Protestant view of mediatorial forgiveness

[JRKH]

The Roman Catholic Church bases their practice of confession to a priest primarily on Catholic tradition.

Catholic do point to John 20:23,“If you forgive anyone his sins,they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven." From this verse, Catholics claim that God gave the apostles the authority to forgive sins,and that authority was passed on to the successors of the apostles, i.e., the bishops and priests of the Roman Catholic Church.

** There are several problems with this interpretation. (1) John 20:23 nowhere mentions confession of sin. (2) John 20:23 nowhere promises, or even hints, that the authority to forgive sins would be passed on to the successors of the apostles. Jesus’ promise was specifically directed to the apostles. (3) The New Testament nowhere states that the apostles would even have successors to their apostolic authority. **

Similarly, Catholics point to Matthew 16:19 and 18:18 (binding and loosing) as evidence for the Catholic Church’s authority to forgive sins. The same three above points apply equally to these Scriptures

Since Scripture is not clear on this point…we have the advantage of “the Church” which is very clearly given authority to bind and loose “whatever” in scripture.
The Church is continuously in existence…No need to worry about "did the authority pass to successors… It does so long as the community, and it’s bishops are all a part of “The Church” which Jesus founded and which the Apostles spread and grew and which each succeeding generation has built upon…

Peace
James

 

[Erick_Ybarra]

Bingo…So where is the unity? Where is the councilior desire (Acts 15)
To be one as Jesus and the Father are one …(John 17:20-21)
To glorify God with one voice (Romans 15:5-6
To agree and let there be no dissensions…but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment.(1 Cor 1:10)
The desire to “Aim for restoration, comfort one another, agree with one another, live in peace”(2 Cor 13:11)
To have unity of mind (1 Peter 3:8)

So where is the willingness to work together…the willingness to not only “tell” but to “listen” - to the Church…and where there is dispute, to come together in humble and prayerful discussion to resolve the matter.

Then - as one questions…as you are doing…one begins to dig into the origins of these church communities. How are they traced? Where does their “authority” come from?
As one does this one begins to see the many splits among the protestant denominations going back eventually to the Reformation period where they all departed from the Catholic Church…
and what I found to be highly significant in so far as legitimate authority in the so -called reformed churches is that there was NEVER to my knowledge ANY council among the various reformers and their successors to resolve the many doctrinal matters that were coming up. I understand that Luther and Zwingli exchanged some letters but each dismissed the other as wrong…But think about this…
In Scripture, the dispute that came up in Antioch went to church council for resolution. Yet those who wanted to bring the Church back to it’s more Scriptural foundations who claimed Scripture as their ultimate authority, never held a council to resolve their differences…And now there are so many differences that a council is nearly impossible.

yet the Catholic church (and the EO) have always held to a councilior model and have held many councils over the centuries to deal with issues effecting the Church. Even without councils, the Bishops are in communication with each other and all In the RC Church)is coordinated through the Papal offices in the Vatican.

Beautifully and fully biblical and an excellent development of the idea of Keys and the proper roles and responsibilities of stewards of the Kingdom…

Food for thought…

Peace
James

Thanks for the thoughts.

As I said, I was quite excited to find out the rich heritage of the catholic faith. But then I realized there is very little unity in the Catholic Church. In the first place, my own family (from both sides) and other families (from cousins on both sides) are all from Miami, FL , and all big time Catholics. None of them agree on anything. My wife’s grandparents are catholic but are extremely liberal in their views about life.

Very few know anything about salvation. In my experience, I’ve tried just talking to catholics about God, and it seems they are very disinterested. One views repentance one way and another views it another way.

Just like the Protestants who hold to scripture to their sole authority and cannot come up to be unified, so also the Catholics who have 1 and only 1 catechism for truth seem as well not to be unified.

 

[JRKH]

Thanks for the thoughts.

As I said, I was quite excited to find out the rich heritage of the catholic faith. But then I realized there is very little unity in the Catholic Church. In the first place, my own family (from both sides) and other families (from cousins on both sides) are all from Miami, FL , and all big time Catholics. None of them agree on anything. My wife’s grandparents are catholic but are extremely liberal in their views about life.

Very few know anything about salvation. In my experience, I’ve tried just talking to catholics about God, and it seems they are very disinterested. One views repentance one way and another views it another way.

Just like the Protestants who hold to scripture to their sole authority and cannot come up to be unified, so also the Catholics who have 1 and only 1 catechism for truth seem as well not to be unified.

A very valid - and sad - point I’m afraid…

Catechesis over the last 40 years or so has been atrocious in the US for the most part. There are a number of reasons for this - but that would be an entirely different thread (and a controversial one I’m sure )

Suffice it to say that your family is the unhappy product of this failure of the Church in the U.S. and something that many diocese are trying very hard to rectify. All the more reasons that the Church needs “on fire” converts (and reverts) who really know the faith and can help others…

Peace
James

 

[Erick_Ybarra]

Yes, but then these “on fire” converts come and **** off the liberals who make up the majority of the Catholic congregations and then they are asked to leave.

Being on “fire” has to include the job of purging the “evil” out of the local body of believers. In 1 Corinthians 5:1-15, Paul couldn’t even bare to think of a church that tolerated an evil person inside the fellowship.

 

[JRKH]

Yes, but then these “on fire” converts come and **** off the liberals who make up the majority of the Catholic congregations and then they are asked to leave.

Being on “fire” has to include the job of purging the “evil” out of the local body of believers. In 1 Corinthians 5:1-15, Paul couldn’t even bare to think of a church that tolerated an evil person inside the fellowship.

…Well I can’t argue with you there…
About the only thing I can offer as a guide is…Gentle perseverance…

Time and patience my friend - time and patience…A fire can burn brightly or it can smoulder. The hottest fires - the ones that temper metal - are not the ones with great flames. Rather they Smoulder within; they build up heat until they glow and all that they touch for any length of time either glows with them or is burned up…

Peace
James

 

[asd72]

Thanks for the thoughts.

As I said, I was quite excited to find out the rich heritage of the catholic faith. But then I realized there is very little unity in the Catholic Church. In the first place, my own family (from both sides) and other families (from cousins on both sides) are all from Miami, FL , and all big time Catholics. None of them agree on anything. My wife’s grandparents are catholic but are extremely liberal in their views about life.

Very few know anything about salvation. In my experience, I’ve tried just talking to catholics about God, and it seems they are very disinterested. One views repentance one way and another views it another way.

Just like the Protestants who hold to scripture to their sole authority and cannot come up to be unified, so also the Catholics who have 1 and only 1 catechism for truth seem as well not to be unified.

It does seem a large segment of Catholics disregard certain teachings.

But that doesn’t change the fact that if the Catholic church has authority, you can trust it to lead you to right doctrine. A Catholic might disagree with a Catholic doctrine, but the truth lies with the church, not an individual.

 

[Erick_Ybarra]

It does seem a large segment of Catholics disregard certain teachings.

But that doesn’t change the fact that if the Catholic church has authority, you can trust it to lead you to right doctrine. A Catholic might disagree with a Catholic doctrine, but the truth lies with the church, not an individual.

I understand, but a Church can be 100% accurate in their theology, but be 100% inaccurate before God because they do not “walk in the truth” (2 John). Saint John wasn’t only interested in what the christian believers believed, but also if their lives were one of practicing righteousness or practicing wickedness. To have 100% doctrine down in the factual sense can be 100% incorrect religion before God because there isn’t the practicing of righteousness.

Now I go to a reformed baptist church, where the Pastor is preaching expositionally from the pulpit, word for word, line by line, and the people are getting the richness of God’s word, and it causes more obedience (in my experience) and zeal in the lives of the people to lay down themselves for others and to encourage ministry work.

And when I see many Catholics, who are receiving the blood and body of Christ in the Eucharist, which is supposed to increase spirituality, I see a steady decline in catholic spirituality.

Being right with Christ is not about having all the right doctrine without walking in it.

Therefore, I see no problem with going to a baptist church in stead of 10 catholic churches where each priest doesn’t even believe the bible is the word of God and everyone is 80 years old and above with absolutely no desire to fellowship.

 

[JRKH]

I understand, but a Church can be 100% accurate in their theology, but be 100% inaccurate before God because they do not “walk in the truth” (2 John).

But - realize that “The Church” will not be judged as a unit, but rather as individuals. “The Church” has 100% right teachings. But the Church does not have 100% right members. There will be many at the judgement who cry “Lord Lord” and not be recognized by Christ.

Saint John wasn’t only interested in what the christian believers believed, but also if their lives were one of practicing righteousness or practicing wickedness. To have 100% doctrine down in the factual sense can be 100% incorrect religion before God because there isn’t the practicing of righteousness.

One practices what one believes…If the practice isn’t there, it is because the faith is not there.
But remember that while the Church has many members who are not acting righteously the Church also has many member who are.

Now I go to a reformed baptist church, where the Pastor is preaching expositionally from the pulpit, word for word, line by line, and the people are getting the richness of God’s word, and it causes more obedience (in my experience) and zeal in the lives of the people to lay down themselves for others and to encourage ministry work.

And this is why we need more and better Catechesis.

And when I see many Catholics, who are receiving the blood and body of Christ in the Eucharist, which is supposed to increase spirituality, I see a steady decline in catholic spirituality.

I actually see a turn around in this. Not a radical shift…but a beginning…

Being right with Christ is not about having all the right doctrine without walking in it.

Amen…

Therefore, I see no problem with going to a baptist church instead of 10 catholic churches where each priest doesn’t even believe the bible is the word of God and everyone is 80 years old and above with absolutely no desire to fellowship.

you must go where God calls you. As for such priests, if one ever said that to me, I would try to correct him from Church documents. If that failed I would write to the bishop…Employing a variation of Mt 18…
As for age and fellowship…I’m sorry that you see so many older parishes…Ours is quite active and family oriented…

Peace
James

 

[asd72]

I understand, but a Church can be 100% accurate in their theology, but be 100% inaccurate before God because they do not “walk in the truth” (2 John). Saint John wasn’t only interested in what the christian believers believed, but also if their lives were one of practicing righteousness or practicing wickedness. To have 100% doctrine down in the factual sense can be 100% incorrect religion before God because there isn’t the practicing of righteousness.

Now I go to a reformed baptist church, where the Pastor is preaching expositionally from the pulpit, word for word, line by line, and the people are getting the richness of God’s word, and it causes more obedience (in my experience) and zeal in the lives of the people to lay down themselves for others and to encourage ministry work.

And when I see many Catholics, who are receiving the blood and body of Christ in the Eucharist, which is supposed to increase spirituality, I see a steady decline in catholic spirituality.

Being right with Christ is not about having all the right doctrine without walking in it.

Therefore, I see no problem with going to a baptist church in stead of 10 catholic churches where each priest doesn’t even believe the bible is the word of God and everyone is 80 years old and above with absolutely no desire to fellowship.

Of course walking in it is important, but right doctrine ensures you have the right roadmap.

I both had to and wanted to become a Catholic. I couldn’t reject that church once I believed it was the original church.

 

[JRKH]

Of course walking in it is important, but right doctrine ensures you have the right roadmap.

I both had to and wanted to become a Catholic. I couldn’t reject that church once I believed it was the original church.

 

[po18guy]

The Roman Catholic Church bases their practice of confession to a priest primarily on Catholic tradition.

Catholic do point to John 20:23,“If you forgive anyone his sins,they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven." From this verse, Catholics claim that God gave the apostles the authority to forgive sins,and that authority was passed on to the successors of the apostles, i.e., the bishops and priests of the Roman Catholic Church.

There are several problems with this interpretation. (1) John 20:23 nowhere mentions confession of sin. (2) John 20:23 nowhere promises, or even hints, that the authority to forgive sins would be passed on to the successors of the apostles. Jesus’ promise was specifically directed to the apostles. (3) The New Testament nowhere states that the apostles would even have successors to their apostolic authority.

Similarly, Catholics point to Matthew 16:19 and 18:18 (binding and loosing) as evidence for the Catholic Church’s authority to forgive sins. The same three above points apply equally to these Scriptures

Your viewpoint is quite curious. Are you under the impression that something must be printed in the bible before it is true?

If so, here is some suggested reading to ponder: Luke 3:18, John 20:30, John 21:25, Acts 2:40, 1 Corinthians 11:34, Ephesians 6:21, Colossians 4:7 and many others - each of which tells us that the bible is an incomplete record. Since God did not leave us orphans, where is the rest of His living Word? Remember: man lives on every word that issues from the mouth of God (Deuteronomy 8:3, Matthew 4:4). The bible tells us that it does not contain every word. What now?

As well, I am wondering if you dismiss Jesus’ giving of the authority to bind and loose? We all know about the loosing part, but what about the binding of sin? In Acts 5, Peter gave Ananias and Saphira the opportunity to repent. When they did not, their sin of lying to the Holy Spirit was held bound and they immediately died.

Scripture mentions specifically that Paul forgave sins in the person of Christ:

2 Corinthians 2:10
King James Version (KJV)
10 To whom ye forgive any thing, I forgive also: for if I forgave any thing, to whom I forgave it, for your sakes forgave I it in the person of Christ;

Now, to allege that this ability died with the Apostles is not in scripture, so where have you picked this idea up? As well, we have Christ’s irrevocable word that the gates of hell will not prevail against His Church.

As is seen in the case of all bible Christian groups, trying to reverse engineer Christianity from the fragmentary written record inevitably leads to error.

 

[po18guy]

And when I see many Catholics, who are receiving the blood and body of Christ in the Eucharist, which is supposed to increase spirituality, I see a steady decline in catholic spirituality.

1 Samuel 16:7b “…for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the Lord looketh on the heart.”

Being right with Christ is not about having all the right doctrine without walking in it.

This is a protestant canard. Why then, did Jesus say “You are my friends if you keep my commands”? (John 15:14)

Therefore, I see no problem with going to a baptist church in stead of 10 catholic churches where each priest doesn’t even believe the bible is the word of God and everyone is 80 years old and above with absolutely no desire to fellowship.

You are judging not them, but yourself! “The measure by which you measure will be measured back to you” (Matthew 7:2)

Here’s one for you: “I went looking for friends and found none. I became a friend, and found many”

 

[Erick_Ybarra]

What would you do if someone came into your church and rebuked you for keeping sexually immoral people in the congregation? Telling you that if you want to remain obedient to Jesus Christ, you will have to deliver such unrepentant people over to Satan for the destruction of their flesh, and that no contact is to be given to this person, not even to eat with them.

Would you say that this person is unrighteous?

 

[Porknpie]

What would you do if someone came into your church and rebuked you for keeping sexually immoral people in the congregation? Telling you that if you want to remain obedient to Jesus Christ, you will have to deliver such unrepentant people over to Satan for the destruction of their flesh, and that no contact is to be given to this person, not even to eat with them.

Would you say that this person is unrighteous?

I’d ask them if they knew about the plank in their own eye.

 

[Connor12]

Yes your point is well taken. If the case cannot be made by Catholics on a biblical basis they claim its based upon tradition. Some would say that is riding two horses.

If you found a bible and read it on a stranded island would one know anything about Catholicism?? Or would you take the bible as its word.

Your viewpoint is quite curious. Are you under the impression that something must be printed in the bible before it is true?

If so, here is some suggested reading to ponder: Luke 3:18, John 20:30, John 21:25, Acts 2:40, 1 Corinthians 11:34, Ephesians 6:21, Colossians 4:7 and many others - each of which tells us that the bible is an incomplete record. Since God did not leave us orphans, where is the rest of His living Word? Remember: man lives on every word that issues from the mouth of God (Deuteronomy 8:3, Matthew 4:4). The bible tells us that it does not contain every word. What now?

As well, I am wondering if you dismiss Jesus’ giving of the authority to bind and loose? We all know about the loosing part, but what about the binding of sin? In Acts 5, Peter gave Ananias and Saphira the opportunity to repent. When they did not, their sin of lying to the Holy Spirit was held bound and they immediately died.

Scripture mentions specifically that Paul forgave sins in the person of Christ:

2 Corinthians 2:10
King James Version (KJV)
10 To whom ye forgive any thing, I forgive also: for if I forgave any thing, to whom I forgave it, for your sakes forgave I it in the person of Christ;

Now, to allege that this ability died with the Apostles is not in scripture, so where have you picked this idea up? As well, we have Christ’s irrevocable word that the gates of hell will not prevail against His Church.

As is seen in the case of all bible Christian groups, trying to reverse engineer Christianity from the fragmentary written record inevitably leads to error.

 

[JonNC]

What would you do if someone came into your church and rebuked you for keeping sexually immoral people in the congregation? Telling you that if you want to remain obedient to Jesus Christ, you will have to deliver such unrepentant people over to Satan for the destruction of their flesh, and that no contact is to be given to this person, not even to eat with them.

Would you say that this person is unrighteous?

I would remind him/her that faith comes by hearing the word of God, and that by “delivering them over” would reduce the possibility of them hearing and moving toward repentence and renewal of life.

Jon

 

[Erick_Ybarra]

I would remind him/her that faith comes by hearing the word of God, and that by “delivering them over” would reduce the possibility of them hearing and moving toward repentence and renewal of life.

Jon

Paul commanded this

Then why did the apostle Paul command the Corinthians to excommunicate the sinning man? (1 Corinthians 5)???

Paul doesn’t even give the man a chance to repent, but rather commands them to “Deliver such a man over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh so that his spirit might be saved on the day of the Lord Jesus”. And as a general principle, he recommends to always practice this rule for all who are evil in the church.

“Purge out the old leaven so that you might be a new lump” and “put away the evil person from among you”.

 

[JonNC]

Paul commanded this

Then why did the apostle Paul command the Corinthians to excommunicate the sinning man? (1 Corinthians 5)???

Paul doesn’t even give the man a chance to repent, but rather commands them to “Deliver such a man over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh so that his spirit might be saved on the day of the Lord Jesus”. And as a general principle, he recommends to always practice this rule for all who are evil in the church.

“Purge out the old leaven so that you might be a new lump” and “put away the evil person from among you”.

And Christ tells us to “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,”

He tells us to forgive not seven times, but seventy times seven times.

And the thrust of this thread is for the Church to make available the sacrament of Absolution available to those who repent with a broken spirit, a broken and contrite heart.
Is there a time limit on this?

At what point do we banish the sinner? After one sin? Five? Does Paul mean that we should enclave ourselves against all sinners?

Jon

 

[JRKH]

Paul commanded this

Then why did the apostle Paul command the Corinthians to excommunicate the sinning man? (1 Corinthians 5)???

Paul doesn’t even give the man a chance to repent, but rather commands them to “Deliver such a man over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh so that his spirit might be saved on the day of the Lord Jesus”. And as a general principle, he recommends to always practice this rule for all who are evil in the church.

“Purge out the old leaven so that you might be a new lump” and “put away the evil person from among you”.

This is a spot where we must be careful. The letter you refer to does not contain the whole story, only Paul’s response. What is unknown is what information Paul has that he is basing this response on. This he received “orally” and is not recorded.

We do know that there were a number of problems in the Church at Corinth…But again, we are reading only Paul’s responses, not the detailed information upon which Paul was basing his instructions.

Peace
James

 

[Erick_Ybarra]

No, I believe in the forgiving power of God.

However, what do we say with Paul? Was he right in doing this?

What about 2 thes 3 where Paul says to have nothing to do with people who refuse to obey the apostolic voice? That means to dissassociate ourselves from sinners to the glory of God.

I understand this is counter-cultural, but it is there in the scripture.

This is why I’ve said I’ve seen less easy-believism in catholicism than protestantism