J
jmcrae
Guest
John 21:15-19
- Status
M
moondweller
Guest
Actually, there’s a fourth: A false conclusion based on a faulty interpretation.
Matt. 18:18 and Jn. 20:23 are in respect to church discipline, not salvation.
In Matt. 18:15 Jesus said that if your brother sins go and reprove him in private. If he doesn’t listen take one or two more with you; if he still does not listen take him before the whole congregation (church). If he still doesn’t listen then they were to corporately take disciplinary action by excommunicating him.
The Apostles were the foundation on which Christ would build His church, and so this procedure of discipline began with them under their authority. We see an example of this played out in 1 Cor. 5 where a man had his father’s wife. Paul wrote that they must carry out the discipline of removing the man from their midst. And although he (Paul) was not with them he (as an Apostle) had already judged him.
Later in 2 Cor. 2:6 we read that the corporate punishment inflicted upon the man caused the desired result (repentance) and they were to now embrace him, forgive and comfort him. Paul writes:2 Cor 2:10 "But one whom you forgive anything, I {forgive} also; for indeed what I have forgiven, if I have forgiven anything, {I did it} for your sakes in the presence of Christ,"The principle of their forgiving and retaining, loosing and binding, have to do with church government (discipline) and community, not salvation.
In context (Matt. 18:21ff) Peter appropriately asks how often he should forgive his brother who sins against him. Obviously Peter did not understand Christ’s words to mean that he and the others would be given the power of God to judicially forgive sins on earth for salvation. Such forgiveness is done only by God Himself, and that through the power He has through the cross of Christ based on personal faith in Him (1 Cor. 1:18, 21). This was reflected in the Apostolic message to the world:Acts 10:43 “Of Him all the prophets bear witness that through His name everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins.”
Acts 13:38 “Therefore let it be known to you, brethren, that through Him forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you,”
Col 1:13-14 “For He rescued us from the domain of darkness, and transferred us to the kingdom of His beloved Son, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.”
1 John 2:12 “I am writing to you, little children, because your sins have been forgiven you for His name’s sake.”
Eph 4:32 Be kind to one another, tender-hearted, forgiving each other, just as God in Christ also has forgiven you.Matthew 18:18 and John 20:23 are on the level of church discipline and community, not the divine, judicial level of salvation.
Acts 14:23 "When they had appointed elders for them in every church, having prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord in whom they had believed."Elders were appointed in every church. They weren’t Apostles, never would be, never could be. Scripture speaks of no Apostolic “succession.”
M
moondweller
Guest
Nope! Not there. :nope:
N
ncgolf
Guest
Agreed that binding and loosing has more to do with excommunication but the important fact is that a power or authority is granted to the apostles by Christ. This does set a precedent for Jesus conferring power and authority to a group. This could be any power or authority Jesus has … there is no limit set here on what that could be. The other point one could make from this is a church hierarchy is necessary … a formal body that has the ultimate authority to teach, discipline, administer etc. This body has leaders … appointed by those who have authority to do this … not everyone at that time could appoint leaders. A definite line of authority leads from the leaders appointed in the missionary lands by Paul and Barnabas directly back to the Church in Jereusalem led at the time by Peter.
Where did this authority come from … they sure did not have it to begin with. Authority is transferred from one who has it to one who did not previously have it. Remember Christ is a King … a King can give authority and power to whom the King wishes and those conferred that power then have the same authority and speak with the same voice as the King. It is as though the King himself is speaking. If Christ did indeed transfer any power or authority that is Apostlic Sucession … Peter didn’t set the precedent Christ did.
How would Peter understand something he does not yet have for it was not yet specifically given … only the precedent of conferring authority and power is set. John’s 20:23 is the where the authority to forgive sins not against you is given … Matthew 18 is before the Crucification and John 20 is after. The power to forgive sins is God’s. Jesus had this power and it was within his authority to pass it on if He so desired. John is specific about this in 20:23. It comes only after Jesus breathing on them and them telling them what they can now do. Does Jesus have the authority to pass on this power… Yes. Does Jesus do this specifically here … Yes.
Good you hit on something though … Peter is here talking of personal forgiveness … of forgiving one who seeks forgiveness from you (mercy). What is hinted here is we cannot expect mercy from God if we ourselves are not mercy givers. The 77 times is meant to signify our mercy should be endless(abundant) just as God’s mercy is endless. I see this as an expounding on the Beatitude of “Blessed are the Merciful” rather than a commentary on who ultimately forgives sin.
Who said they were apostles anyway … I did not. The age of the Apostles was coming to a close … they were either going to be martyred or die a natural death. The totality of God’s revelation is complete … it is the mission work that these men worked for … the spreading of the Good News is what is left. The Good News must be taught and administered with the same consistency by those apponted by the Apostles. It would do no good if those taught in one land heard a different message of the Gospel as those in another. Remember at this time there is no Canon of Scripture … something you have … it is an orally taught message. The official canon did not come along for another 350 years. Something had to exist to ensure the message stayed true to what Christ had taught the Apostles and did not change as the church leaders changed.
You have said you believe what is written in Scripture … well to get to the point you have something to believe the Church had to make it until 392 AD(I think) without it. What process could have preserved the teachings of the Church from Christ’s ascension until the Official Canon was designated?
M
moondweller
Guest
But nothing to the effect that He made Peter “Chief Shepherd” or His “Vicar” on earth.
But now there’s one more you’ve added which you must prove. Show me where it is stated that Peter was head of the Jerusalem church. Not where you read this idea into some passage, but where it actually states that Peter led that church.
What??? Was Christ an Apostle? No!
You’re rationalizing. Jn. 20:23 is merely reiterating what was said to them before. Jesus literally forgave sins on earth and specifically said He had the power to do so. But can you show me one instance where the Apostles, even Peter, personally said to someone, “your sins I’ve forgiven you?”
The Apostles declared the forgiveness of sins through faith in Christ and the power of the cross (read my previous post again). NONE ever personally forgave sins to the effect of one’s salvation.
Yes. And the foundation was laid (Eph. 2:20). And in every church they appointed “elders” who would build upon that foundation. They (the elders) were not the foundation. You lay a foundation only once and then you build upon it.
In that once laid foundation I do not see where Peter was ever called “Chief Shepherd,” “Head of the church on earth,” or even that he led the Jerusalem church. It is your task to prove all of them, not simply assert them.
N
ncgolf
Guest
I can show you where Christ states his giving God’s own power to forgive sins to the Apostles. You cannot even come to believe what is written in front of you. Christ says something in John 20:23 and you still cannot believe it. I did not make up Christ’s words, you then must deny that Christ means what He says … “Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, whose sins you retain are retained.” So your challenge is met with a grain of salt. You actually brought up the passage in Acts … where Paul and Barnabas appoint leaders in the mission Church in Chapter 14. Chapter 15 is the passage where there is a question whether the Gentiles must follow the Mosiac Law of cirumcision. Peter in Acts 15:7 gets up and speaks …" … from the early days God made his choice among you **that through my mouth **the Gentiles would hear the word of gospel and believe." Paul does not believe the Gentiles should but some Pharisees do not agree, so something must be done. Paul, Barnabas, Peter and a small group of others meet to discuss this issue. Utlimately Peter agrees with Paul but Paul does not make this decision on his own, there is a council and this is where Peter speaks up … as the mouthpiece of God.
You build according to the specs provided you. The foundation is the foundation and a builiding built on a poor foundation will falter. But once the foundation is set the brick used, wall height, window placement are according to a plan … not as you wish. I have never seen a plan that just has the foundation …it also has the plans to complete it. One must follow what the architect intended even if the architect is not present.
All tend to focus on the forgiving part … but the retention of sin leads to some questions. You say this is a reiteration of Matthew and forgiving your brother, but this passage says the Apostles may retain sin. This means it is not forgiven … at least not yet. How could one retain sin? How would you know whether a sin could be forgiven or retained … there seems to be a choice here? The only way to retain sin is to hear what the sin was and judge the disposition of the person seeking forgiveness. You must reconcile the retention of sin which is not specifically mentioned in Matthew 18. The retention of sin does not fit entirely into the context of Matthew 18. Why would Jesus mention retaining sin as a power?
M
moondweller
Guest
I don’t deny what Christ said. I simply don’t put it into the context you present. AGAIN, show me even one instance where even ONE Apostle personally forgave or retained a person’s sins. But if you really want to win your case, show me where Peter as “Vicar of Christ on earth” personally forgave and retained a person’s sins.
Yes, but this was only done on the level of church government and community. Not on a divine judicial level. On the judicial level it is clearly recorded in Scripture that they declared forgiveness of sins on the basis of personal belief in their message of Christ and the cross.
Peter:Acts 10:43 "Of Him all the prophets bear witness that through His name everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins."Paul:Acts 13:38 "Therefore let it be known to you, brethren, that through Him forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you,"Christ’s own words to the Apostle describing the purpose of his ministry:Acts 26:15-18 "And I said, ‘Who are You, Lord?’ And the Lord said, 'I am Jesus whom you are persecuting. ‘But get up and stand on your feet; for this purpose I have appeared to you, to appoint you a minister and a witness not only to the things which you have seen, but also to the things in which I will appear to you; rescuing you from the {Jewish} people and from the Gentiles, to whom I am sending you, to open their eyes so that they may turn from darkness to light and from the dominion of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and an inheritance among those who have been sanctified by faith in Me.’'Paul took the message of the cross to the Gentiles to be believed. He was not sent out to personally forgive and retain sins. He reflects this in his doctrinal teaching:Col. 1:12-14 "…giving thanks to the Father, who has qualified us to share in the inheritance of the saints in Light. For He rescued us from the domain of darkness, and transferred us to the kingdom of His beloved Son, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins."Scripture reveals that it’s not an ongoing process ministered first by the Apostles (headed by Peter) and then handed down to their “successors.” But as I demonstrated in my previous post, forgiving and retaining sins was restricted to the temporal administration of church government and administering discipline.
It doesn’t at all say Peter was “the mouthpiece of God” in settling the issue of circumcision. What Peter said was"that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. And God who knows the heart (He knows if it’s genuine belief), bore witness to them, giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He also did us."Peter testified to the fact that all men are saved by grace alone through believing the word of the gospel. Proof being that when Peter presented the word of the cross to the Gentiles they too, upon belief, were given the Holy Spirit just as they (believing Jews), back on the day of Pentecost. The Gentiles, upon belief, were cleansed of all their sins and the Holy Spirit then took up permanent residence in them. Peter was testifying to salvation by grace through faith alone.
It’ not a poor foundation. It’s structure is the Apostles, N.T. prophets and Christ Himself being the corner stone (Eph. 2:20). You call that a poor foundation?
Exactly, not as you wish (not even as Rome wishes). It’s Christ who is building His church upon the foundation He Himself laid according to His own plans. He’s the builder (Matt. 16:18). He’s “the head” of the body, the church (Col. 1:18). Being the “head” He’s the brains behind it all. Scripture does not reveal that Christ subcontracted that job over to Peter or any so-called successors. If He did, you have yet to prove it.
2
2ndGen
Guest
Show me in The Word of God, The Holy Bible the following words or phrases literally:
Bible
Trinity
Rapture
Computer
One Way Street
(Now, all these things both secularly and spiritually, but they are “not” in Scripture…therefore, something “not” being in Scripture does not automatically exclude it).
For the record, Peter is never called The Chief Shephard (and no Catholic Doctrine has ever stated that he was called such).
N
ncgolf
Guest
What does this mean?
2
2ndGen
Guest
You cannot argue doctrine with a person of a different religion. Non-Catholic Christians have their own rules and regulations from their own bible.
They are 101% right as far as their personal religion(s) go(es).
They don’t have to believe in The Holy Bible the way that Christianity believes in it. They can believe in it as they want to believe in it.
Common sense tells us that Peter is God’s chosen in Scripture to lead the physical Church of Christ on earth.
But we can’t convince anybody of that that doesn’t even accept Church History. To some, the church didn’t begin until the 16th century and the bible wasn’t completed until then either.
In order to have a “reasonable” debate, there must be at least one point of common ground.
Quoting scripture from “one” bible would be the first step.
If you use a non-universal Christian bible and use one that is based on a particular Christian sects “interpretation” or “translation” geared to their specific beliefs, then you must debate on their terms.
As long as 80% of Christianity believes the truth, so be it.
That’s why the other 20% is exactly that…the other 20%.
M
moondweller
Guest
Good question. In light of the cross that statement is nonsensical. You can’t retain something that is no longer there; sin that’s already been forgiven; that’s been imputed to Christ on the cross and forever buried with Him.
Yes. Exactly. And that’s why it’s done only on the subjective, disciplinary level, within a church community. I gave you an example of this in my post #189. It’s in the context of the experiential sanctification of the body of Christ.
J
jmcrae
Guest
So, all sin was forgiven on the Cross, before anybody ever accepted Jesus Christ as his or her saviour, or joined the Church? (Is there anybody in Hell, then?)
If so, then why did Jesus bother to establish a Church?
But if there are many church communities and they have no authority over each other, how does someone stay excommunicated, for discipline? What is to prevent him from going to the next Church down the street, and partaking of Holy Communion there, if the discipline is only for the local congregation, and not for Christianity as a whole?
How does someone get sanctified through the discipline of the Church, if the discipline only applies to the local congregation? What does the wrong-doer “suffer,” and how does he benefit from this “suffering,” if all he has to do is go down the street to the next congregation, and do whatever he likes to do, there?
N
ncgolf
Guest
The statement Jesus made … remember John 20: 23 was made after the Resurrection. In light of what you have been saying Jesus wasted his breath and gave them a power they did not need? Did Jesus make a mistake … a slip of the tongue? Your analysis does not fit the data.
Wow a whole lot of big words for a simple question. Jesus is clear that he is talking about sin. Sin is not discipline or teaching or administering … sin is an offense against God period. Sin is why Jesus had to come suffer and die so sin is **the ** problem. So we can say “Whose offences against God you may forgive and whose offences against God you retain are retained.” It sure seems that seeking forgiveness is necessary doesn’t it?
2
2ndGen
Guest
Before our words are twisted out of context, it is Christ who does the forgiving and His Apostles Successors today that administer the healing that is prescribed by His Law.
Matthew 8
1
When he was come down from the mountain,
great multitudes followed him.
2
And, behold, there came a leper and worshipped him,
saying, Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean.
3
And Jesus put forth his hand, and touched him, saying, I will; be thou clean.
And immediately his leprosy was cleansed.
4
And Jesus saith unto him, See thou tell no man; but go thy way, shew thyself to the priest, and offer the gift that Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them.
Here, Christ recognizes The Priests authority to consul the person who was healed by and made clean by Christ (which is what Priests today still do).
Jesus does the forgiving (the healing) and The Priests (those who succeed The Apostles) administer what is required of the penitant. But that of course only applies to Christians who belong to The Universal Church.
Matthew 8
1
When he was come down from the mountain,
great multitudes followed him.
2
And, behold, there came a leper and worshipped him,
saying, Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean.
3
And Jesus put forth his hand, and touched him, saying, I will; be thou clean.
And immediately his leprosy was cleansed.
4
And Jesus saith unto him, See thou tell no man; but go thy way, shew thyself to the priest, and offer the gift that Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them.
Here, Christ recognizes The Priests authority to consul the person who was healed by and made clean by Christ (which is what Priests today still do).
Jesus does the forgiving (the healing) and The Priests (those who succeed The Apostles) administer what is required of the penitant. But that of course only applies to Christians who belong to The Universal Church.
M
moondweller
Guest
CCC 879: “The Lord made Simon alone, whom he named Peter, the rock of his Church. He gave him the keys of his Church and instituted him shepherd of the whole flock…This pastoral office of Peter and the other apostles belongs to the Church’s very foundation and is continued by the bishops under the primacy of the Pope.”
You also quoted in an earlier post a list in which the words “chief shepherd” pertaining to Peter was used. When I confronted you on it you said you copied it from a Catholic source. So are you saying your Catholic source was not teaching Catholic doctrine, or were you just confused? If the latter, I understand.
2
2ndGen
Guest
Slow down there cowboy…show me the phrase “chief shephard” in The Catechism.
You seem to want to be a Scriptural literalist when it comes to the Bible, but “not” in the Catechism?
Wow. If we applied the same standard you use for The Catechism to scripture, this discussion would’ve been over a long time ago.
That’s pretty convenient of you to pick and choose when you want to be literal and when you want t be allegorical, don’t you think?
(and I told you before, the chief shepard comment was made by a person on a website, not as an official Church doctrine)
So is that it?
Is that your proof that the Church used the phrase “chief shephard” in Catholic Doctrinal teachings?
Because if that was it, sorry, I didn’t see the literal phrase “chief shephard” as you tried to claim.
In the immortal words of The Soup Nazi…“Next!”
M
moondweller
Guest
No, you back your horse up and start practicing what you preach, or get out of the hypocrisy saddle. YOU were the first to post that title on this thread:
Page 9:
Post # 128 Luke 12:41 - "Peter seeks clarification of a parable on behalf on the disciples. This is part of Peter’s formation as the chief shepherd of the flock after Jesus ascended into heaven."Post # 1292 Peter 3:16 - Peter is making a judgment on the proper interpretation of Paul’s letters.** Peter is the chief shepherd of the flock**.Are you now recanting what you posted? You don’t agree with your own posts? Why post what you don’t believe yourself yet you want others to accept it? That’s dishonest, deceptive and disingenuous. Yet I overlooked your accusing me of being a pathological liar.
M
moondweller
Guest
No. But through the cross of Christ ALL the work (substitutionary blood sacrifice) was accomplished, once for all, so that when a sinner turns from unbelief to belief in Jesus Christ through the preaching of the gospel, his/her sins are forever forgiven. That’s the power God Himself has through the cross.
No, no one is in Hell (the “Lake of Fire”) yet
It wasn’t to forgive sins. God does that Himself upon belief in His Son. If your faith rests in your church rather than the Son, in respect to the forgiveness of your sins, you’re in trouble.
The church, made up of all true believers since Pentecost, is Christ’s bride, made pure (righteous) through His blood. And she will have that identity for all eternity.
I have never seen posted on the walls of every local Catholic parish the pictures of those the Pope excommunicated, that they might be identified and refused Communion. Who’s the last person Rome excommunicated, btw? Do you know who he/she is?
The man in Corinth was excommunicated (locally) for having his father’s wife (who, btw, was not his mother). Historically, priests, nuns, prelates and popes did far worse crimes and were never excommunicated. The man in Corinth repented because of the punishment inflicted on him (locally). I would say the punishment was affective. Wouldn’t you? But first you must excommunicate (locally) those who practice immorality, not turn a blind eye…
M
moondweller
Guest
Then show me one instance where men and women came to the Apostles to personally get their sins absolved. In what city did Paul practice this procedure? Show me where Peter practiced this in Jerusalem. Show me where it’s documented in Rome.
What did Paul say to the Philippian jailer when he asked what he must do to be saved (Acts 16:31)?
Peter:Acts 10:43 "Of Him all the prophets bear witness that through His name** everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins**."Paul:Acts 13:38 "Therefore let it be known to you, brethren, that through Him forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you,
Matt 18:21 "Then Peter came and said to Him, "Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me and I forgive him?I agree all sins against God must be forgiven. And this is why He sent the Son. It is not the reason Christ is building His church.
It’s because Christ came and suffered the sacrificial death He did that He can now build His church of believers, over which (as revealed in God’s Word) He Himself is the “Head” and “Chief Shepherd.”
N
ncgolf
Guest
Your analysis does not fit the data. Data says the word sin is used by Christ. He either meant sin or one must impute another meaning of the word sin, that is what you do …impute church discipline (or something else) into that word. What a strange choice of words by Jesus then. If Jesus said sin … he meant sin in John 20:23, why muddy the waters with a word that has a pretty much singular meaning … almost any other word other than sin would have made it easier. Christ’s suffering on the cross is complete … yet he still says sin, this you must reconcile. No where in scripture is sin substituted to mean teaching, or authority or church administration. No one confuses sin with anything else. Your statement of “show me where its used” points to Jesus indeed saying sin … but am I to believe that is what he meant? These are the questions that must be answered… I think if Jesus said them … he darn well meant it and further interpretation must include the premise that Jesus meant the literal meaning of the word sin … I do not think there is such a thing as symbolic sin. You must also keep in mind he says this word after the resurrection. Why use the word sin after the redemptive work of the cross is complete? Also you still have not answered to why the retention of sin? Jesus says to them you can either forgive sin or retain sin … how would someone know which one to choose? I do not think you can simply refer back to Matthew 18 for this interpretation since these words from Christ come after the Ressurection.
And all sins against us by others must be forgiven by us. Like I said before … this has to do with being merciful as God is merciful. We must be merciful when one seeks forgiveness from us … especially if we seek peace and pardon from God. We receive mercy in the same portions we give mercy. “Blessed are the Merciful” … it does seem to be more blessed to give mercy than to receive it. The parable following Peter’s question explains this. It seems if we receive mercy from God yet are not merciful ourselves … woe to that person.
- Status