Is THIS the Protestant interpretation of John 20?!

[Contarini]

sandusky:

Is that so.

Have you been to any good healings lately, Edwin?

I myself have never observed what I’d describe as a miraculous healing, no. But I am not so stubborn a rationalist as to deny that such things can happen.

Frankly, I think your “cessationism” is a miserable excuse to go on acting like any secular rationalist while claiming to believe the Bible. Sorry to be blunt–but your tone was rather sarcastic. Either you think the people who report miraculous healings are charlatans or fools, or you need to be a bit more open-minded.

Get real Edwin. Nobody has healed like Christ and the apostles since Christ and the apostles. Those gifts are over.

Get real yourself, if it comes to that. Christian history is full of claims of miraculous healings. You can believe all these people were fools or deceivers if you want to. How you manage to make a tiny hole in your suffocating rationalism so as to allow for Christ and the apostles to heal, I don’t know. That’s between you and your own sense of intellectual integrity. I’d find it an uneasy fit, myself.

Where do you go when you get sick, Edwin? To your elders or your doctor?

Both. I find it unbelievable that a Christian would even ask such a question. In this regard, you’re far less of a believer than most of the liberals I know.

I have my rector (the presbyter responsible for my parish) lay hands on me nearly every week and pray for healing (of body, mind, or spirit) either for myself or for someone else. I wouldn’t willingly go without this, even though I’ve never experienced a demonstrable miracle.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Contarini, sandusky:

I’m trying to get to the root of your whole argument here. Are you claiming that between every Christian who has ever lived (aside from Jesus himself), none has ever received a different type of authority than any other one?

No, I’m claiming that all the authority exercised within the Body is an expression of the authority granted to the entire Body, and hence in some degree to every believer.

That, by the way, is one of the main reasons I believe in women’s ordination. To say that any baptized Christian is *incapable *of being ordained (not simply that they should not be ordained for pragmatic reasons or because the Church has not discerned signs of a vocation in them) is to deny the gift of the Spirit given in baptism.

But that’s another issue.

Edwin

 

[Kitty_Chan]

sandusky:

I am by that question.

oh sorry maybe you had not heard of this, here is a link

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sin-Eater

Im thinking this must have come from the verses

ps at this time Im not sure this is a derail if so dont anyone worry about it, the thread is certainly growing.

on the remainder of the thread

Im not sure about what your saying about no miriacles either as I have heard of them, x rays proving healing etc. Im not sure they dont happen dont forget we dont know everything that does happen in this world.

All I know is we are not to rely on them for our faith.

 

[sandusky]

Contarini:

I myself have never observed what I’d describe as a miraculous healing, no. But I am not so stubborn a rationalist as to deny that such things can happen.

Thank you, Edwin. Nor have I observed a miraculous healing done by the hands of a healer, and that is my point. If you had read my posts you would have seen that I am not denying healings, nor am I denying miracles; what I am denying is that as a gift of the Spirit, they are no longer given. The reason for that, as stated in scripture, is that the purpose of those “sign gifts” was the verification of the message of the Gospel, and the authentication of those men who proclaimed the same, in the interest of the startup of Christ’s Church.

Contarini:

Frankly, I think your “cessationism” is a miserable excuse to go on acting like any secular rationalist while claiming to believe the Bible. Sorry to be blunt–but your tone was rather sarcastic. Either you think the people who report miraculous healings are charlatans or fools, or you need to be a bit more open-minded.

Blunt doesn’t bother me, Edwin, I thank you for speaking your mind from your heart.

It is true that there was some sarcasm in my tone, but the stronger emotion was irritation; forgive me if I caused you any distress.

I disagree with your assessment, however. I do not claim total cessation, only that, as a gift to individuals, healings and miracles have ceased. I do believe that God on His own, and providentially through the supplication of His saints, still heals miraculously.

I think that would hardly make me a secular rationalist, but you are entitled to your opinion.

Contarini:

Get real yourself, if it comes to that. Christian history is full of claims of miraculous healings. You can believe all these people were fools or deceivers if you want to. How you manage to make a tiny hole in your suffocating rationalism so as to allow for Christ and the apostles to heal, I don’t know. That’s between you and your own sense of intellectual integrity. I’d find it an uneasy fit, myself.

And that is the rub, Edwin; a history “full of claims of miraculous healings,” and a history filled with miraculous healers is two different things. And being a student, and teacher of history, I am sure, if you look with a critical eye, that you would admit that miraculous events are the exception, rather than the norm, being confined within the history of Israel to their flight from Egypt and its subsequent years and entry into the promised land, and then obsolescence until the time of Elijah, and then obsolescence until the time of Pentecost and its subsequent years, and then obsolescence even until now.

Contarini:

Both. I find it unbelievable that a Christian would even ask such a question. In this regard, you’re far less of a believer than most of the liberals I know.

I have my rector (the presbyter responsible for my parish) lay hands on me nearly every week and pray for healing (of body, mind, or spirit) either for myself or for someone else. I wouldn’t willingly go without this, even though I’ve never experienced a demonstrable miracle.

Thank you for your honesty, Edwin, in buttressing my assertion. I have no difficulty with the practice of praying for the body, mind, and spiritual health of one another.

 

[sandusky]

Kitty Chan:

oh sorry maybe you had not heard of this, here is a link

I had never heard of that. Thank you for the link.
Kitty Chan:

Im not sure about what your saying about no miriacles either as I have heard of them, x rays proving healing etc. Im not sure they dont happen dont forget we dont know everything that does happen in this world.

All I know is we are not to rely on them for our faith.

I am not saying that God does not miraculously heal, or that God does not do other miraculous things. What I am saying is that as a gift of the Spirit, healings and miracles have ceased. IOW, individuals no longer are given those gifts by the Spirit.

 

[Kitty_Chan]

sandusky

Ok I follow what your saying (also read what you said to Contarini)

I think theres something in what you said, Im thinking of one of the #1 questions atheists ask is Why does God not just fix it or heal? and what you would say would bear this out.

Athiests want a SIGN hard evidence thats what they look for. My answer is even in Jesus time there were those who saw and still did not believe. He said not to rely on signs and wonders as even the pharaohs priests could do them. (not verbadim just sum up of several thoughts)

So following that if one falls for a “wonder” then they will worship that not Jesus. And there is another player who is good at those too So there is a logic of diminishing gift but not the source of healing. This way we are more pressed for faith in Christ rather than a person we can adore.

 

[sandusky]

Veritas41:

Okay, but in all those passages there is no suggestion that these gifts would cease.

The suggestion, Joan, is that those gifts were given to a select few, and for a select purpose. When those who were given those “sign gifts” died, the gift died with them.

Veritas41:

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 is the definition of the word, but apostleship in the N.T. is also a gift, as well as an office that required, as you have said, several natural qualifications.

The first was that an apostle must have had personal contact with Jesus during His earthly ministry (Acts 1:8; 21-23). The second was that he had to be an eyewitness of Jesus’ resurrection from the dead (Acts 1:21-22; Lk 24:48; 1 Cor 9:1-2). However, those two qualifications were not sufficient. One further criterion had to be met: that of having a direct appointment to the office by Jesus. Lk 6:13-16 reveals that part of the requirement.

Some, including myself, would add a fourth requirement, i.e., that a person had to perform the signs, wonders, and miracles that were emblematic of apostleship (cf Rom 15:15-19; 2 Cor 12:12). Those being the criteria, the gift would be available to the church only so long as there were members of the church who witnessed the risen Lord, and been appointed by Him.

Veritas41:

That’s why there’s never ceased to be a need for miraculous signs --some people need those things to believe the Gospel.

Re-read the account of Lazarus and the rich man which ends with the following statement:

Luke 16:31
31 “But he said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets,
they will not be persuaded even if someone rises from the dead.’ ”
Such is the fickle nature of fallen man.

Veritas41:

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

Those are providential works of God, they are not performed by “healers.”

Veritas41:

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?

I have offered support for why I believe the “sign gifts” would cease, based upon their purpose. Paul tells us of three others gifts that will definitely “cease” in 1 Cor 13:8, i.e., the gift of prophecy (as in telling the future, not in speaking God’s word from revelation), the gift of knowledge (again, a revelatory gift), and the gift of tongues. Paul says the first two will be done away with (passive), and that tongues will cease (middle, or reflexive action). IOW, tongues will literally “stop themselves.” An analogy would be that of a battery with a built-in life that will run itself out.

Veritas41:

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.”

As you have indicated, doctors work with various natural methods/devices. Jesus and the others healed “supernaturally.” I always pray for God’s guidance and wisdom for doctors if they are performing surgical tasks on anyone. That is in the realm of God’s providence.

(continued)

 

[sandusky]

(continued from post #47)

Veritas41:

I personally haven’t experienced a miraculous healing, but I personally know three people who have: my husband, my brother and my mother.

I too, have witnessed a few of those. Again, they are God’s providential acts in the lives of men initiated by God Himself, and at the requests of His saints.

Veritas41:

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.

Joan, you know that you can make the comparisons you are making.

Veritas41:

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 looked through in index of the Ante-Nicene Fathers and come with one entry under Confession, sin, and that by Clement in which he says:

The Lord, brethren, stands in need of nothing; and He desires nothing of any one, except that confession be made to Him. For, says the elect David, “I will confess unto the Lord; and that will please Him more than a young bullock…”

From Schaff’s Ante-Nicene Fathers, Hendrickson Publishers, Peabody, MA, 2004 c1994, The First Epistle of Clement, Vol 1, p 19.
Clement is saying, “confess to the Lord,” as the Psalmist.

Veritas41:

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?

Joan you can offer what you will with respect to God’s breathing on Adam and the apostles. My point, with respect to the apostles and Jn 20:23, is that the evidence from scripture, seen in the actions of the apostles in response to the authority given to forgive sins, overwhelming indicates that the apostles understood the authority to forgive sins to be a work of God having forgiven sins through faith in the finished work of Jesus Christ. In reaction to Jesus’ statements regarding the forgiveness of sins they all proclaimed “repent, and believe in Jesus for the remission of sins.” Their message was not “come to me and confess your sins for the forgiveness of sins.”

Every believer can proclaim the forgiveness of sins by repentance and belief in Jesus.

I see no mandate for the establishment of a select class of people who have been endowed with the ability/authority to forgive the sins of men.

 

[Fiat]

(continued from post #47)

Joan you can offer what you will with respect to God’s breathing on Adam and the apostles. My point, with respect to the apostles and Jn 20:23, is that the evidence from scripture, seen in the actions of the apostles in response to the authority given to forgive sins, overwhelming indicates that the apostles understood the authority to forgive sins to be a work of God having forgiven sins through faith in the finished work of Jesus Christ. In reaction to Jesus’ statements regarding the forgiveness of sins they all proclaimed “repent, and believe in Jesus for the remission of sins.” Their message was not “come to me and confess your sins for the forgiveness of sins.”

How exactly does the message of repenting and believing in Jesus for the remission of sins foreclose confession of sin?

Fiat

 

[sandusky]

Joan you can offer what you will with respect to God’s breathing on Adam and the apostles. My point, with respect to the apostles and Jn 20:23, is that the evidence from scripture, seen in the actions of the apostles in response to the authority given to forgive sins, overwhelming indicates that the apostles understood the authority to forgive sins to be a work of God having forgiven sins through faith in the finished work of Jesus Christ. In reaction to Jesus’ statements regarding the forgiveness of sins they all proclaimed “repent, and believe in Jesus for the remission of sins.” Their message was not “come to me and confess your sins for the forgiveness of sins.”

Fiat:

How exactly does the message of repenting and believing in Jesus for the remission of sins foreclose confession of sin?

You are using that out of context as indicated by another section of the same post:

The Lord, brethren, stands in need of nothing; and He desires nothing of any one, except that confession be made to Him. For, says the elect David, “I will confess unto the Lord; and that will please Him more than a young bullock…”

From Schaff’s Ante-Nicene Fathers, Hendrickson Publishers, Peabody, MA, 2004 c1994, The First Epistle of Clement, Vol 1, p 19.
Clement is saying, “confess to the Lord,” as the Psalmist.

As well as other things I have said, including the ability of a believer to listen to another believer’s confession and tell him on the authority of God’s word that his sin is forgiven.

 

[MariaG]

sandusky:

As well as other things I have said, including the ability of a believer to listen to another believer’s confession and tell him on the authority of God’s word that his sin is forgiven.

So that verse is giving believers, on the authority of God’s word, to tell others after listening to their confession that their sins are forgiven? All men? not just a select group?

 

[sandusky]

MariaG:

So that verse is giving believers, on the authority of God’s word, to tell others after listening to their confession that their sins are forgiven? All men? not just a select group?

Yes Maria, that is what I am saying. It is not confession as you practice it; it is not a regularly scheduled event. But in the course of my Christian life other brothers and sisters in the Lord will confess things to the Lord, and to me, and vice versa. And at that time, and after prayer, I always remind them that their sins are forgiven them. As John tells us, if we confess our sins He is faithful and righteous to forgive us.

I don’t know what kind of relationships you have with fellow Catholics who attend the same church as you. But in my life, those I know from church are my family, and my wife and I spend a great deal of time with them, not just at church, but in each other’s homes. Studying scripture, having dinner, playing chess, watching football, watching baseball, going out to dinner together, going to movies together, going to museums and other outings together; we are involved in the lives of one another. We keep each other accountable, and come alongside each other, and bear each others’ burdens as well as each others’ joys.

We are committed to the “one anothers”

Be at peace with one another … Mark 9:50
Love one another … John 13:34
We are individually members of one another … Romans 12:5
Be devoted to one another … Romans 12:10
Give Preference to one another … Romans 12:10
Being of the same mind toward one another … Romans 12:16
Don’t judge one another’s liberty … Romans 14:13
Be of the same mind as one another … Romans 15:5
Accept one another … Romans 15:7
Admonish one another … Romans 15:14
Greet one another with a holy kiss … Romans 16:16
Don’t have lawsuits with one another … 1 Corinthians 6:7
Wait for one another at the Lord’s table … 1 Corinthians 11:33
Care for one another … 1 Corinthians 12:25
Serve one another … Galatians 5:13
Don’ bite and devour one another … Galatians 5:15
Don’t become boastful in challenging one another … Galatians 5:26
Don’t be envying one another … Galatians 5:26
Showing forbearance to one another … Ephesians 4:2
Be kind to one another … Ephesians 4:32
Speak to one another in psalms & hymns & spiritual songs … Ephesians 5:19
Submitting to one another in the fear of Christ … Ephesians 5:21
Regard one another as more important than himself … Philippians 2:3
Don’t lie to one another … Colossians 3:9
Bearing with one another … Colossians 3:13
Teaching and admonishing one another … Colossians 3:16
Abound in love for one another … 1 Thessalonians 3:12
Comfort one another … 1 Thessalonians 4:18
Bear one another’s burdens … Galatians 6:2
Encourage one another … 1 Thessalonians 5:11
Build up one another … 1 Thessalonians 5:11
Live in peace with one another … 1 Thessalonians 5:13
Don’t repay one another with evil … 1 Thessalonians 5:15
Seek the good of one another … 1 Thessalonians 5:15
Don’t hate one another … Titus 3:3
Stimulate one another to love and good deeds … Hebrews 10:23
Don’t forsake assembling with one another … Hebrews 10:24
Do not speak against one another … James 4:11
Do not complain against one another … James 5:9
Confess your sins to one another … James 5:16
Pray for one another … James 5:16
Fervently love one another from the heart … 1 Peter 1:22
Be hospitable to one another without complaint … 1 Peter 4:9
Employ your spiritual gift in serving one another … 1 Peter 4:10
Clothe yourselves with humility toward one another … 1 Peter 5:5
Have fellowship with one another … 1 John 1:7

 

[Fiat]

Sandusky:

I don’t have a lot of time this morning, so forgive me if my comments are brief, but St. Paul in 2 Cor. 5 seems to set up a dichotomy: us and you. He states that the message of reconciliation has been entrusted to “us.” If reconciliation is entrusted to all Christians, why would St. Paul refer to himself as an ambassador of this message to the Christians of Corinth? Why would St. Paul and his fellow ambassadors pray “in Christ’s stead” [sounds quite Catholic] that reconciliation between the sinner and God take place?

It’s the dichotomy aspect I’m interested in.

Fiat

 

[Veritas41]

The first was that an apostle must have had personal contact with Jesus during His earthly ministry (Acts 1:8; 21-23). The second was that he had to be an eyewitness of Jesus’ resurrection from the dead (Acts 1:21-22; Lk 24:48; 1 Cor 9:1-2). However, those two qualifications were not sufficient. One further criterion had to be met: that of having a direct appointment to the office by Jesus. Lk 6:13-16 reveals that part of the requirement.
According to your own requirement for an apostle, St. Paul wouldn’t have been a candidate himself because he was not a companion of Christ during His earthly ministry and he wasn’t an eyewitness of Christ’s resurrection
Some, including myself, would add a fourth requirement, i.e., that a person had to perform the signs, wonders, and miracles that were emblematic of apostleship (cf Rom 15:15-19; 2 Cor 12:12). Those being the criteria, the gift would be available to the church only so long as there were members of the church who witnessed the risen Lord, and been appointed by Him.
There is one important distinction for an apostle, one of the most important, that you’ve failed to mention: apostles were direct recipients of divine revelation. *Apostles *have ceased to exist (the persons who received the appointment from Christ to govern and teach in His Church and His divine revelation), but the *office *hasn’t ceased to exist. Please look again at Matthew 16 with Peter. Jesus gives Peter keys to govern and authority to bind and loose. In the OT, the office of royal steward was *hereditary. *Why? Because kings had successors and those successors would need royal stewards to help them govern. Jesus is giving authority to govern His Church–the Church was going to continue long after the death of the apostles, therefore their office remained, being filled with successors appointed by them. Perhaps the spiritual gifts that the apostles had didn’t accompany that office, but the authority and mission remained.

I have offered support for why I believe the “sign gifts” would cease, based upon their purpose. Paul tells us of three others gifts that will definitely “cease” in 1 Cor 13:8, i.e., the gift of prophecy (as in telling the future, not in speaking God’s word from revelation), the gift of knowledge (again, a revelatory gift), and the gift of tongues.
Please read on in verses 9-10, 12, “For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when *perfection comes, the imperfect disappears. . .*Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.” Perfection comes when Christ comes (or we see Him after death). *Then *we will “know fully” as we are fully known. *Only then *will spiritual gifts cease to be necessary.

 

[Veritas41]

Obviously you need to do a little more research on the early Fathers. Here’s a link with just a few quotes from early Fathers:

cin.org/jgallegos/confess.htm

 

[Veritas41]

(continued from post #47)

IJoan you can offer what you will with respect to God’s breathing on Adam and the apostles. My point, with respect to the apostles and Jn 20:23, is that the evidence from scripture, seen in the actions of the apostles in response to the authority given to forgive sins, overwhelming indicates that the apostles understood the authority to forgive sins to be a work of God having forgiven sins through faith in the finished work of Jesus Christ. In reaction to Jesus’ statements regarding the forgiveness of sins they all proclaimed “repent, and believe in Jesus for the remission of sins.” Their message was not “come to me and confess your sins for the forgiveness of sins.”

.

Please take a close look at the actions of the apostles when they’re preaching forgiveness through Christ. They’re preaching to yet *unconverted *people, not baptized Christians (who alone can receive the sacrament of reconciliation). Forgiveness of sins is initially obtained through baptism: Acts 2:38, “Peter replied, 'Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”

Acts 22:16, “And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name.” (Ananias to newly converted Saul).

*That’s *why we don’t see the apostles preaching sacramental confession to crowds!

 

[sandusky]

Fiat:

Sandusky:

I don’t have a lot of time this morning, so forgive me if my comments are brief, but St. Paul in 2 Cor. 5 seems to set up a dichotomy: us and you. He states that the message of reconciliation has been entrusted to “us.” If reconciliation is entrusted to all Christians, why would St. Paul refer to himself as an ambassador of this message to the Christians of Corinth? Why would St. Paul and his fellow ambassadors pray “in Christ’s stead” [sounds quite Catholic] that reconciliation between the sinner and God take place?

It’s the dichotomy aspect I’m interested in.

Fiat

Fiat, it seems to me that you think that “reconciliation” in this passage is referring to the Catholic “sacrament of confession.” Is that right?

I hope not, because the reconciliation that Paul is talking about here is the sacrifice of Christ on the cross—the Gospel.

That said, I can resolve this for you by asking you to answer the following question:

Does the RCC discourage the laity from evangelizing, or does the RCC encourage the laity to evangelize?

If the RCC discourages the laity from evangelizing, then, for you, there is a dichotomy in this passage.

If the RCC encourages the laity to evangelize then there is no dichotomy.

 

[Fiat]

sandusky:

Fiat, it seems to me that you think that “reconciliation” in this passage is referring to the Catholic “sacrament of confession.” Is that right?

I hope not, because the reconciliation that Paul is talking about here is the sacrifice of Christ on the cross—the Gospel.

That said, I can resolve this for you by asking you to answer the following question:

Does the RCC discourage the laity from evangelizing, or does the RCC encourage the laity to evangelize?

If the RCC discourages the laity from evangelizing, then, for you, there is a dichotomy in this passage.

If the RCC encourages the laity to evangelize then there is no dichotomy.

Sandusky:
Are you saying that God entrusted St. Paul w/ Christ’s sacrifice on the cross??? I am not sure St. Paul or the rest of Christendom would agree with you.

If you believe that reconciliation is simply the message of Christ with which St. Paul was entrusted, then why does St. Paul consider himself an ambassador of that message to the people in Corinth when he already describes them as “saints” and “members of the Church of God.” Are you suggesting that these saints and members of the Church of God did not yet have the message of the Gospel? Come, now…

Fiat
Fiat

 

[sandusky]

Veritas41:

According to your own requirement for an apostle, St. Paul wouldn’t have been a candidate himself because he was not a companion of Christ during His earthly ministry and he wasn’t an eyewitness of Christ’s resurrection

You are quibbling, Joan; do you recognize Paul as an apostle, or not?

Veritas41:

Please read on in verses 9-10, 12, “For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears. . .Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.” Perfection comes when Christ comes (or we see Him after death). Then we will “know fully” as we are fully known. Only then will spiritual gifts cease to be necessary.

Joan, many think that “the perfect” spoken of in v10 is Jesus. Many others, including me, think that the perfect is the finishing of revelation and the compilation of the canon of scripture. I have reams of research on this and am quite confident of the conclusion. What I have is too much to post in its present form, and I do not have time to distill it down to a manageable size for this type of medium.

If you care to offer some support for your claim that “the perfect” is Jesus, I will read it.

Veritas41:

Please take a close look at the actions of the apostles when they’re preaching forgiveness through Christ. They’re preaching to yet unconverted people, not baptized Christians (who alone can receive the sacrament of reconciliation).

Yes Joan, they were preaching to unconverted people. Read 2 Cor 5:16-21, therein you will read of the Ministry of Reconciliation—the pleading of the evangelist with the unconverted—the Gospel of Christ in which is found the forgiveness of sins.

Veritas41:

Acts 22:16, “And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name.” (Ananias to newly converted Saul).

Joan, if you go through Acts and list all of the records of baptism you will find the order to be, repent, and be baptized. Paul had already repented (see v10), and now needed to be baptized, as Ananias instructed. With repentance comes the remission of sin. Baptism is an outerward symbol of inward change that has already taken place; it is the picture of the believer’s union with Christ in His death, burial, and resurrection (Rom 6:4-6).

 

[MariaG]

sandusky:

Yes Maria, that is what I am saying. It is not confession as you practice it; it is not a regularly scheduled event. But in the course of my Christian life other brothers and sisters in the Lord will confess things to the Lord, and to me, and vice versa. And at that time, and after prayer, I always remind them that their sins are forgiven them. As John tells us, if we confess our sins He is faithful and righteous to forgive us.

Hi,

I do not agree with your assessment, but I have much more respect for your interpretation than those who say that those verses mean go and TEACH forgiveness, ie spread the Good News.

I think to believe that all people in Christ’s body have the same jobs is to ignore much of Acts where we see that there were different qualifications needed to be bishops etc. It also ignores Paul who tells us we all have different gifts.

And on a personal note, as someone who has confessed my sins in private in my bedroom and taken advantage of the Sacrament of Reconcilliation (confession), I know the difference in how I feel. In the first case, sins would often come back to me and haunt me. Those in my church would say that it is just the Devil trying to get to me, God has forgiven me. In the sacrament, my sins are truly gone and don’t ever come back.

But as I said, I respect your interpretation more than those who have tried to say that those verses are telling men to *only *go and teach forgiveness instead of go and forgive.

Your sister in Christ,
Maria

Just a note, a regularly scheduled event? Most people go to confession when they feel the need. Most do not go every week, (although there are great benefits to regular weekly confessions). And a person may call up the priest anytime and ask for a confession even if the “scheduled” time is only on Saturdays, they can call and receive confession anytime, if they feel the need to unburden themselves of a serious sin.