Jesus Christ is our only 'mediator' as stated by St. Paul

[bicolmonk]

Aside from oral tradition, it says Jesus did many things not written in the scriptures. I believe He must have said things not written as well. The question " show me where in the Bible it says… " is useless You wont find proof that we should confess to a priest, it was probably agreed upon and we were not there yet. Anything “you bind will be bound in heaven.” I cud not find Japan in the Bible also but I’ve been there. No wonder there’s so many breakups cuz of disagreements.

 

[bicolmonk]

We, as Protestants, see Mary as the mother of Christ (the Son of Man and the Son of the Lord God Almighty). We do not see Mary as the mother of God. Jesus was begotten as the Lord of Hosts, before the world was, without a mother. In Acts, it is written, “This same Jesus that you have crucified, I have made both Lord and Christ.” In Isaiah 44:6, we find that “God” consists of The Lord God Almighty and Jesus (as Lord of Hosts and Lamb).

The N/T quotes Christ as saying, that He (alone), is the way, the truth and the life…the door…the chastiser…the mediator (along with the Holy Ghost…the spirit [of] truth). There is no quote (by Christ/God) in the Bible, that gives Mary any special ‘powers’ in terms of mediation (nor any other human being). In order for God to provide the Son of Man (Lamb), He had to choose ‘a’ woman. He chose Mary. It is as simple as that.

It is written, that we do not even know how to pray. It is NOT written, ‘except for Mary’. Our prayers are just as powerful as hers (or anyone else’s prayers), if we are right with God, and our prayers are righteous.

God has chosen people to do His work, as He has seen fit, since the beginning of the creation of Adam & Eve. Mary is simply one of these chosen people, to do a certain ‘job’ (albeit, a very honourable & precious ‘job’). The purpose of her ‘job’, was not to glorify Mary, herself, but to glorify the Lord God Almighty and HIs only begotten Son (ie. “GOD”), and provide us with a source for redemption.

 

[bicolmonk]

1 timothy 4:16 16 Attend to yourself and to your teaching; persevere in both tasks, for by doing so you will save both yourself and those who listen to you.

1 Cor 9:22 To the weak I became weak, to win over the weak. I have become all things to all, to save at least some.

James 5:19-20
19 My brothers, if anyone among you should stray from the truth and someone bring him back, 20 he should know that whoever brings back a sinner from the error of his way will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins.

These verses talk about saving someone (and this is not the Blessed Morther quoting). If we are called to priesthood (priest being mediator between God and mankind), then we can be saviors according to these verses? Please anybody can anybody enlighten me please?

 

[bicolmonk]

1 timothy 4:16 16 Attend to yourself and to your teaching; persevere in both tasks, for by doing so you will save both yourself and those who listen to you.

1 Cor 9:22 To the weak I became weak, to win over the weak. I have become all things to all, to save at least some.

James 5:19-20
19 My brothers, if anyone among you should stray from the truth and someone bring him back,
20 he should know that whoever brings back a sinner from the error of his way will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins. 8

Please explain.

 

[1beleevr]

Howdy, shw: Whew, you said a mouthful; but still didn’t prove that Jesus told US, to confess to a priest!! On many occasions in this forum, when I have said, that Jesus speaks to us, through His Word, catholics have repeatedly said, He was speaking to Hid disciples, and because of apostolic succession, they speak to usAnd speaking of James 5:14-16, there is no clear indication here either, that a trip to the priest, what is it, every Saturday, is necessary In 1John 1:9, you have inferred that we must confess our sins to Him, through a priest! Let me ask you this; what is the "penalty from the church, for not going to confession? And given the rigidity of the catholic religion, how can there be such an animal as a “cafeteria” catholic? Maybe youse guys should call them “buffet” catholics Matthew 7:1-5,Luke 18::thumbsup:14,James 4:11,

 

[elvisman]

ummm…Only God can forgive sins Mk 2:7, i have already responded to Jn 20:23 but I will do it for you. All this scripture is saying is when people respond to the gospel in a positive way and accept it, we have the right to delcare to them “your sins are forgiven” based on the promise of Jesus. Same goes for "your sins are not forgiven. We are proclaiming heaven’s verdict regarding what will happen if people respond one way or the other in regard to Christ.
Technically all believers is a priest before God 1 Peter 2:5,9. So if this is true then this has implications regarding whether it is necessary for believers to go to a priest for confession. After all Priests confess directly to God Heb 4:16. If we are priests as scripture indicates then we confess directly to God not to another priest.
Scripturally there is not a single verse in the NT including Jn 20:23 that instructs us to confess our sins to some priest.
Since the Word of God indicates that all of us are priests and since all priests confess directly to God what does this tell you about the privilege of every single believer. Ummmm.lol (we can confess directly to God instead of having to go through anothe priest)Ummmm. God Bless you Elvis

Just as I thought - you can’t show me in the text that it says what you stated:
"John 20:22-23 Is just a proclamation of what Christ has already done. No need to confess your sins to a priest."

---

**You can’t show me where Scripture says that Scripture alone is our authority, yet you believe it. John 20:21-23 **is a much more explicit instruction, yet you don’t believe it. As usual - the scriptures you provided are very weak references, in that it never says anything about having the power to forgive sins as John 20:21-23, Matt. 16:15-18 & 18:15-18.

PS - Maybe you should LOL less and study Scripture more.

 

[1beleevr]

awgusteen: I don’t believe I have ever explicitly stated that our Saviour instructed me, or anyone for that matter to abide by sola scriptura This is a catholic saying, right? It’s in latin, so it must be! It’s interesting, that the catholic church has its’ headquarters in the center of what was once one the most evil empires in history

 

[1beleevr]

:Well, since my baby left me…"; hey there elvisman, what’s up, my brother in Christ? Succint, huh? As usual, trying to impress with big wordsSuccint:adj,expressed briefly and clearly;expressing much in few words, concise! Hmmmmmmmm, let’s see, John 20:21-23, and what was the other one, 1 Timothy 2:5? Well her goes… to be continued…! By the way, are you still anal?

 

[guanophore]

… but still didn’t prove that Jesus told US, to confess to a priest!!

I agree. I think it is not possible to “prove” most of the articles of our faith, for example, that God is three persons in one being (trinity) or that Jesus is God, or that the books that are in the Bible are the ones that belong in there. They are called “articles of faith” because we received them from the Apostles and those they authorized to define the Christian doctrine for the Church.

On many occasions in this forum, when I have said, that Jesus speaks to us, through His Word, catholics have repeatedly said, He was speaking to Hid disciples, and because of apostolic succession, they speak to us

Why is this confusing? We all can hear God speaking to us in our hearts, through His Word, etc. The problem arises when we “hear” things that separate from what the HS has already revealed to the Church.

And speaking of James 5:14-16, there is no clear indication here either, that a trip to the priest, what is it, every Saturday, is necessary:p

James refers to Presbyters, (rendered in English “priests”). We are to call for the presbyters, and confess, and be healed. If a person is going to confess, why would one do so to a person not authorized to remit the sins?

In 1John 1:9, you have inferred that we must confess our sins to Him, through a priest! Let me ask you this; what is the "penalty from the church, for not going to confession?

The NT is in the OT concealed. This is how Jesus set things up.

The “penalty” for unconfessed sins is built into the sins. This was the case before Jesus founded the Church.

And given the rigidity of the catholic religion, how can there be such an animal as a "cafeteria" catholic? Maybe youse guys should call them "buffet" catholics:D Matthew 7:1-5,Luke 18::thumbsup:14,James 4:11,

I agree with this point also. I think that those who have rejected the Teaching of the Apostles in the Church are not Catholic. They may have been baptized or brought up that way, but they were poorly catechized, or willfully defiant. Most of them have become Protesatnts, though they don’t realize this.

I agree with what you wrote about the priesthood of all believers, however, just as Israel was called to be a nation of priests, only some were called to be ministerial priests (full time focused task), and there was only one High Priest. Similarly, in the New Covenant, Jesus is our High priest, He calls some to be ministerial priests (not according to family) and the whole Church is called to minister Christ to the world and participate in reconciling the world to God. All this is foreshadowed in the OT.

 

[Peter_Dawson]

Jesus Christ is our only ‘mediator’ as stated by St. Paul. Non-Catholics like to point out this verse to Catholics (out of context of course), as they mistakenly perceive that we ‘mediate’ through His mother, the Blessed Virgin Mary. Nothing could be further from the truth.
‘Mediator’, as defined by the dictionary, the first meaning, is: ‘One who works to resolve or settle differences by working with all the conflicting parties’.

The ‘conflicting parties’ in this case, are of course, GOD, and mankind. Jesus Christ did indeed act as mediator by suffering and dying for us.

I, personally, think it is best to view Mary as a “sub-mediator” between us an Christ.

The reason why I say this is because of the John 2 typological word picture: The waiter goes to Mary, not Jesus, for help with “wine” – a type for the saving blood of Christ. Jesus nastily repudiates Mary. In effect, “MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS, WOMAN! GOD DOESN’T NEED YOU!” – seemingly in agreement with the anti-Mary-as-mediatrix folks.

But then, note very, very, very carefully what Jesus does next: HE DOES EXACTLY WHAT MARY ASKS!!!

So, Scripture seems to portray Mary as a successful mediator between man and Christ – not between man and the Father.

So, I call Mary a “sub-mediator.”

 

[1beleevr]

Peter Dawson: I have always called Mary, mother of Jesus! There is no indication, that she was ever designed to be a mediator, sub-mediator, or anything else! So it would seem that those who CHOOSE to honor her as such, do so, out of either teaching by others, or to “follow the crowd!” This by no means, infers that I discount Mary’s contibution to God’s plan of salvation, I just choose not to view her as others would, in the capacity of intercessor/mediator! In His service! 1beleevr FAITH DOES NOT DWELL IN THE HOUSE OF CERTAINTY!

 

[elvisman]

:Well, since my baby left me…"; hey there elvisman, what’s up, my brother in Christ? Succint, huh? As usual, trying to impress with big wordsSuccint:adj,expressed briefly and clearly;expressing much in few words, concise! Hmmmmmmmm, let’s see, John 20:21-23, and what was the other one, 1 Timothy 2:5? Well her goes… to be continued…! By the way, are you still anal?

"Succinct" a big word? Maybe to the uneducated.
**Why would you call me “anal”? **
Look - if you’re un-schooled, at least try to be charitable.

 

[Peter_Dawson]

There is no indication, that she was ever designed to be a mediator, sub-mediator, or anything else!

I respectfully disagree.

Scripture is the indicator.

In John 2, we see Mary successfully mediating for Christ’s sacrificial blood between mankind and Christ.

Jesus, in the course of the John 2 mediation, gives Mary the title “Woman.”

In John 19:26, Jesus places the Church (in the person of Bishop John the Apostle) in the care of Woman Mediator.

 

[avflf]

shw: Funny, I read 1John1:9 again, and there is no mention of priests It is clearly the interpretation(speaking of such) of the catholic church, that believers should be compelled to confess sins to a priest! No catholic on any thread has been able to show me where my Saviour commands ME to confess my sins to a priest, therefore I shall continue confessing to the one and only Holy Father(sorry pope!)

And by doing so you are preventing humorous topics of discussion at the dinner table

 

[1beleevr]

guanophore: I always enjoy reading your posts! It is obvious, that we each read something, anything, and see different things:thumbsup:I do not infer from James, that he is speaking about presbyters, but it is perfectly okay that you do; it fits your agenda! And in 1John 1:9, it is not clear, as shw pointed out that John is talking only to believers(but as believers, it makes sense). I realize that to some, I come across as a catholic basher, but nothing could be further from the truth! I am just a 42 year follower of Christ, who as I go along, am learning to be more obedient to the voice of the Saviour! I believe that God loves obedience more than sacrifice(1 Samuel 15:22) I’m not perfect, by any stretch of the imagination, and not saying that you are wrong and I am right, or vice versa! We are all children of God, and our ultimate goal is to serve our King, until such time as He calls us home, or returns! We will continue to disagree, this is a human condition, but by no means should this demean or belittle anyone or their faith. So bottom line is, catholics believe(among others) that confession to a priest is mandatory, the rest of us feel it is optional or unnecessary! God bless and keep you, my sister in Christ!

 

[1beleevr]

Peter Dawson: And I respectfully disagree with your disagreement Why do you believe that Mary went from mother to “woman” in the blink of an eye? How much difference would it have meant for Jesus to say,“Mother, that’s not our problem, my time has not yet come.” And whatever shall I infer from John 19:26? What exactly did Jesus mean, when He said, “Woman,here is your son.” John was the disciple that Jesus loved, so it might possibly be that Jesus entrusted her care to John??? I guess we won’t know for sure until we see Jesus, huh?

 

[Richard_Kastner]

I can appreciate that this is what you want to believe “what John is saying”. However, your choice of interpretation is not consistent with what the Apostles believed and taught. They taught that God wants all men to be saved, and come to the knowledge of the Truth, and that God has called all men every where to repent, believe in the Gospel, and become obedient to the faith. Toward that end, we are to pray fervently for the conversion of lost sinners who are in danger of dying in their sins. You have inserted your personal (or perhaps the classic SDA) theology into the passage. It says nothing about praying for mercy with regard to unrepentant sins.

I believe what John is saying is that we should not pray for mercy for sins that are not repented of. I do not believe he is saying that we should not pray that the sinner comes to repentance.

How do you get from this post that I am saying that we should not pray that men come to repentance? You know guano I don’t think that you are misunderstanding me at all. I think that you are deliberately twisting what I say, because you don’t like it that I disagree with you and your church, I find that a bit disingenuous to say the very least. (I’m holding back so as not to be rude)

There are sins that are mortal (unto death) and intercessory prayer is not sufficient for them. One must go to confession, so that the sin can be remitted.

If you go to confession I’m assuming that it is repented of and** it is not unto death**

I am sure that you wish to see yourself as a righteous servant. That is kinda hard to put across when you are breaking the forum rules.

See, this is what I am talking about. You completely ignore the point that I am trying to make in order to take a cheap shot at me personally. The point I was trying to make is that the righteous servant was feeding the lord’s household. You say that it is hard for me to put across that I am righteous because I seem to have transgressed some man made rules for this forum. Let me explain something to you guano riighteousness has nothing to do with how well you keep man’s rules. What it has to do with is wether or not you have accepted Jesus Christ as both your Savior and Lord which in turn will lead you to keep His rules. It is a fact that I am trying to feed both you and anyone else who reads this thread. Wether or not you take and eat is out of my control. Wether or not you believe that I am righteous is not my concern, however, by doing so I feel that I have done my part.

It seems clear from your previous posts that you have significantly departed from the Apostolic teaching on Heaven and Hell. However, that is an issue for another thread also.

How have I departed from the apostolic teachings on heaven and hell. (please be specific)

Suffice to say that we are in agreement that there are different degrees of seriousness of sin. In the Latin Rite, these are referred to as “mortal” and “venial”. Mortal sins are deadly, and do not respond to intercessory prayer.

Sins don’t respond at all. Sinners do.

All sins are covered by the blood of the Lamb.

This is true, but in order for it to be effective in our lives, it requires our acceptance of that gift. I’m sure you’re not saying that Jesus blood will save even the unrepentant, are you?

Just the number of departures you have made from Apostolic Teaching on this thread is too much for one post! You have departed from the unity of the Apostles. You have taken up a “different gospel” that was created some 1800 and some years after the Apostles committed the faith (whole and entire) to the Church.

I have asked you to provide a post, any post, just an example, of my “departure” from apostolic teaching. You have failed to do so. I’m thinkin not because they are too numerous, but because you can’t.

Your explanation of the passage does not fit all the facts. See my first paragraph above.

See my paragraph above.

Actually, I think you did say that all sin is equivalent.

What I said was. All sin is serious

However, specifically with regard to the passage in Jn, you are saying that it it not talking about the seriousness of the sin, but to whether or not the sin is forgiven.

See this is what I’m talking about. I’m not sure whether you don’t understand what I’m saying or are deliberately twisting what I am saying. Again, all sin is serious. John is sayig in v. 16 that we should not pray for mercy for the sinner who himself does not ask for mercy. (in other words has not repented]

continued

 

[Richard_Kastner]

continuance

I can know what has been revealed by the word of God, and that is that Pilate sinned in handing Jesus over to be crucified, and so did Herod. However, I don’t agree with y’all that Herod is the one reference in this passage, but the High Priest and the elders. They are the ones that are responsible for handing Jesus over. Jesus testified of them that they would die in their sins, unless they came to Him.

You got it wrong again. I said Caiaphus and the Sanhedren (who is the high priest and the Jewish governing body) I never mentioned Herod.

You are right, I cannot know if any of them were forgiven

Why did you say they weren’t then? I make a point of this, because this seems to be your MO. You put out posts with misinformation, that have the facts scrambled or contradict each other or are misinformed or not facts at all and then you move on as if nothing were amiss. I believe that you have a responsability to scupulously analize your posts for the truth, to the best of your ability, (me too)

but I do know that the passage in Jn. is not distinguishing sins according to the categories of forgiven/unforgiven.

Apparently you don’t, because that’s what it is about.

This, again, is your personal belief, also not consistent with what the Apostles believed and taught.

Jn. 3:16For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
You will notice in this v. that there are only two types of people. Those who have everlasting life and those that are destroyed (not living in eternal torment, but destroyed). There is no middle ground, there is no purgatory, there is no second chance. See this is what makes this doctrine so dangerous. It lulls people into thinking that sin isn’t so bad and the little ones they can take care of thierselves. They don’t really need the Cross or Jesus. And if they get to the point where they think all their sins are little ones. They can get into heaven without Jesus at all.

We are in agreement on this point. What we don’t agree upon is how you interpret what John says.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Kastner
I think you misunderstand me here. In v. 16 John says there is a sin unto death and that we should NOT PRAY for it. Now let’s get this straight. It’s not me saying this. It’s John.

Here is the post you refer to here. You say you agree with me on this point. The point that I am making is that John said it and not me. Then you say that you don’t agree with my interpretation. 1Jn5:16If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. **There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it. ** So what I hear you saying here is that you disagree with John. Is that right?

I know you believe this, however, this is not consistent with what the Apostles believed and taught.

Again I ask you to give what the apostles did teach that is contrary to anything that I have said

It is true, death in a state of unrepentant sin is mortal, but the passage in John is talking about greater and lesser severeties of sin.

Really, here’s the v. again
1Jn5:16If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it.
It’s talking about sins that we should pray for or ask mercy for, these are sins that are repented of. John says however that there are sins that we should not even pray for. Again not my words, but John’s. The only difference between these sins is that one we should pray for and the other we shouldn’t. Both sins are serious. So why should we not even pray for one sin, if this was just explaining differing degrees of sins.

Mortal sin must be remitted according to the method Jesus gave to the Church.

Ok, now I see why you are so adamant against what I am saying. Because, if you accept what I am saying (or more accurately what John is saying). You have to accept the fact that there is no purgatory, but also you must accept that the only way to have your sins forgiven is through faith in the ceansing blood of Christ. And not in the ability of some sinner in a box saying some words over you.

 

[tmac1956]

awgusteen: I don’t believe I have ever explicitly stated that our Saviour instructed me, or anyone for that matter to abide by sola scriptura This is a catholic saying, right? It’s in latin, so it must be! It’s interesting, that the catholic church has its’ headquarters in the center of what was once one the most evil empires in history

No. But you did say:

“…No catholic on any thread has been able to show me where my Savior commands ME to confess my sins to a priest…”

implying that the Savior must command you to do something before you will do it. I simply carried your position to its next logical conclusion. Would you care to elaborate in this apparent logical dichotomy, or are you seriously stating that you don’t know what Sola Scriptura means? Oh – and by the way, the Roman Empire vanished centuries ago, so your point is?

 

[Peter_Dawson]

Peter Dawson: And I respectfully disagree with your disagreement Why do you believe that Mary went from mother to “woman” in the blink of an eye? How much difference would it have meant for Jesus to say,“Mother, that’s not our problem, my time has not yet come.” And whatever shall I infer from John 19:26? What exactly did Jesus mean, when He said, “Woman,here is your son.” John was the disciple that Jesus loved, so it might possibly be that Jesus entrusted her care to John??? I guess we won’t know for sure until we see Jesus, huh?

Nah! Very little in Scripture is limited to its plaintext purpose. I don’t believe that the story about the wedding feast at Cana is a story about a Jewish mother getting her way on the subject of wine. I don’t believe that the business of Jesus giving John to Mary and Mary to John from the cross is about taking care of an old lady.