C
- Status
B
beeper
Guest
Maybe this is not what you meant, but thanks for commenting on the fact that I posted a Protestant commentary. I actually didnt take that from any commentary. Granted maybe some Protestants use those arguments but I simply let the bible reveal and interpret itself and go from there. I think John 20:21-23 is quite clear when you consider the other versus in the bible that seem to parallel this verse. Like I said Luke 24, Matthew 18:15-17, Matthew 28:16-20 are some verses that one has to look at inorder to get a handle on what is being said here. Its easy to see how the RCC derives the authority of the priesthood from John 20. My concern is that they only look at this verse and not the context in which it is written or in light of the rest of the Bible. I do not believe in John 20 that Jesus is declaring his disciples to be his little gods to go out and forgive people their sins. However, I do believe He is giving them the authority to acknowledge when someone is forgiven or not forgiven. I believe all Jesus is stating is for them to go out and preach the gospel. If the people repent and acknowledge Jesus is their Lord and Savior then they are forgiven. (Christ is ultimately forgiving in that instance, not any person) However if people reject him, then they are not forgiven. Just like Matthew 18:15-17. Jesus has given all believers the authority to recognize if someone is still in sin based upon what Jesus has revealed in his Word. If this wasnt the case then how would you know to go and get “two or three” believers to confront your brother who has sinned? If you acknowledge your brother has repented to God for his sin, then God says (based upon 1 John 1:9–If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness) you have the authority to say they are forgiven. So your brother is ultimately forgiven because he repented to God (and directly to God) and not to any priest. If the brother in Matthew 18 needed a priest wouldnt that have been a perfect place where Jesus could have said…Go and confront your brother who has sinned. Then if he decides not to go to a priest to be forgiven then excommunicate him. But Jesus says nothing of the sort. So to assume that someone must go to a priest to be forgiven can only be drawn if you only read John 20 and not take in consideration the rest of the Bible. If this was such a huge deal (as Rome states confession to a priest is) then certainly you would have numerous versus all over to support it…Or at least more specific documentation in the bible on how it should be done. But again, you dont even see the disciples exercising closed confession at all in the entire bible. That is why I added the comment about Tertullian. At best, in the 2nd century it was done openly and voluntarily. That means if the apostles supposedly knew they had that authority based on John 20, they weren’t doing it!..or did a horrible job of conveying the message to the rest of the earthly church. Again, this idea of structured confession with all the do’s and don’ts added by the Catholic church took centuries to develop. Do you really believe God would limit His own power in the area of forgiveness? How is someone suppose to get forgiveness if they never had a chance to meet a Catholic priest? Is God in all His grace and mercy going to say…sorry had to have a priest to be forgiven. Your own church isnt even consistent when they do take it literally. Once again you run into a whole other set of rules developed by the church. For instance, If you have invincible ignorance then somehow you get forgiven without a priest, or even without believing in Jesus. So to say that John 20 always applies in the RCC is not even ultimately true. Again, there are several verses that state you can be forgiven directly by God and God alone. Especially 1 John 1:9. or 1 Timothy 2:5 and others. So the bible absolutely supports confession to God as a means of obtaining true forgiveness (mortal or veinal) without a priest as the mediator. Since we only have verses that support God doing the forgiving, then I would say it is safe to say that He alone forgives without any need for a priest (again based on all the verses stated). If He would have allowed man to forgive, then He would have said so more conclusively. At best you have an argument of silence in regards to man having the ability to forgive. Again, priests can acknowledge if someone is free from sin, but doesn’t give it or play the role of mediator. Jesus alone is the high Priest. So to try to convince a Protestant historically and biblically of the doctrine of confession according to the RCC is a hard sell. Blessings to anyone who actually took time to read all of this.
J
jebeau
Guest
I am still interested in Beeper’s view of the early church.
Was the early church (before the canonization of Christian scripture) Catholic in the sense that it was apostolic, sacramental and heirarchical. A Catholic would see church history this way, as well as some Presbyterians, Anglicans and Methodists who think the Catholic church went off track in the Middle Ages.
Or was the early church, in Beeper’s view, simply a loose affiliation of separate congregational groups that all read scripture and heard the same messages simultaneously from the Holy Spirit without having any kind of organizational structure, sacraments or liturgy, (kind of like modern day non-denominational so called “Acts 2” fellowship churches.)
Was the early church (before the canonization of Christian scripture) Catholic in the sense that it was apostolic, sacramental and heirarchical. A Catholic would see church history this way, as well as some Presbyterians, Anglicans and Methodists who think the Catholic church went off track in the Middle Ages.
Or was the early church, in Beeper’s view, simply a loose affiliation of separate congregational groups that all read scripture and heard the same messages simultaneously from the Holy Spirit without having any kind of organizational structure, sacraments or liturgy, (kind of like modern day non-denominational so called “Acts 2” fellowship churches.)
C
christcnection1
Guest
I now understand what you believe regarding that specific verse, though we can simply agree to disagree. The key word in that passage of scripture is “you” with regard to forgiven and retain.
Here is additional scriptural backup:
scripturecatholic.com/confession.html
Based on what you wrote, it appears you think that the RCC believes God can only forgive sins within the Sacrament of Confession. The Church, the pillar and bulwark of the truth, not the Bible alone, believes that the Sacrament of Confession is the ordinary means of forgiveness, especially for grave sins. We all believe God is extraordinary; hence, the RCC believes that God can do as He wills. This includes being able to forgive anyone sincerely and genuinely seeks His mercy.
That said, I believe anyone who knows Confession as His preferred means of forgiveness, but rejects this gift, may also be rejecting His mercy in some measure, if not entirely. I would not fit you or most Protestants in that category, because I believe most of you would embrace the Sacrament if you knew the truth and power behind it.
Bottom Line: God established an ordinary means, in Christ, through His Church for the salvation of His people. God is not restricted by ordinary means alone. He is awesome, He is love, and He desires that all receive His mercy.
If we can’t trust the Church’s scriptural understanding (and not just this issue), then I’m not sure I can accept the Bible it gave birth to. Furthermore, if the Church was essentially wrong for countless centuries, this means He did not ensure His people had a clear idea of how to attain forgiveness and salvation. This means that “Christians” were fundamentally lost for approximately 1,500 years. Sorry, I just don’t buy it. Christ was right with His Church from the start. I didn’t even mention the countless miraculous gifts God gave to saintly priests with regards to this Sacrament - another sign this is from the hand of the Great High Priest.
Confession may not have looked entirely the same, but we don’t believe anything as fundamentally changed since the beginning.
“When the crowds saw this they were struck with awe and glorified God who had given such authority to men.” Matt 9:8
R
redrosetea
Guest
One observation I have made is some people don’t understand forgivenness…You must be contrite
I have seen a really nasty troll on another board ,that is also a fundy…she posts terrible things to other people, then laughs and says God forgives her sins, but makes no effort to change
Personally, I am not sure God forgives people who do mean things on purpose and show no remorse, nor inclination to stop
I have seen a really nasty troll on another board ,that is also a fundy…she posts terrible things to other people, then laughs and says God forgives her sins, but makes no effort to change
Personally, I am not sure God forgives people who do mean things on purpose and show no remorse, nor inclination to stop
C
cazayoux
Guest
While we MUST test all against scripture, in no way does the bible interpret itself. The thinking that it can would be proven if every person that picked up the bible, prayed to the Holy Spirit for guidance, and read it would have the exact same understanding.
OBVIOUSLY there are many opposing views of the same scripture, so the bible does not interpret itself.
The bible IS the word of God, the Truth.
… and who is the pillar and bulwark of the Truth?
Is it the bible?
The bible says it is the church.
You say that the bible interprets itself.
I would say that you are doing the interpreting.
Let’s take some examples from your thread.
Maybe you’ll agree that it’s not the bible’s interpretation you are giving, but YOUR interpretation.
Just laying out a basic principle here.
There are two things in play here, not one, THE BIBLE and YOUR UNDERSTANDING of the Bible.
I’m sure you hope and pray that you have the ‘right’ understanding, but would not consider yourself an infallible interpreter of the bible.
michel
B
beeper
Guest
Why did Paul in Acts 17:11 tell the common people of the Berean Church to search and examine the scriptures to see if what he was saying was true? How could they have possibly done that if the people couldn’t interpret or understand the scripture for themselves? Or, if the Catholic Church was already established, all Paul would have needed to say was …“what I say goes and interpret your scripture as such”. But that’s not what is done. He tells them to examine the scriptures to validate what he is saying is true. God gave us scripture (and long before 1500ad or even 500 ad) so we could be warned when false teachers are present. In your view, the scriptures do the common person no good. Why read scripture if you can’t understand/interpret it? Since your ultimately trusting your clergy that they have intrepreted scripture correctly, you yourself, can’t really test anything against scripture as you claim. Rome can twist and manipulate the scriptures all day long and you have no way of knowing its true. What a great way to deceive. And yes we can intrepret the Bible based on 1 Corinthians 4:2…“we commend ourselves to every man’s conscience”. Therefore, if you test (which according to your logic, you yourself ultimately can’t) all of scripture with Rome’s intrpretation of John 20 you run into all kinds of problems trying to harmonize God’s perfect Word.
Again,
If the Bible did state that the disciples received this authority then why don’t you ever see them exercise it? You don’t find Rome’s style of confession anywhere in the Bible or the early church. Can you explain that? Why would such a critical issue take so much time to evolve in the church? You never hear one disciple say “the conventional way to be forgiven is thru a priest…especially with grave sins”. I just ask you to think for yourself on these issues just as the Bible tells us we have the ability to do…And, as Paul told the Berean Church to do. Always in love.
B
beeper
Guest
Why did Paul in Acts 17:11 tell the common people of the Berean Church to search and examine the scriptures to see if what he was saying was true? How could they have possibly done that if the people couldn’t interpret or understand the scripture for themselves? Or, if the Catholic Church was already established, all Paul would have needed to say was …“what I say goes and interpret your scripture as such”. But that’s not what is done. He tells them to examine the scriptures to validate what he is saying is true. God gave us scripture (and long before 1500ad or even 500 ad) so we could be warned when false teachers are present. In your view, the scriptures ultimately do the common person no good. Why read scripture if you can’t understand/interpret it? Since your ultimately trusting your clergy that they have intrepreted scripture correctly, you yourself, can’t really test anything against scripture as you claim. Rome can twist and manipulate the scriptures all day long and you have no way of knowing its true. What a great way to deceive. And yes we can intrepret the Bible based on 1 Corinthians 4:2…“we commend ourselves to every man’s conscience”. Therefore, if you test (which according to your logic, you yourself ultimately can’t) all of scripture with Rome’s intrpretation of John 20 you run into all kinds of problems trying to harmonize God’s perfect Word.
Again,
If the Bible did state that the disciples received this authority then why don’t you ever see them exercise it? You don’t find Rome’s style of confession anywhere in the Bible or the early church. Can you explain that? Why would such a critical issue take so much time to evolve in the church? You never hear one disciple say “the conventional way to be forgiven is thru a priest…especially with grave sins”. I just ask you to think for yourself on these issues just as the Bible tells us we have the ability to do…And, as Paul told the Berean Church to do. Always in love.
S
Singinbeauty
Guest
I think I understand what you are getting at. This is something I have always wondered also…
If the priest forgives a sin (which he has been given authority) but does not know that the man is not serious in his confession, the sin is forgiven according to the authority. There is nothing in the scripture to say that depending on your heart God can / will strike the confession and ‘un-forgive’ the sin because the priest didn’t know the man was not serious. So the priest, given full authority to forgive the sin in Christ’s place, has forgiven a sin that shouldn’t have been forgiven.
If God can ‘un-forgive’ a sin, what is the use in going to confession? Why not just go straight to God if He is the final authority of forgiving the sin in the first place?
C
Carolyn_H
Guest
I think God has the authority to forgive sins.
P
PerryJ
Guest
The priest does not forgive sins. Christ does. The Priest is a vehicle. If the person is not contrite the sin is not forgiven.
P
PerryJ
Guest
He has the authority. He taught that one must follow his teachings and he taught confession via a priest. He forgives via a priest.I think God has the authority to forgive sins.
C
Carolyn_H
Guest
He forgives sins through the blood of Jesus!
C
churchcamefirst
Guest
He forgives sin through absolution from a priest. It is not easy to enter the Kingdom as Jesus revealed to us.
C
Carolyn_H
Guest
Whatever
P
PerryJ
Guest
“And there people brought to him a paralytic lying on a stretcher. When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, ‘Courage, child, your sins are forgiven.’ At that, some of the scribes said to themselves, ‘This man is blaspheming.’ Jesus knew what they were thinking, and said, ‘Why do you harbor evil thoughts? Which is easier, to say, “Your sins are forgiven,” or to say, “Rise up and walk”? But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins,’ he then said to the paralytic, ‘Rise, pick up your stretcher, and go home.’ He rose and went home. When the crowds saw this they were struck with awe and glorified God who had given such authority to human beings” (Matt. 9:2-8).Whatever
“Whoever listens to you listens to me. Whoever rejects you rejects me. And whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me” (Luke 10:16).
“[Jesus] said to them again, ‘Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you.’ And then he breathed on them and said to them, ‘Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained’” (John 20:21-23).
“And all this is from God, who has reconciled us to himself through Christ and given us the ministry of reconciliation, namely, God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting their trespasses against them and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation. So we are ambassadors for Christ, as if God were appealing through us” (2 Cor. 5:18-20).
Here are some verses that support Christ’s teaching concerning reconcilation. To not follow these verses is to reject his teaching.
C
Carolyn_H
Guest
He also taught us to PRAY:
OUR FATHER WHICH ART IN HEAVEN HOLLOWED BE THINE NAME
THY KINGDOM COME.
THY WILL BE DONE ON EARTH AS IT IS IN HEAVEN.
GIVE US THIS DAY OUR DAILY BREAD.
AND FORGIVE US OUR TRESPASSES.
AS WE FORGIVE THOSE WHO TRESPASS AGAINST US.
AND LEAD US NOT INTO TEMPTATION
BUT DELIVER US FROM EVIL.
Jesus words…not mine
OUR FATHER WHICH ART IN HEAVEN HOLLOWED BE THINE NAME
THY KINGDOM COME.
THY WILL BE DONE ON EARTH AS IT IS IN HEAVEN.
GIVE US THIS DAY OUR DAILY BREAD.
AND FORGIVE US OUR TRESPASSES.
AS WE FORGIVE THOSE WHO TRESPASS AGAINST US.
AND LEAD US NOT INTO TEMPTATION
BUT DELIVER US FROM EVIL.
Jesus words…not mine
P
PerryJ
Guest
If this verse is how you state it is how do you reconcile the contradiction? The Bible can not contradict.
C
Carolyn_H
Guest
I don’t have a problem
P
PerryJ
Guest
You don’t have a problem with the bible contradicting itself. Can there not only be one truth of God?I don’t have a problem
If you believe that this prayer is for you to be forgiven why does it not state My Father who art in heaven?
- Status