Non-Catholic (protestant) authority

[JonNC]

Is this intended to suggest that a priest is acting as Christ would have done?
Is this intended to say all Bishops & Priests are infallible in their judgements just as Christ was?

No one is saying priests or bishops are infallible. Priests and bishops act in persona Christi to bind or loose, as scripture tells us. It is the role of the special priesthood, which is not in contradiction of, but complimentary to, the priesthood of all believers.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Jon,

You know this is untrue for the vast majority of Protestants. Tradition has become a dirty word for most.

That is quite true, Mark, especially where you live D), but it seems appropriate to make it clear that they are not practicing ss as it was intended. I seem to spend more time making distinction with my Protestant siblings than with my Catholic siblings.

Jon

 

[RedBert]

Jon,

You know this is untrue for the vast majority of Protestants. Tradition has become a dirty word for most.

“Most” is not true

From Catholic.com
“Even the principle of sola scriptura (“Scripture alone”), according to the sharpest Protestant scholars, means that the Bible is the ultimate authority—above councils and popes and any tradition—but not that no commentary or tradition may be cited or utilized.”
catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0402fea3.asp

From wiki
“Sola Scriptura is not a denial of other authorities governing Christian life and devotion. Rather, it simply demands that all other authorities are subordinate to, and are to be corrected by, the written word of God”
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_scriptura

From NEWADVENT.org

Sola scriptura (“Bible alone”)

The [first] objective [or formal] principle proclaims the canonical Scriptures, especially the New Testament, to be the only infallible source and rule of faith and practice, and asserts the right of private interpretation of the same, in distinction from the Roman Catholic view, which declares the Bible and tradition to be co-ordinate sources and rule of faith, and makes tradition, especially the decrees of popes and councils, the only legitimate and infallible interpreter of the Bible. In its extreme form Chillingworth expressed this principle of the Reformation in the well-known formula, “The Bible, the whole Bible, and nothing but the Bible, is the religion of Protestants.”** Protestantism, however, by no means despises or rejects church authority as such, but only subordinates it to, and measures its value by, the Bible**, and believes in a progressive interpretation of the Bible through the expanding and deepening consciousness of Christendom. Hence, besides having its own symbols or standards of public doctrine, it retained all the articles of the ancient creeds and a large amount of disciplinary and ritual tradition, and rejected only those doctrines and ceremonies for which no clear warrant was found in the Bible and which seemed to contradict its letter or spirit. …"

The Wesleyan perspective (Methodist)
Wesley used four different sources in coming to theological conclusions.
The four sources are:
Scripture - the Holy Bible (Old and New Testaments)
Tradition - the two millennia history of the Christian Church
Reason - rational thinking and sensible interpretation
Experience - a Christian’s personal and communal journey in Christ

Wesley believed that the living core of the Christian faith was revealed in Scripture, illumined by tradition, vivified in personal experience, and confirmed by reason. Scripture [however] is primary, revealing the Word of God ‘so far as it is necessary for our salvation.’
For Wesley, Tradition, Reason, and Experience do not form additional “sources” for theological truth, for he believed that the Bible was the sole source of truth about God, but rather these form a matrix for interpreting the Bible. Therefore, while the Bible is the sole source of truth,** Tradition forms a “lens” through which we view and interpret the Bible**. But unlike the Bible, Tradition is not an infallible instrument, and it must be balanced and tested by Reason and Experience.

THE BAPTIST CONFESSION OF FAITH:
CHAPTER 1
OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES
Paragraph 1. The Holy Scripture is the only sufficient, certain, and infallible rule of all saving knowledge, faith, and obedience,1 although the light of nature, and the works of creation and providence do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men inexcusable; yet they are not sufficient to give that knowledge of God and His will which is necessary unto salvation…

Paragraph 6. The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down or necessarily contained in the Holy Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelation of the Spirit, or traditions of men.9 Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word,10 and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.

 

[RedBert]

Jon,

You know this is untrue for the vast majority of Protestants. Tradition has become a dirty word for most.

Most?

A quick search of the Methodists, Baptist’s and Lutheran’s statement of beliefs or perspectives show agreement in accepting traditions . **We are now up to 14 million Protestants **represented in just these three denominations;;

Do I need to look up look up the other 4 of the “Seven Sisters of American Protestantism” and find they are also in agreement?

 

[RedBert]

I am sure there many times that you came across “Joe Protestant” that tried to defend a doctrine he barely understands.
But that does not change what the doctrine actually is.

Honestly : I can ask “Joe Catholic” on the street if he believes in the Immaculate Conception (or Papal Infallibly) and the chances are I will get a yes: but if I ask him what it means…

 

[mark_a]

Most?

A quick search of the Methodists, Baptist’s and Lutheran’s statement of beliefs or perspectives show agreement in accepting traditions . **We are now up to 14 million Protestants **represented in just these three denominations;;

Do I need to look up look up the other 4 of the “Seven Sisters of American Protestantism” and find they are also in agreement?

I should have said:

Most for the Protestants I know, who have an opinion about tradition, express it exremely negatively.

Sorry for the broad paint brush, Jon.

 

[BrianH]

Jon,

You know this is untrue for the vast majority of Protestants. Tradition has become a dirty word for most.

Vast majority? No. Certainly not. The largest denominations worldwide, Anglicans, Methodists, Lutherans, Presbyterians, certainly do not. Baptists are mixed granted.

 

[mark_a]

Vast majority? No. Certainly not. The largest denominations worldwide, Anglicans, Methodists, Lutherans, Presbyterians, certainly do not. Baptists are mixed granted.

Please see post 46.

 

[FrancesDS]

Related to the primary questions the moderator asked on ‘authority’ -

Throughout the history of the Church there have been various heresies that have come about. Scripture references the Gnostic heresy as one that existed during the time of the Apostles just as an example.

Scripture tells us that heresies will continue.

As written in 2 Tim 4:3-4: “For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own likings, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander into myths”.

And Paul writes, 1 Cor 11:19, “…there must be heresies (or ‘divisions, factions’ depending on translation) among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized (or ‘that those who are approved may become evident among you’, depending on translation)”.

So, it is important that we know how to recognize heretical views to avoid ‘wandering into myths’ and so that we can know what views are ‘genuine’.

Would everyone agree with this??

Well, if so:

What is the definition of a heresy (in a religious sense)?

How do you decided if a belief/belief system is heretical? (What is your reference point?)

Frances DS

 

[Justin1982]

Is this intended to suggest that a priest is acting as Christ would have done?
Is this intended to say all Bishops & Priests are infallible in their judgements just as Christ was?

Persona Christi applies to the Sacraments. Priests are still humans and make human decisions and need the Sacrament of Confession when necessary.
It was never said that priests and bishops were infallible, that was determined for papal authority and also only applies to teachings on faith and morals.

I am sure there many times that you came across “Joe Protestant” that tried to defend a doctrine he barely understands.
But that does not change what the doctrine actually is.

Honestly : I can ask “Joe Catholic” on the street if he believes in the Immaculate Conception (or Papal Infallibly) and the chances are I will get a yes: but if I ask him what it means…

I’m not sure what you are trying to say? Neither change regardless of whether or not they are understood.

 

[Justin1982]

"Protestantism, however, by no means despises or rejects church authority as such, but only subordinates it to, and measures its value by, the Bible, and believes in a progressive interpretation of the Bible through the expanding and deepening consciousness of Christendom. "

Here’s my problem with that statement.

Yes you have to address things as they arise in society but why does Christianity have to change to fit the current mold. I think the reason so many people have a problem with the Catholic Church is that it won’t conform to society much like so many other churches have. Society changes, the Truth is always the Truth.

 

[RedBert]

Here’s my problem with that statement.

Yes you have to address things as they arise in society but why does Christianity have to change to fit the current mold. I think the reason so many people have a problem with the Catholic Church is that it won’t conform to society much like so many other churches have. Society changes, the Truth is always the Truth.

The CONTEXT of the post was disputing the straw man argument that most Protestants reject traditions: I provided Baptist , Methodist , wiki, Catholic.com and newAdvent.org links to correct that misunderstanding. That is what my post was about.
Context matters

 

[rev_kevin]

Nope! Not true at all.

God had sent Jesus to forgive sins, but after his resurrection Jesus told the apostles, “‘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’” (John 20:21–23).

Explain how this is not referring to the Apostles to forgive sins?

“Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven” (Matt. 18:18).

Explain what bind and loose meant?

This power was understood as coming from God: “All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation” (2 Cor. 5:18). Indeed, confirms Paul, “So we are ambassadors for Christ” (2 Cor. 5:20).

This is one of only two times we are told that God breathed on man, the other being in Genesis 2:7, when he made man a living soul. It emphasizes how important the establishment of the sacrament of penance was.

Matthew 18:18 This prohibiting and allowing refers to the decisions of the church in conflicts. Among believers there is no court of appeals beyond the church. Ideally the church’s decisions should be God-guided and based on discernment of his Word. Believers have the responsibility therefore to bring their problems to the church, and the church hs the responsibility to use God’s guidance in seeking to resolve conflicts. Handling problems God’s way will have an impact now and for eternity.

John 20:21-23 Here Jesus again identified himself with his Father. He told the disciples by whose authority he did his work. Then he passed the job to his disciples of spreading the Good News of salvation around the world. Now whatever God has asked you to do,we should always remember our authority comes from God and Jesus has demonstrated by words and actions how to accomplish the job he has given us. As the Father sent Jesus, Jesus sends his followers which is us.
22. This may have been a special filling of the Holy Spirit for the disciples, a foretaste of what all believers would experience from the time of Pentecost and forever after. To do God’s work we need the guidance and power of the Holy Spirit. There is life in the breath of God. Man was created but did not come alive until God breathed into him the breath of life. God’s first breath made man different from all other forms of creation. Now through the breath of Jesus, God imparted eternal, spiritual life. With this inbreathing came the power to do God’s will on earth.
23 I already explained.

2 Corinthians 5:18 God brings us back to himself or he reconciles us by blotting out our sins and making us right with him. When we trust in Christ, we are no longer God’s enemies or strangers or foreigners to him. Because we have been reconciled to God, we have the privilege of encouraging others to do the same, and so we are those who have the task of reconciling people to him.

2 Corinthians 5:20 And ambassador is an official representative of one country to another. As believers we are Christ’s ambassadors sent with his message of reconciliation to the world. An ambassador of reconciliation has an improtant responsibility and we should not take this responsibility lightly.

 

[dnu]

Matthew 18:18 This prohibiting and allowing refers to the decisions of the church in conflicts. Among believers there is no court of appeals beyond the church. Ideally the church’s decisions should be God-guided and based on discernment of his Word. Believers have the responsibility therefore to bring their problems to the church, and the church hs the responsibility to use God’s guidance in seeking to resolve conflicts. Handling problems God’s way will have an impact now and for eternity.

John 20:21-23 Here Jesus again identified himself with his Father. He told the disciples by whose authority he did his work. Then he passed the job to his disciples of spreading the Good News of salvation around the world. Now whatever God has asked you to do,we should always remember our authority comes from God and Jesus has demonstrated by words and actions how to accomplish the job he has given us. As the Father sent Jesus, Jesus sends his followers which is us.
22. This may have been a special filling of the Holy Spirit for the disciples, a foretaste of what all believers would experience from the time of Pentecost and forever after. To do God’s work we need the guidance and power of the Holy Spirit. There is life in the breath of God. Man was created but did not come alive until God breathed into him the breath of life. God’s first breath made man different from all other forms of creation. Now through the breath of Jesus, God imparted eternal, spiritual life. With this inbreathing came the power to do God’s will on earth.
23 I already explained.

2 Corinthians 5:18 God brings us back to himself or he reconciles us by blotting out our sins and making us right with him. When we trust in Christ, we are no longer God’s enemies or strangers or foreigners to him. Because we have been reconciled to God, we have the privilege of encouraging others to do the same, and so we are those who have the task of reconciling people to him.

2 Corinthians 5:20 And ambassador is an official representative of one country to another. As believers we are Christ’s ambassadors sent with his message of reconciliation to the world. An ambassador of reconciliation has an improtant responsibility and we should not take this responsibility lightly.

What kind of make-believe hermaneutical nonsense is that?

The New Testament letters were written by a specific person to specific people at specific locations at a specific time in history regarding specific issues and that is it.

These letters were not written to anyone in the 21st century. What is with this (quote verse) and then “Paul is telling all believers for all eternity” rubbish?

Quit making up your own interpretations and recognize that these letters have a historically intended audience. This is one of the greatest problems of Protestantism. You guys aren’t capable of realizing that the “we/you/us” of the New Testament doesn’t include you.

If you are not a Baptized, Confirmed, Eucharist acceping, Confessing , etc. etc. Catholic at the Church of Corinth/Ephesus/Rome etc. in the middle of the first century, this letter is not talking to you. The first verse of the letters that say “To the Church of X” should be your first clue. Stop turning a book into a demi-god, stop idolizing a book and recognize the limited scope of what you are reading. It is a letter, not a prophesy. Just a letter.

 

[rev_kevin]

What kind of make-believe hermaneutical nonsense is that?

The New Testament letters were written by a specific person to specific people at specific locations at a specific time in history regarding specific issues and that is it.

These letters were not written to anyone in the 21st century. What is with this (quote verse) and then “Paul is telling all believers for all eternity” rubbish?

Quit making up your own interpretations and recognize that these letters have a historically intended audience. This is one of the greatest problems of Protestantism. You guys aren’t capable of realizing that the “we/you/us” of the New Testament doesn’t include you.

If you are not a Baptized, Confirmed, Eucharist acceping, Confessing , etc. etc. Catholic at the Church of Corinth/Ephesus/Rome etc. in the middle of the first century, this letter is not talking to you. The first verse of the letters that say “To the Church of X” should be your first clue. Stop turning a book into a demi-god, stop idolizing a book and recognize the limited scope of what you are reading. It is a letter, not a prophesy. Just a letter.

So the letters are not intended of us in the 21st century. If that is the case then a priest in the 21st century should not be able to reconcile people to God, it was not intended for them according to you because they are in the 21st century.
What you are saying is that no one in the 21st century is an ambassador for Christ. If this is true, according to you, then the Pope who is in the 21 century is not a ambassador of Christ, nor is a priest, Bishop, or anybody.

Was what Jesus said and taught in the NT just for the people back 2000 years ago or was it intended for us in the 21st century. What about the 10 commandments were they just for the people of Israel 2000 years ago or was it intended for us in the 21st century.

If what you say is true then why does the CC use it to justify what they want?

 

[dnu]

So the letters are not intended of us in the 21st century. If that is the case then a priest in the 21st century should not be able to reconcile people to God, it was not intended for them according to you because they are in the 21st century.
What you are saying is that no one in the 21st century is an ambassador for Christ. If this is true, according to you, then the Pope who is in the 21 century is not a ambassador of Christ, nor is a priest, Bishop, or anybody.

Was what Jesus said and taught in the NT just for the people back 2000 years ago or was it intended for us in the 21st century. What about the 10 commandments were they just for the people of Israel 2000 years ago or was it intended for us in the 21st century.

If what you say is true then why does the CC use it to justify what they want?

Nice job of miconstruing what I wrote and drawing your own conclusions.

Why is it that when a Protestant is told what I just told you, EVERY SINGLE TIME they draw the exact same conclusion you did? I wish I had a dollar for every Protestant that has responded exactly as you just did. I know why, the Protestant can’t handle being called out on their biblical idolatry.

The Priest has full authority because it is the product of an unbroken chain of succession through the laying on of hands and the authority of the Holy Spirit. The sacrament of Holy Orders is not a time-limited finite volume like the New Testament is. Once again, you’ve drawn your own conclusion based upon a faulty understanding of what I wrote.

I never said “nobody in the 21st century is an ambassador of Christ.” Why are you lying and misrepresenting what I said? I simply said that the letters of the New Testament are letters written to a specific historically intended audience. The “we/us/you” of the New Testament is not you and me, it is the Catholics of the mid-first century.

There is a reason why the Christian religion has held for almost 2,000 years that the Bible is but a small fraction of Christian revelation. This is why. They bible is just a collect of inspired letters. This faulty cut and paste nonsense that the Protestants use “we’re saved by just confession Jesus’ name because Romans 10:8-9 says so” is precisely what is wrong with Protestantism, it ignores ALL historical and biblical context and ignores the big picture.

Christians may be the people of the book, but the book is the book of the people, and therefore cannot, under any honest logic, be set above the people.

Protestants make my head hurt. Jesus loves you and he wants you to come home to the one, single Church he founded. He did not found a book, he established a Church so that humanity can participate in the New Covenant with God. I can only pray that someday you will recognize the folly of the Protestant heresy and come home where Jesus always intended for every single one of us to be.

 

[Justin1982]

What kind of make-believe hermaneutical nonsense is that?

The New Testament letters were written by a specific person to specific people at specific locations at a specific time in history regarding specific issues and that is it.

These letters were not written to anyone in the 21st century. What is with this (quote verse) and then “Paul is telling all believers for all eternity” rubbish?

Quit making up your own interpretations and recognize that these letters have a historically intended audience. This is one of the greatest problems of Protestantism. You guys aren’t capable of realizing that the “we/you/us” of the New Testament doesn’t include you.

If you are not a Baptized, Confirmed, Eucharist acceping, Confessing , etc. etc. Catholic at the Church of Corinth/Ephesus/Rome etc. in the middle of the first century, this letter is not talking to you. The first verse of the letters that say “To the Church of X” should be your first clue. Stop turning a book into a demi-god, stop idolizing a book and recognize the limited scope of what you are reading. It is a letter, not a prophesy. Just a letter.

I agree with you to an extent however, not on the outright bashing based on your understanding of the letters. Yes the early Church fathers were speaking to specific churches but you can apply what they are saying to us today if you are aware of the context and troubles to which they are addressing. However, for rev kevin the letters do not supersede the words of Christ they are only meant to support and address the problems that the other churches were having and maintaining a uniform understanding of Jesus’ teachings.

Now to get back to confession, notice in the scriptures how when people are forgiven their sins they have spoken aloud to the Son of Man(physical and spiritual), if you want the references I can give them but I think you can understand where I’m coming from there. They spoke directly to him and through an understanding of persona Christi (John 20:23) it is put into context of why we continue today. Through this we do not lose the physical element of confession, because God made us both physical and spiritual. Humility has an enormous role in confession as it also has an enormous role in the Catholic Church.

When Jesus institutes sacraments in the Bible it seems that they are only stated once which sets a precedence much like how Jesus only says New Covenant once in the entire New Testament during the Last Supper.

My last comment for now is just to thank everyone for maintaining a mostly civil debate and hopefully through this we can receive perspective from opposing sides of the aisle and not allow for the hardening of hearts amongst our own Christian brothers and sisters. If there is anything we can agree on, at least we have a firm belief in Jesus.

 

[rev_kevin]

Nice job of miconstruing what I wrote and drawing your own conclusions.

Why is it that when a Protestant is told what I just told you, EVERY SINGLE TIME they draw the exact same conclusion you did? I wish I had a dollar for every Protestant that has responded exactly as you just did. I know why, the Protestant can’t handle being called out on their biblical idolatry.

The Priest has full authority because it is the product of an unbroken chain of succession through the laying on of hands and the authority of the Holy Spirit. The sacrament of Holy Orders is not a time-limited finite volume like the New Testament is. Once again, you’ve drawn your own conclusion based upon a faulty understanding of what I wrote.

I never said “nobody in the 21st century is an ambassador of Christ.” Why are you lying and misrepresenting what I said? I simply said that the letters of the New Testament are letters written to a specific historically intended audience. The “we/us/you” of the New Testament is not you and me, it is the Catholics of the mid-first century.

There is a reason why the Christian religion has held for almost 2,000 years that the Bible is but a small fraction of Christian revelation. This is why. They bible is just a collect of inspired letters. This faulty cut and paste nonsense that the Protestants use “we’re saved by just confession Jesus’ name because Romans 10:8-9 says so” is precisely what is wrong with Protestantism, it ignores ALL historical and biblical context and ignores the big picture.

Christians may be the people of the book, but the book is the book of the people, and therefore cannot, under any honest logic, be set above the people.

Protestants make my head hurt. Jesus loves you and he wants you to come home to the one, single Church he founded. He did not found a book, he established a Church so that humanity can participate in the New Covenant with God. I can only pray that someday you will recognize the folly of the Protestant heresy and come home where Jesus always intended for every single one of us to be.

About coming to the same conclusion that you spoke about. The same could be said about the Catholics who also come to the exact same conclusion.
I also never said “nobody” I said “no one.” So don’t lie or misrepresent what I said also.

Now the following are your words not mine.
“These letters were not written to anyone in the 21st century.”
The word anyone is defined as: any person at all. Source Websters dictionary.
I don’t see me lying or misrepresenting what you said.

"The New Testament were written by a specificperson to specific people at specific locations at a specific time in history regarding specific issues and that is it.
Specific defined as: of, relating to, or constituting a species, precisely and accurately formulated. having a unique relation to something. exerting a distinctive and usually a causative or curative influence. something peculiarly adapted to a puropse or use, a drug or remedy specific for a particular disease. a characteristic trait, precise details or distinctions. Source Websters dictionary.
When you said “that is it” what you are saying is it was written for them and them only, no one before or after them.
I don’t see me lying or misrepresenting what you said.

"The we/us/you of the New Testament is not you and me it is the Catholics of the mid-first century.
We[/COLORdefined: I and one or more others, used by sovereigns. used by writers to keep an impersonal character
[COLOR=“red”]Us defined: object case of we.
You defined: the one or ones spoken to.
Source Websters Dictionary.
You are saying that it was for the Catholics in the mid-first century. Not before or after the mid-first century.
I don’t see me lying or misrepresenting what you said.

The Book is the Inspired word of God.
Romans 10:8-9 You are saying that Scripture is wrong, It don’t say what it says. Paul was mistaken in his writtings of Romans 10:8-9 about salvation. Then what does it mean if not what is written.

 

[dnu]

Where did I say scripture is wrong?

I simply said that we cannot quote-mine a verse (Romans 10:9 for instance), ignore the historical context and draw our own conclusion.

Romans 10:9 was addressed to a specific audience. To this intended audience it means something. As I already mentioned, the historical reality is that this intended audience were all baptized (since it is an absolute requirement to enter the new covenant), confirmed, partaking of the Eurcharist, confessing their sins to the ordained clergy, etc. etc. It doens’t mean any Christian on earth 2,000 years later simply needs to say the sinners prayer and be saved for all eternity because “the bible says” that “if you confess Jesus with your mouth you will be saved.”

These were not born-again evangelicals who had accepted Jesus as their “Lord and personal Savior.” This “gettin saved” and “personal Savior” rubbish is a fabrication of Protestantism that was nowhere in original Church, and to this very day doesn’t exist in the Christian Church. It exists in the Traditions of men within the Protestant sects, but not in the one and only Church Jesus established.

Recognizing that there is a historical context to these letters is what brought me back to Christianity and to recognize the historical reality of the Catholic Church (Protestantism drove me away with their man-made traditions “gettin saved,” “Personal Lord and Savior,” sola scriptura, faith alone, etc.]).

All I’m asking is for you to recognize that there is a historical context to each of these letters that is completely ignored by the vast majority of Protestants and that when we recognized not only who these letters where written to but also what they meant to these people we find that Protestantism doesn’t have a leg to stand on.

 

[mark_a]

Mark 2:7 “Who but God can forgive sins.”

Acts 10:43 “…Everyone who believes in him will have their sins forgiven through his name.”

John 1:29 “Look! There is the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world.”

John 20:23 “If you forgive anyone’s sins, they are forgiven. If you refuse to forgive them, they are unforgiven.”
(The Disciples did not have the power to forgive sins, only God can forgive sins, but Jesus gave them the privilege of telling new believers that their sins have been forgiven because they have accepted Jesus’ message. All believers have this same privilege. W can announce forgiveness of sins with certainty whe we ourselves have found repentance and faith.)

So how is it that all the original (proper) apostolic Churches got the confession thing wrong too?