Looking for Help with Discussion with Evangelicals

[AbideWithMe]

Glenda—I was out late tonight, so, after reading your posts I only had a little time to examine this subject before bedtime. (I’m in PA, too. :yawn: ). I do read both Testaments–often. Your assumptions about me were off base, but there’s always more to learn, so I took you seriously and open-mindedly re-read pertinent passages in the OT using a concordance.

Each of the references I found to confession in the OT either spoke of generalized corporate confession (such as the one you cited from Leviticus; the priest could not have literally been confessing and enumerating all the sins if each member of Israel, or he’d have been there practically forever to hear them and then confess them) or spoke of individual confession and sin offerings in a handful of specific circumstances which involved sins against the community or against another individual. As an Evangelical Christian, I have been taught that there are times when public or pastoral confession is called for should one sin against another or against the community, and restitution–as far as possible—is also needed. I can see that in the OT. What I’m not seeing, however, are the requirements of Catholic confession and absolution today (as I understand it after discussing this with other Catholics, reading the CCC, and really trying to see the Catholic perspective with an open mind). I’m not questioning the idea of one person interceding for another in the OT; certainly we can see that in Abraham, Job, Moses, and Samuel. I’m not questioning the idea of going to a priest so a person could audibly hear the promised forgiveness spoken over them; though I believe, as in the book of Hebrews, that Jesus is our High Priest, I actually have no real problem with the “In Persona Christi” idea as a gift for our human nature. It’s the other part of Catholic confession which I spoke of in earlier posts which I really don’t see in the OT. (I realize this should be a topic for its own thread.)

And yes, the quote about Jewish confession which Itwin provided is similar to what I’ve learned in my own reading and with what a Jewish poster here said.

 

[ltwin]

Greatly enjoyed your post. Thank you:thumbsup:

But something you said near the top caught my attention.

What I [personally] find so interesting about this is how very specific and precise the language of Christ is:

“YE” [YOU!] God out and teach [addressing only and specifically the Apostles and NOW through them; their Successors, having changed the mandate from ONLY the Jews [Mt. 10:1-8] to NOW the entire World. [Also Mk.16:14-15]. “Whatsoever I TAUGHT TO YOU!”

I find these passages to be among the clearest evidence of One God; One Faith in One Church; and it seems to be glossed over?

God Bless you,
Patrick

And yet, we are told in Ephesians 4: 11-16:

And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ, so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes. Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ, from whom the whole body, joined and held together by every joint with which it is equipped, when each part is working properly, makes the body grow so that it builds itself up in love.

I never understood how or why Catholics somehow think the existence of apostles and an ordered ministry somehow means that evangelization is off limits to anyone else. Even if I accepted the existence of Apostolic Succession, I would still believe, based on God’s Word, that the purpose of such Succession and all the offices and powers that derive from such Succession would be to “equip the saints for the work of the ministry.”

This is the purpose for evangelical clergy. They realize they can’t spread the gospel by themselves. It is the job of the whole church to evangelize and to minister out of the abilities and gifts that God gives each person.

 

[Cat]

And yet, we are told in Ephesians 4: 11-16:

And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ, so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes. Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ, from whom the whole body, joined and held together by every joint with which it is equipped, when each part is working properly, makes the body grow so that it builds itself up in love.

I never understood how or why Catholics somehow think the existence of apostles and an ordered ministry somehow means that evangelization is off limits to anyone else. Even if I accepted the existence of Apostolic Succession, I would still believe, based on God’s Word, that the purpose of such Succession and all the offices and powers that derive from such Succession would be to “equip the saints for the work of the ministry.”

This is the purpose for evangelical clergy. They realize they can’t spread the gospel by themselves. It is the job of the whole church to evangelize and to minister out of the abilities and gifts that God gives each person.

Any Catholic who believes that evangelism is limited to the clergy needs to take it up with Pope Benedict XVI, who came up with the New Evangelization.

Frankly, I would not want to face Pope Benedict XVI with any objections to his teaching–I think I would end up the loser in that discussion!

 

[glendab]

Itwin, I’ll say this as kindly as I can, but you’re wrong about the practice among Jewish people today. How do I know this? My Granduncle was a Rabbi who was orthodox as in kosher. People came to have a “talk” with him. This was always done behind closed doors and no one had any knowledge of his instructions to his penitents. They usually had something to do after leaving him. He was a wise and caring soul. Sometimes money was sent directly to Jerusalem afterwards, sometimes it stayed here, some even went into his pocket. Want to say something scandalous about the exchange of money after a confession? Go right ahead.

No, he didn’t sacrifice animals at his home in a pitched tent in the backyard. He kept Kosher as did my grandmother and her husband and my father and his sister although she became a “reformed” Jew later on in her life and my dad became an Atheist. Part of being able to do this, keeping of Mosaic Law, keeping Kosher, involved regular confessions of ones faults and failings to my Uncle, the Rabbi. There ya go. First hand knowledge of Jewish practice.

But that’s not the same as contemporary Catholic practice in any case. And as I understand it, AbideWithMe is right on target to ask the question to those who see foreshadowing in this. Jewish websites certainly don’t believe confession to or before a priest in connection to sacrifices was in itself needed for forgiveness of sins:

How do Jews obtain forgiveness without sacrifices?
Forgiveness of sins against God alone is simply obtained through repentance and confession of one’s sins in words before God Himself, and amending one’s future conduct according to the halakhah; when one sins against a person (as by theft or injury), he must also do his best to make restitution to the person injured and gain his forgiveness, as well as repenting, confessing, and making amends in future conduct before God. Gentiles may be surprised to learn that this is as fully effective for them as for Jews (which is the main point of the Book of Jonah, of course; see Jonah 3,10, in particular). When the Temple stands, some sins require offerings as explained below in addition to this repentance process, not instead of it; without this repentance process, offerings for sins are totally ineffective, and must be brought again when one has truly repented.
It is important to emphasize that under the Torah, sacrifice was never the exclusive means of obtaining forgiveness, was not in and of itself sufficient to obtain forgiveness, and in certain circumstances was not even effective to obtain forgiveness.

That’s a little rude and a poor way to have a constructive argument. Just because a person disagrees with your characterization of another religion’s past religious and ritual practice does not mean they have “little knowledge” of the issues involved.

But Jews don’t get assigned penance by a priest. Yes, they are supposed to confess, desist from sin and make restitution. But this is between the individual and God or the individual and another individual they have wronged.

I understand that you are a convert from Judaism, so I don’t want to sound like I’m trying to claim more knowledge of the Jewish religion than you have. However, I would point out that a Jew turned evangelical Christian could just as easily see evangelical confessional beliefs in both ancient and contemporary forms of Judaism.

Oh, **you are correct **to say this isn’t the same as Catholic practices nor Protestant practices for that matter. We as Catholics have a SACRAMENT. God took what we’d been learning to do, that is confess to one’s Rabbi and do as he says, and elevated it to something HOLY - A SACRAMENT. And please take that any way you like. It is different now then it was when Jesus walked the earth because that is what God willed to do. He instituted the Sacrament along with 6 others. This was predicted by Prophets before when they said that God would do something new. The Sacraments ARE that something new and so is the Church. Go figure.

Glenda

P.S. One thing my Uncle the Rabbi would find very upsetting and insulting is the deliberate distortion of Jewish practice and theology that Protestants seem to find all too easy to do as if they are experts. I sometimes have to bite my tongue when I hear the ridiculous things folks expect others to believe about Jews these days. It is also true that Jews sometimes avoid having “a talk” with the Rabbi in the same way Catholics avoid having “a talk” with the Priest or Protestants avoid having “a talk” with their Pastors.

 

[PJM]

Originally Posted by AbideWithMe
I’m going to briefly point out that, based on statements from Jewish posters here (on other threads) and what I’ve learned in my own pretty wide but not exhaustive reading about Judaism, Jews did not have to tell their sins to the priest. Do you have a Jewish reference or reference from a primary or scholarly source that says “the sinner in question TOLD the priest at the Temple what he’d done”?

THIS ADDED BY PJM
Lev.5: 13 “Thus the priest shall make atonement for him for the sin which he has committed in any one of these things, and he shall be forgiven. And the remainder shall be for the priest, as in the cereal offering." … Lev.6:7 “and the priest shall make atonement for him before the LORD, and he shall be forgiven for any of the things which one may do and thereby become guilty."

Lev.4: 20,26, 31 “Thus shall he do with the bull; as he did with the bull of the sin offering, so shall he do with this; and the priest shall make atonement for them, and they shall be forgiven. …] And all its fat he shall burn on the altar, like the fat of the sacrifice of peace offerings; so the priest shall make atonement for him for his sin, and he shall be forgiven. …And all its fat he shall remove, as the fat is removed from the peace offerings, and the priest shall burn it upon the altar for a pleasing odor to the LORD; and the priest shall make atonement for him, and he shall be forgiven.

AND THESE ARE JUST A FEW EXAMPLES
End PJM

I don’t want to sound trite, but have you ever read the Old Testament? Also read Jesus’ entrance into to the Temple area where the money changers were exchanging their pagan coins for Jewish coins so they could buy the proscribed sacrificial animals with “legal” money. They had traveled there to go to the Temple to have their sins forgiven. Everyone had to go at least once a year.

I’m surprised you have such little knowledge of the life of the Isrealites. It is after all the same life Jesus lived as a Jew all His life. Sorry. my assumption is that folks who read the Bible also read the Old Testament.

As for your knowledge of Jewish practice to day, what do you suppose Jews DO during Purim? How about the Day of Atonement, Yom Kippur? They still DO things to atone for sin. We call it Penance as Catholics. Quite a bit of what we do as Catholics is foreshadowed by the things in the Old Covenant. To understand the New Covenant better it really is necessary to understand the Old.

But that really is my opinion. I apologize if I seem insulting. I really am not trying to be.

Glenda

P.S. There was more than one Jew in my family. I am a convert. There still are. They know they need forgiveness

 

[EvangelCatholic]

Any Catholic who believes that evangelism is limited to the clergy needs to take it up with Pope Benedict XVI, who came up with the New Evangelization.

Frankly, I would not want to face Pope Benedict XVI with any objections to his teaching–I think I would end up the loser in that discussion!

Agree, Pope Benedict is a brilliant evangelical Christian.

 

[ltwin]

Itwin, I’ll say this as kindly as I can, but you’re wrong about the practice among Jewish people today.

Wouldn’t be the first time.

How do I know this? My Granduncle was a Rabbi who was orthodox as in kosher. People came to have a “talk” with him. This was always done behind closed doors and no one had any knowledge of his instructions to his penitents. They usually had something to do after leaving him. He was a wise and caring soul. Sometimes money was sent directly to Jerusalem afterwards, sometimes it stayed here, some even went into his pocket.

And as I said above, I don’t want to sound like I’m trying to claim more knowledge of these things. All I know is what I’ve read. I do know that Judaism is diverse. Most of what I’ve read on the subject of confession in Judaism highlights the difference between it and what is found in Catholicism. What I’ve read emphasizes that confession is done directly to God or the person harmed. Maybe this is an example of the “narcissism of minor differences,” where Jews living in a predominantly Christian culture want to highlight differences rather than commonalities between their own tradition and Catholicism. I don’t know.

Want to say something scandalous about the exchange of money after a confession? Go right ahead.

Well, I wasn’t even thinking it was scandalous until you pointed it out to me.

No, he didn’t sacrifice animals at his home in a pitched tent in the backyard. He kept Kosher as did my grandmother and her husband and my father and his sister although she became a “reformed” Jew later on in her life and my dad became an Atheist. Part of being able to do this, keeping of Mosaic Law, keeping Kosher, involved regular confessions of ones faults and failings to my Uncle, the Rabbi. There ya go. First hand knowledge of Jewish practice.

I’m just trying to reconcile your experience of Judaism with what I’ve read about Judaism. I’m coming to the conclusion that there is not uniform practice about this in Judaism, and apparently the most publicized practice in Judaism is individual confession before God or to the person wronged or public confession in the liturgy.

P.S. One thing my Uncle the Rabbi would find very upsetting and insulting is the deliberate distortion of Jewish practice and theology that Protestants seem to find all too easy to do as if they are experts. I sometimes have to bite my tongue when I hear the ridiculous things folks expect others to believe about Jews these days. It is also true that Jews sometimes avoid having “a talk” with the Rabbi in the same way Catholics avoid having “a talk” with the Priest or Protestants avoid having “a talk” with their Pastors.

I’m not an expert. But I do read. I read from Jewish sources. I’m just trying to reconcile what I’ve read with your own experience.

But here’s the thing I’m having trouble understanding. Protestants do have “talks” with their pastors. We get advice from our pastors on what is moral and godly action, etc. But none of that implies that the minister absolves us of our sins in the name of Christ.

I’m also having trouble understanding how the priestly role in Judaism was somehow transferred to the role of the Rabbi, which are historically two different things entirely. Rabbis were not priests, so what basis under Jewish law have they appropriated even these residual powers of the priesthood?

 

[graceandglory]

Oh it goodness sake, it is not true. Apart from some abberant teachers, Evangelicals certainly are taught to confess to God and to each other; we also examine our consciences and express contrition and repentance.

While they may be “taught” occasionally, as it may come up in a sermon topic, it is not practiced. I was a cradle Catholic, and evangelical for 20 years. I have a lot of experience, and was in a pastoral family. I stand by my experience from Calvary Chapel, Foursquare, Baptist, Vineyard, and Assembly of God churches. It is not practiced as a rule, the way Catholics approach confession as a Sacrament. It would be a rare evangelical, or a cradle Catholic evangelical who would confess all their sins to another person.

 

[AbideWithMe]

While they may be “taught” occasionally, as it may come up in a sermon topic, it is not practiced. I was a cradle Catholic, and evangelical for 20 years. I have a lot of experience, and was in a pastoral family. I stand by my experience from Calvary Chapel, Foursquare, Baptist, Vineyard, and Assembly of God churches. It is not practiced as a rule, the way Catholics approach confession as a Sacrament. It would be a rare evangelical, or a cradle Catholic evangelical who would confess all their sins to another person.

Graceandglory–

Please go back and look at the post (#1) which you originally quoted, which you said was “so true”.

You are now defining confession as if it must be done only in the way Catholics practice it. By that definition, I agree: it would be unlikely for an Evangelical to believe they must confess all their sins to another person in order to be forgiven by God. I don’t know any Evangelical Christians who don’t believe that sins against God can be forgiven by confessing directly to God. We may confess to another person; we do confess to another person—a pastor, spiritual director, elder, mentor—privately, in small groups, or at the altar during a service; we should confess to another person more often; but we don’t believe we must confess to a person in order to be forgiven sins against God.

But, the way you’re now defining confession as practiced by Catholics isn’t what the OP’s post was about. The part you first quoted was a much more general statement of what she understood those particular people believed.

 

[Avila123]

From Cat: When it comes to apologetics, I would say that rather than arguing, point them to the works of Thomas Howard, a man with impeccable Evangelical credentials. The best book that I have ever found for Evangelicals is his book Evangelical Is Not Enough, amazon.com/Evangelical-No…/dp/0898702216

Howard’s book is filled with respect and love for Evangelicalism, and isn’t so much about “dropping” all Evangelical tendencies and practices, but rather, completing your Evangelical Christianity by becoming Catholic.

Just to say that I have read the book and found it very useful in explaining some of where my brother may be coming from, the common ground and the differences. It has given a more dimensional thought process, so hopefully I can be more understanding (and better prepared) when we meet next time, should he raise anything. I will keep referring to the information and references kindly offered in this Thread.

Thank you everyone.

 

[PJM]

=ltwin;11545778]And yet, we are told in Ephesians 4: 11-16:

And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ, so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes. Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ, from whom the whole body, joined and held together by every joint with which it is equipped, when each part is working properly, makes the body grow so that it builds itself up in love.

I never understood how or why Catholics somehow think the existence of apostles and an ordered ministry somehow means that evangelization is off limits to anyone else. Even if I accepted the existence of Apostolic Succession, I would still believe, based on God’s Word, that the purpose of such Succession and all the offices and powers that derive from such Succession would be to “equip the saints for the work of the ministry.”

This is the purpose for evangelical clergy. They realize they can’t spread the gospel by themselves. It is the job of the whole church to evangelize and to minister out of the abilities and gifts that God gives each person.

No my friend; that is what YOU what it to mean; not what God intends it to actually be.

Look at Mt 10: 1-8
Mt. 16:18-19
Mt. 18:18
John 17:14-20
Mk. 16:14-15
Mt. 28:16-20

WHAT DO EACH OF THESE HAVE IN COMMON

RIGHT! JESUS, OUR PERFECT GOD IS SPEAKING DIRECTLY TO AND EXCLUSIVELY TOO HIS APOSTLES.

THEN NOTE THAT JN.17:18 & 20:21 CHRIST GIVES HIS OWN AUTHORITY AND POWER TO HIS APOSTLES ALONE AND EXCLUSIVELY

Then Read Jn.20:19-23 and if in doubt go back to the top: Mt. 10:1-8

NOTE the Mandate in Mt. 10:7-8 is JUST to the “Jews”
BUT NOW in Mt. 28: 18-20 it is cf. TO THE ENTIRE WORLD. Thus Jesus himself mandated Papal Succession and continues with One God; Only One set of Faith beliefs in Only One Church.

WHERE DOES THE BIBLE SAY, OR EVEN HINT that Christ waited more than 1,000 years for the Protestant revolution to introduce HIS singular Truths?

Not even God is able to hold not just contrary, BUT even contradictory views on LONG defined issues.

Then READ Eph. 4:4-7 which supports all of this.

God Bless you!
Patrick

 

[PJM]

=ltwin;11545778]And yet, we are told in Ephesians 4: 11-16:

And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ, so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes. Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ, from whom the whole body, joined and held together by every joint with which it is equipped, when each part is working properly, makes the body grow so that it builds itself up in love.

I never understood how or why Catholics somehow think the existence of apostles and an ordered ministry somehow means that evangelization is off limits to anyone else. Even if I accepted the existence of Apostolic Succession, I would still believe, based on God’s Word, that the purpose of such Succession and all the offices and powers that derive from such Succession would be to “equip the saints for the work of the ministry.”

This is the purpose for evangelical clergy. They realize they can’t spread the gospel by themselves. It is the job of the whole church to evangelize and to minister out of the abilities and gifts that God gives each person.

OK,

BUT the “saints” Paul speaks of were CATHOLICS ONLY:thumbsup: There were NO OTHER CHRISTIAN FAITHS when the bibles was authored and even CODIFIED

 

[PJM]

=AbideWithMe;11562569]Graceandglory–

Please go back and look at the post (#1) which you originally quoted, which you said was “so true”.

You are now defining confession as if it must be done only in the way Catholics practice it. By that definition, I agree: it would be unlikely for an Evangelical to believe they must confess all their sins to another person in order to be forgiven by God. I don’t know any Evangelical Christians who don’t believe that sins against God can be forgiven by confessing directly to God. We may confess to another person; we do confess to another person—a pastor, spiritual director, elder, mentor—privately, in small groups, or at the altar during a service; we should confess to another person more often; but we don’t believe we must confess to a person in order to be forgiven sins against God.

But, the way you’re now defining confession as practiced by Catholics isn’t what the OP’s post was about. The part you first quoted was a much more general statement of what she understood those particular people believed.

Originally Posted by graceandglory View Post
While they may be “taught” occasionally, as it may come up in a sermon topic, it is not practiced. I was a cradle Catholic, and evangelical for 20 years. I have a lot of experience, and was in a pastoral family. I stand by my experience from Calvary Chapel, Foursquare, Baptist, Vineyard, and Assembly of God churches. It is not practiced as a rule, the way Catholics approach confession as a Sacrament. It would be a rare evangelical, or a cradle Catholic evangelical who would confess all their sins to another person

**WHAT IS SEEN HERE IS MAN MADE TO MAKE LIFE EASIER AND TO ATTRACT A FOLLOWING: BUT, MY FRIENDS, IT IS NOT GOD’S WAY. AND THEREFORE IT MAY “FEEL GOOD” BUT ISN’T DOING ANY-GOOD.

HERE’S WHAT GOD’S INSPIRED WORDS TEACH AS BEING GOD’S ONLY ACCEPTABLE WAY**

** 1John.1 Verses 8 to 10:** "If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, and will forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us."

** 1John.5 Verses 16 to 17**"If any one sees his brother committing what is not a mortal sin, he will ask, and God will give him life for those whose sin is not mortal. ** There is sin which is mortal**; I do not say that one is to pray for that. All wrongdoing is sin, ** but there is sin which is not mortal. **

** John.20 Verses 20 to 23**]" When he had said this, he showed them his hands and his side. Then the disciples were glad when they saw the Lord. ** Jesus said to them ** again, “Peace be with you. ** As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.” ** And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.”

AND DEAR FRIENDS, these are both Christ teaching and Christ CC Teaching.

BECAUSE WE CAN HAS NEVER MEANT WE SHOULD. One can follow so and so’s man made religion or one can choose to follow the Only Church founded by Jesus Christ in Person.

Jesus didn’t wait more than 1,000 years after He founded the CC to TEACH how how He WOULD forgive sins.

And as a FYI: He used Priest in the OT too. READ Lev, chapters 4,5, &6

God Bless you.
Who’s in charge? You or YOUR God?
Patrick