is His gift because without His calling none may come to the Son. Next, the Son gives to them authority, because all authority has been given to the Son. This is in Matthew 16. Then He gives the ability to forgive, bcause it is Christ who mediates and forgives. This is in John 20. Finally, at Pentecost, the Spirit gives the gifts of the Spirit. Understanding it this way, it makes sense that Christ would give them the Spirit in John 20 and then again in Acts, because in John it is that which belongs to the Son (forgiveness) that is given, and in Acts it is that which belongs to the Spirit (charisms) that are given.

Here is Crystosom:

Ver. 21. “As My Father hath sent Me, so send I you.”

“Ye have no difficulty, owing to what hath already come to pass, and to the dignity of Me who send you.” Here He lifteth up their souls, and showeth them their great cause of confidence, if so be that they were about to undertake His work. And no longer is an appeal made to the Father, but with authority He giveth to them the power. For, Ver. 22, 23. “He breathed on them, and said, Receive ye the Holy Ghost. Whosesoever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them, and whosesoever sins ye retain, they are retained.”

As a king sending forth governors, gives power to east into prison and to deliver from it, so in sending these forth, Christ investeth them with the same power. But how saith He, “If I go not away, He will not come” (c. xvi. 7), and yet giveth them the Spirit? Some say that He gave not the Spirit, but rendered them fit to receive It, by breathing on them. For if Daniel when he saw an Angel was afraid, what would not they have suffered when they received that unspeakable Gift, unless He had first made them learners? Wherefore He said not, “Ye have received the Holy Ghost,” but, “Receive ye the Holy Ghost.” Yet one will not be wrong in asserting that they then also received some spiritual power and grace; not so as to raise the dead, or to work miracles, but so as to remit sins. For the gifts of the Spirit are of different kinds; wherefore He added, “Whosesoever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them,” showing what kind of power He was giving. But in the other case, after forty days, they received the power of working miracles. Wherefore He saith, “Ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you, and ye shall be My witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea.” (Acts i. 8.) And witnesses they became by means of miracles, for unspeakable is the grace of the Spirit and multiform the gift. But this comes to pass, that thou mayest learn that the gift and the power of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, is One. For things which appear to be peculiar to the Father, these are seen also to belong to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost. “How then,” saith some one, “doth none come to the Son, ‘except the Father draw him’?” (c. vi. 44.) Why, this very thing is shown to belong to the Son also. “I,” He saith, “am the Way: no man cometh unto the Father but by Me.” (c. xiv. 6.) And observe that it belongeth to the Spirit also; for “No man can call Jesus Christ Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.” (1 Cor. xii. 3.) Again, we see that the Apostles were given to the Church at one time by the Father, at another by the Son, at another by the Holy Ghost, and that the “diversities of gifts” (1 Cor. xii. 4) belong to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.

continued…

 

[Lazerlike42]

1. Let us then do all we can to have the Holy Spirit with ourselves, and let us treat with much honor those into whose hands its operation hath been committed. For great is the dignity of the priests. “Whosesoever sins,” it saith, “ye remit, they are remitted unto them”; wherefore also Paul saith, “Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves.” (Heb. xiii. 17.) And hold them very exceedingly in honor; for thou indeed carest about thine own affairs, and if thou orderest them well, thou givest no account for others, but the priest even if he rightly order his own life, if he have not an anxious care for thine, yea and that of all those around him, will depart with the wicked into hell; and often when not betrayed by his own conduct, he perishes by yours, if he have not rightly performed all his part. Knowing therefore the greatness of the danger, give them a large share of your goodwill; which Paul also implied when he said, “For they watch for your souls,” and not simply so, but, “as they that shall give account.” (Heb. xiii. 17.) They ought therefore to receive great attention from you; but if you join with the rest in trampling upon them, then neither shall your affairs be in a good condition. For while the steersman continues in good courage, the crew also will be in safety; but if he be tired out by their reviling him and showing ill-will against him, he cannot watch equally well, or retain his skill, and without intending it, throws them into ten thousand mischiefs. And so too the priest, if he enjoy honor from you, will be able well to order your affairs; but if ye throw them into despondency, ye weaken their hands, and render them, as well as yourselves, an easy prey to the waves, although they be very courageous. Consider what Christ saith concerning the Jews. “The Scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; all therefore whatsoever they bid you to do, do ye.” (Matt. xxiii. 2, 3.) Now we have not to say, “the priests sit on Moses’ seat,” but “on that of Christ”; for they have successively received His doctrine. Wherefore also Paul saith, “We are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us.” (2 Cor. v. 20.) See ye not that in the case of Gentile rulers, all bow to them, and oftentimes even persons superior in family, in life, in intelligence, to those who judge them? yet still because of him who hath given them, they consider none of these things, but respect the decision of their governor, whosoever he be that receives the rule over them. Is there then such fear when man appoints, but when God appointeth do we despise him who is appointed, and abuse him, and besmirch him with ten thousand reproaches, and though forbidden to judge our brethren, do we sharpen our tongue against our priests? And how can this deserve excuse, when we see not the beam in our own eye, but are bitterly over-curious about the mote in another’s? Knowest thou not that by so judging thou makest thine own judgment the harder? And this I say not as approving of those who exercise their priesthood unworthily, but as greatly pitying and weeping for them; yet do I not on this account allow that it is right that they should be judged by those over whom they are set. And although their life be very much spoken against, thou, if thou take heed to thyself, wilt not be harmed at all in respect of the things committed to them by God. For if He caused a voice to be uttered by an ***, and bestowed spiritual blessings by a diviner, working by the foolish mouth and impure tongue of Balsam, in behalf of the offending Jews, much more for the sake of you the right-minded will He, though the priests be exceedingly vile, work all the things that are His, and will send the Holy Ghost. For neither doth the pure draw down that Spirit by his own purity, but it is grace that worketh all. “For all,” it saith, “is for your sake, whether it be Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas.” (1 Cor. iii. 25, 23.) For the things which are placed in the hands of the priest it is with God alone to give; and however far human wisdom may reach, it will appear inferior to that grace. And this I say, not in order that we may order our own life carelessly, but that when some of those set over you are careless livers, you the ruled may not often heap up evil for yourselves. But why speak I of priests? Neither Angel nor Archangel can do anything with regard to what is given from God; but the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, dispenseth all, while the priest lends his tongue and affords his hand. For neither would it be just that through the wickedness of another, those who come in faith to the symbols of their salvation should be harmed. Knowing all these things, let us fear God, and hold His priests in honor, paying them all reverence; that both for our own good deeds, and the attention shown to them, we may receive a great return from God, through the grace and lovingkindness of our Lord Jesus Christ

 

[Lazerlike42]

Understated.

I would disagree.

It was Joan’s (Veritas41’s) word.

Oh, ok. I still don’t understand what is meant by it and how the Catholic understanding of the role of the Apostles is condescending.

And yet He is the one who is left holding them. I will offer an “assert and leave;” the Jews understood the passage to be referring to Messiah.

This is one of the reasons that Jewish apologists give for rejecting Christ. He does not fit this passage, and they expected it to refer to the Messiah. The problem here is that Christ is the King, and in Isaiah it is the king who gives the keys, not who receives the keys. If the Jewish interpretation is correct, then Jesus is not the Messiah.

Assert and leave.

I did not cite because it is common knowledge. Edward E. Hindson would be one. I don’t have a list sitting here at the moment to quote, but as I said there are a great many. In fact, it is the standard Protestant view, which is why all but one or two Protestant Bibles render the text this way.

Here is Jerome “et tibi dabo claves regni caelorum et quodcumque ligaveris super terram erit ligatum in caelis et quodcumque solveris super terram erit solutum in caelis”

I agree; the teaching of God’s word concerning the penal substitutionary death of Christ is untenable to your position.

Explain.

Penal substitution holds that God gave to Christ the punishment due to us. The punishment due us is eternal damnation. If Christ is not eternally damned, then He is not receiving the punishment due us.

What was the Crucifixion meant to fulfill with respect to the sacrificial system of the Jews?

That’s a big question. I’ll work on it and post it later.

IMHO? Unbelief.

Not quite sure what you mean.

 

[Mickey]

Of how much greater faith and salutary fear are they who . . . confess their sins to the priests of God in a straightforward manner and in sorrow, making an open declaration of conscience. . . I beseech you, brethren; let everyone who has sinned confess his sin while he is still in this world, while his confession is still admissible, while the satisfaction and remission made through the priests are still pleasing before the Lord.
St Cyprian of Carthage (A.D. 251)

 

[Veritas41]

IOW, those gifts were not given to the church in general but to Jesus, and to true apostles, as verification of the authority they had in Christ.

Okay, but in all those passages there is no suggestion that these gifts would cease. Apostle means “one who is sent” --sent to preach the Gospel. That office remains because there continues to be a need to preach the Gospel until Christ returns. In Acts 1 we see the apostles choosing a successor for Judas. And you’re right, those signs were to verify the authority they had in Christ and also to verify the truth of the Gospel they preached. That’s why there’s never ceased to be a need for miraculous signs --some people need those things to believe the Gospel. I’ve been on missionary mailing lists for years, Protestant and Catholic, and missionaries around the world attest to God’s miraculous intervention to bring people to faith in Christ or strengthen their faith. I’ve personally met an Assemblies of God woman who runs post-abortion counseling ministry for women in Texas prisons. Fourteen inmates she has ministered to who had full-blown AIDS are now HIV - free. That’s verified in prison records. God still works miracles

And don’t get carried away with the mentions of healings and miracles in 1 Cor 12, as those gifts were probably still operative at that time, but are no longer.
What is the basis for your last statement ? If certain spiritual gifts were going to cease operating, why wouldn’t God have made mention of that somewhere?

As for Timothy and Epaphroditus you mentioned not being miraculously healed by Paul, let me refer you to a passage from a book that is in my Bible (but not yours), Sirach 38:1, 4 and 9: “Honor the physician with the honor due him, according to your need of him. . .The Lord created medicines from the earth, and a sensible man will not despise them. . .my son, when you are sick do not be negligent, but pray to the Lord, and he will heal you.” This verse mentions healing through natural means that God has provided (the knowledge of the physician and medicines from the earth) and supernatural means by prayer. Just because someone may have the gift of healing doesn’t mean they heal every sick person in their path. Did Jesus miraculously heal every sick person He encountered? It says in some places He could work no miracles because of the people’s lack of faith. Sometimes God chooses to withold healing altogether for His own good purposes.

I ask you, Joan, when did you last witness a complete regenerative healing? I personally haven’t experienced a miraculous healing, but I personally know three people who have: my husband, my brother and my mother. My husband hurt his back at work and was in agony. A Christian co-worker prayed over him, and the pain immediately went away and his back was fine. My brother hurt his knee falling from a fence. His knee was throbbing in pain when he went to bed that night. He prayed for healing, and he immediately experienced a warm sensation in his knee, and his knee quit hurting and never bothered him again. Three years ago my mother had two (one golf-ball sized) brain tumors. I prayed over her and blessed her with holy water from Lourdes. My mother specifically prayed that by the same time next year there would be no sign of her cancer. This was metastatic lung cancer, which is very difficult to treat. Within one year the doctors couldn’t even find scar tissue in her brain from the tumors on the MRI. And, when you contract a deadly illness, such as cancer, will you go to your priest, or bishop for healing, or will you go to your doctor? I do both – I don’t see it as either/or but both/and. When I developed complications at the end of my last pregnancy, I had my priest give me anointing of the sick and I also went to the hospital. The grace of that sacrament kept me at peace through the whole ordeal, and my daughter, who was born 5 weeks early, went home in half the time babies her gestational age usually do. I attribute that to God’s grace, but of course the neonatologist and the nurses who cared for her certainly played an important role in her survival.

I am not ruling out praying for others to be healed. I do believe that God is moved to heal at the supplication of His saints, but not always.
I agree with you there!

 

[Veritas41]

First of all, how do you know that the only other time God breathed on someone was in Genesis? He could have done so at other times, and it is not recorded. I see no reason to connect the two passages unless one insists upon spiritualizing one, or the other.
Perhaps He did, but to speculate so is to conjecture. All I do know for sure is that it is recorded only twice, so maybe there’s a reason for that? I’m not spiritualizing the passage – I’m taking it quite literally Jesus literally breathed the Holy Spirit onto the Apostles, and it certainly isn’t a leap to see parallels between the two passages.
I offered a literal interpretation of the passage by the Greek scholar Julius Mantey, concerning the translation of this passage and Mt 16:19; obviously you are rejecting that; so be it.
I accept the passage literally to – I believe Jesus meant what He said “If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.”
But the disciples understood Jesus as Dr. Mantey, and I, and many others understand Jesus. I suggest you read what the earliest Christians thought about what Jesus said. Read the early Church Fathers – some of whom were converts of the apostles themselves. They all believed in sacramental confession. Check it out for yourself. I would submit to you that if the apostles had the understanding you have, that we would see them in the book of Acts, and elsewhere in the epistles, sitting down to hear confessions and absolving others of their sin. Hold on a minute – first you object to my statement that when Jesus breathed on the apostles it was only the second time God breathed on a human being. You said God could have at other times, it just wasn’t recorded. Why would it be necessary for it to be recorded that the apostles sat down and listened to confessions?

I see laboring for Christ as a blessing, an honor, and a responsibility given by God; you see it as God’s condescension. God condescended when He came in the likeness of sinful flesh; He blesses the believer with the task of proclaiming forgiveness of sins in the name of His Son.
Yes, God condescends so we can be blessed and honored to be allowed to participate in His work of salvation. He certainly doesn’t need us, and He could do it much more efficiently by Himself, but He allows us, with all our imperfections and inefficiency, to be His co-laborers.
I reject most, if not all of the RCC typology. Why? Because Jesus is quite clear that the scriptures testify to Him (Jn 5:39). Therefore, typology should point to Christ, What about the typology pointing towards John the Baptist? Please read Matthew 17:9-13. Please also read Isaiah 51:1-2 – God refers to Abraham as the “rock” from which the nation of Israel was “hewn.” Interestingly, Simon’s name is changed to *Rock *(and if you look in the OT, when God changes someone’s name, it means they have a special role to play in His plan of salvation). Peter, his office, is the “rock” for the New Covenant people, the Church

thew 16:19 (NASB95)
19 “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.”
Who is Jesus speaking to here? Peter, and only Peter. Jesus is giving authority to Peter, something you seem to be content to explain away as an apparently meaningless gesture by Christ. Rev 3:7 doesn’t contradict this. The authority (keys) come from Christ. I *do *have a good English translation, the RSV, and it clearly states the binding occurs first: “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” My Protestant NIV translation is the same, and the translators certainly had no reason to translate it in a way favorable to Catholic understanding.

Jesus did not say that God would obey what they did on earth, but that they should do on earth whatever God had already willed. The church does not get man’s will done in heaven; it obeys God’s will on earth.
Absolutely true --the reason why God ratifies Peter’s binding on earth is because it is what the Holy Spirit has guided Peter (and his successors) to do. Acts 15:28, “For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things…” Also read John 14:25-26. Surely as a Calvinist you believe in the sovereignty of God?

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

Robertson’s Word Pictures of the New Testament

Whosesoever sins ye forgive (an tinwn aphte taß amartiaß). “If the sins of any ye forgive” (aphte, second aorist active subjunctive with an in the sense of ean), a condition of the third class. Precisely so with “retain” (krathte, present active subjunctive of kratew). They are forgiven (apewntai). Perfect passive indicative of apihmi, Doric perfect for apeintai. Are retained (kekrathntai). Perfect passive indicative of kratew. The power to forgive sin belongs only to God, but Jesus claimed to have this power and right (Mark 2:5-7). What he commits to the disciples and to us is the power and privilege of giving assurance of the forgiveness of sins by God by correctly announcing the terms of forgiveness. There is no proof that he actually transferred to the apostles or their successors the power in and of themselves to forgive sins. In Matthew 16:19; Matthew 18:18 we have a similar use of the rabbinical metaphor of binding and loosing by proclaiming and teaching. Jesus put into the hands of Peter and of all believers the keys of the Kingdom which we should use to open the door for those who wish to enter. This glorious promise applies to all believers who will tell the story of Christ’s love for men.

Robertson’s Word Pictures of the New Testament

The Keys of the kingdom (taß kleidaß thß basileiaß). Here again we have the figure of a building with keys to open from the outside. The question is raised at once if Jesus does not here mean the same thing by “kingdom” that he did by “church” in verse Matthew 18. In Revelation 1:18; Revelation 3:7 Christ the Risen Lord has “the keys of death and of Hades.” He has also “the keys of the kingdom of heaven” which he here hands over to Peter as “gatekeeper” or “steward” (oikonomoß) provided we do not understand it as a special and peculiar prerogative belonging to Peter. The same power here given to Peter belongs to every disciple of Jesus in all the ages. Advocates of papal supremacy insist on the primacy of Peter here and the power of Peter to pass on this supposed sovereignty to others. But this is all quite beside the mark. We shall soon see the disciples actually disputing again (Matthew 18:1) as to which of them is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven as they will again (Matthew 20:21) and even on the night before Christ’s death. Clearly neither Peter nor the rest understood Jesus to say here that Peter was to have supreme authority. What is added shows that Peter held the keys precisely as every preacher and teacher does. To “bind” (dhshß) in rabbinical language is to forbid, to “loose” (lushß) is to permit. Peter would be like a rabbi who passes on many points. Rabbis of the school of Hillel “loosed” many things that the school of Schammai “bound.” The teaching of Jesus is the standard for Peter and for all preachers of Christ. Note the future perfect indicative (estai dedemenon, estai lelumenon), a state of completion. All this assumes, of course, that Peter’s use of the keys will be in accord with the teaching and mind of Christ. The binding and loosing is repeated by Jesus to all the disciples (Matthew 18:18). Later after the Resurrection Christ will use this same language to all the disciples (John 20:23), showing that it was not a special prerogative of Peter. He is simply first among equals, primus inter pares, because on this occasion he was spokesman for the faith of all. It is a violent leap in logic to claim power to forgive sins, to pronounce absolution, by reason of the technical rabbinical language that Jesus employed about binding and loosing. Every preacher uses the keys of the kingdom when he proclaims the terms of salvation in Christ. The proclamation of these terms when accepted by faith in Christ has the sanction and approval of God the Father. The more personal we make these great words the nearer we come to the mind of Christ. The more ecclesiastical we make them the further we drift away from him.

Robertson’s Word Pictures of the New Testament

Shall be bound in heaven (estai dedemena en ouranwi). Future passive periphrastic perfect indicative as in “shall be loosed” (estai lelumena). In Matthew 16:19 this same unusual form occurs. The binding and the loosing is there addressed to Peter, but it is here repeated for the church or for the disciples as the case may be.

 

[Veritas41]

(continued from post #21)

The reason that it makes no sense to you, Joan, is that your theology does not believe that Jesus’ death was a penal substitution. Until you come to that understanding, biblical forgiveness will not make sense to you.
My theology teaches me that Jesus’ death made perfect satisfaction to God so that He can continually outpour His grace and mercy to me as I need it. I continue to sin, therefore I continue to need to confess my sins and receive God’s forgiveness. Ever pay attention to the Our Father? *Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us. *Jesus taught this as the way we, *Christians, *should pray. And in this prayer He teaches us to ask God to forgive our sins. Now why would we need to do that if our all our sins, past, present and future, have already been forgiven the moment we accept Christ as Savior? And why would Jesus state right after giving that prayer, that if we do not forgive others their sins against us, our heavenly Father will not forgive our sins? If all our sins have already been forgiven, how can God withold forgiveness based on our own behavior towards others? It is your theology that doesn’t fit with the plain words of Christ.

James 5:15-16 is referring to a public confession of sins. One another means your peers. Try public confession to your peers, as James recommends, that will bring you to face your sins even more honestly and thoroughly. Well, if you read the context, the preceding verses, it says in verse 14, “Is any among you sick? Let him call for the *elders *of the church, let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord.” [that’s the sacrament of Anointing of the Sick]. then in verse 15, “and the prayer of faith will save the sick man, and the Lord will raise him up; and if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven.” I wonder why his sins would be forgiven after being anointed and prayed for by the elders when his sins had already been completely forgiven when he first became a Christian? hmmm. Also, just the next verse it says “*Therefore, *confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another, that you may be healed.” “Therefore” connects the latter verse to the previous. Not just anyone is called in to anoint and pray over the sick person – the “elders.” That’s *priests. *“Confess your sins to one another.” That can certainly be to other Christians, but the context indicates it’s confession for the sake of *forgiveness, *and like James says in verse 14, the elders need to be called in, not just anyone. I certainly can’t confess my sins to you and receive forgiveness from God, can I? I can forgive someone’s sins against me, but that isn’t the same as God forgiving them. My forgiveness doesn’t absolve their guilt in the eyes of God.

 

[sandusky]

Lazerlike42:

The Father has a “role,” the Son a “role” and the Spirit a “role.” I use quotes because… well because of stuff that pertains to the inner working of the Trinity which is really irrelevant to this and which we may agree on anyways (if we don’t it’s a completely different topic). The Father’s “role” is creation. The Son’s “role” is forgiveness. The Spirit’s “role” is the gifts. Hence we talk about the Father creating the world, Christ forgiving our sins, and the Spirit giving the gifts of tongues etc.

Respectfully, I am not following you. Is this an analogy, or do you believe that what you are stating concerning the role of each member of the trinity is true?

Each member was present at creation, with the agent of creation being Christ (Jn 1:2-3, 10; 1 Cor 8:6; Col 1:16; Heb 1:2); the Spirit was there as well (Gen 1:2).

Lazerlike42:

We can see in Scripture the three persons of the Trinity each giving that which is applicable to His role at different times to the Apostles. First, the Father gives them creation (as Apostles) in that He calls them. This is His gift because without His calling none may come to the Son. Next, the Son gives to them authority, because all authority has been given to the Son. This is in Matthew 16. Then He gives the ability to forgive, bcause it is Christ who mediates and forgives. This is in John 20. Finally, at Pentecost, the Spirit gives the gifts of the Spirit. Understanding it this way, it makes sense that Christ would give them the Spirit in John 20 and then again in Acts, because in John it is that which belongs to the Son (forgiveness) that is given, and in Acts it is that which belongs to the Spirit (charisms) that are given.

I don’t understand Apostles as being “created.” Christ “chose” the apostles, and they are said to be “appointed” (Jn 15:16; 1 Cor 12:28). So apostleship is an office. I don’t know that I agree with the giving of the H.S. in Jn 20. They didn’t act as though they had been indwelt by the H.S., but certainly did subsequent to Pentecost.

From a quick reading of what you posted from Chrysostom, he is saying that as well, calling what happened in Jn 20 a receiving of “some spiritual power and grace.”

Lazerlike42:

This is one of the reasons that Jewish apologists give for rejecting Christ. He does not fit this passage, and they expected it to refer to the Messiah. The problem here is that Christ is the King, and in Isaiah it is the king who gives the keys, not who receives the keys. If the Jewish interpretation is correct, then Jesus is not the Messiah.

The Jews completely missed the Messiah by God’s will. Isaiah gives a “long view” of Messiah, His second coming, in which He comes as King, and that will be in the millennial kingdom (I know you reject that). But what they missed was the “short view” view of Messiah, His first coming—Messiah as the suffering—most notably seen in Is 53.

Lazerlike42:

Penal substitution holds that God gave to Christ the punishment due to us. The punishment due us is eternal damnation. If Christ is not eternally damned, then He is not receiving the punishment due us.

This is human logic. On what basis do think that Christ should have to be eternally damned as a satisfaction of God’s justice?

Isaiah 53:10-11
10 But the Lord was pleased to crush Him, putting Him to grief; if He would render Himself as a guilt offering, He will see His offspring, He will prolong His days, and the good pleasure of the Lord will prosper in His hand.
11 As a result of the anguish of His soul, He will see it and be satisfied; by His knowledge the Righteous One, My Servant, will justify the many, as He will bear their iniquities.

Please explain what you understand God to be saying when He says, “He will bear their iniquities.

Lazerlike42:

Not quite sure what you mean.

What I mean is that God says in Heb 10:17, and many other places, that one of the results of the sacrifice of Christ is that God will no longer remember the sin and transgression of those who believe. That is good news, and it is also an unambiguous statement of scripture. To deny that, is in my opinion, unbelief. Wouldn’t you agree, that a denial of an unambiguous statement of God is unbelief?