There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.

  • Thread starter Thread starter Reformed
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
md,

Confession is prefigured in the Old Testament.

In the book of Genesis we read all about the fall of Adam and Eve and about Cain killing Able. While God knew exactly what had happened and what sins had been committed, God still asks Adam and Eve [see Gen 3:11-14] what they had done. Again, when Cain kills Able in Gen 4:10, God asks Cain “What have you done?” God wants us to confess and it is therefore necessary for us to do so.

So where does the priest fit in? In Leviticus 5:5-6 we have a solid prefiguring/foreshadowing of confession and this is carried over into the New Covenant. In Lev. 5:5-6 it says, “When a man is guilty in any of these, he shall confess the sin he has committed, and he shall bring his guilt offering to the Lord for the sin which he has committed, a female from the flock, a lamb or a goat, for a sin offering; and the priest shall make atonement for him for his sin.”

Note how the penitent must confess and take his sin offering to the priest, and the priest shall make atonement for him for his sin. This requires knowledge of the sin on the part of the priest.
 
Leviticus 5:5-6 we have a solid prefiguring/foreshadowing of confession and this is carried over into the New Covenant.
**Lev. 5:5-6 **
“When a man is guilty in any of these, he shall confess the sin he has committed, and he shall bring his guilt offering to the Lord for the sin which he has committed, a female from the flock, a lamb or a goat, for a sin offering; and the priest shall make atonement for him for his sin.”

Note how the penitent must confess and take his sin offering to the priest, and the priest shall make atonement for him for his sin. This requires knowledge of the sin on the part of the priest.
Another old testament type or foreshadowing of the priest making an atonement with the offering of the individual.

Lev 19:22
[22] And the priest shall make atonement for him with the ram of the guilt offering before the LORD for his sin which he has committed; and the sin which he has committed shall be forgiven him.

It is suggested that confession cannot be seen in scripture.
The old testament is a shadow of what was to come. With these verses in Leviticus, we can see the necessity and practice of orally confessing sins.

and there is so much more material to back this up …

James 5:16 - James clearly teaches us that we must “confess our sins to one another,” not just privately to God. James 5:16 must be read in the context of James 5:14-15, which is referring to the healing power (both physical and spiritual) of the priests of the Church. Hence, when James says “therefore” in verse 16, he must be referring to the men he was writing about in verses 14 and 15 – these men are the ordained priests of the Church, to whom we must confess our sins.

Acts 19:18 - many came to orally confess sins and divulge their sinful practices. Oral confession was the practice of the early Church just as it is today.

Matt. 3:6; Mark 1:5 - again, this shows people confessing their sins before others as an historical practice (here to John the Baptist).

1 Tim. 6:12 - this verse also refers to the historical practice of confessing both faith and sins in the presence of many witnesses.

1 John 1:9 - if we confess are sins, God is faithful to us and forgives us and cleanse us. But we must confess our sins to one another.

Num. 5:7 - this shows the historical practice of publicly confessing sins, and making public restitution.

2 Sam. 12:14 - even though the sin is forgiven, there is punishment due for the forgiven sin. David is forgiven but his child was still taken (the consequence of his sin).

Neh. 9:2-3 - the Israelites stood before the assembly and confessed sins publicly and interceded for each other.

Sir. 4:26 - God tells us not to be ashamed to confess our sins, and not to try to stop the current of a river. Anyone who has experienced the sacrament of reconciliation understands the import of this verse.

Baruch 1:14 - again, this shows that the people made confession in the house of the Lord, before the assembly.

1 John 5:16-17; Luke 12:47-48 - there is a distinction between mortal and venial sins. This has been the teaching of the Catholic Church for 2,000 years, but, today, most Protestants no longer agree that there is such a distinction. Mortal sins lead to death and must be absolved in the sacrament of reconciliation. Venial sins do not have to be confessed to a priest, but the pious Catholic practice is to do so in order to advance in our journey to holiness.

Matt. 5:19 - Jesus teaches that breaking the least of commandments is venial sin (the person is still saved but is least in the kingdom), versus mortal sin (the person is not saved).

moondweller / reformed … How can you say that oral confession is foreign to scripture?
It is not.

michel
 
Catholics constantly accuse Protestants on this forum of “cherry picking” the Scriptures to back up their positions. I contend that this is exactly what you do with Jn. 20:23. But you don’t just reference this verse among many, you build your whole claim to authority and your sacrament of penance/reconciliation/forgiveness on this solitary verse. And yet none of it is to be found in that verse, nor in its immediate context (or the whole N.T., for that matter).
Not true … just because I am trying to fully discuss the scripture of John 20:21-23 does not mean there is no other scripture to reference.
I’ll give three posts to share the information in scripture and history.

1 - Jesus Christ Granted the Apostles His Authority to Forgive Sins

John 20:21 - before He grants them the authority to forgive sins, Jesus says to the apostles, “as the Father sent me, so I send you.” As Christ was sent by the Father to forgive sins, so Christ sends the apostles and their successors forgive sins.

John 20:22 - the Lord “breathes” on the apostles, and then gives them the power to forgive and retain sins. The only other moment in Scripture where God breathes on man is in Gen. 2:7, when the Lord “breathes” divine life into man. When this happens, a significant transformation takes place.

John 20:23 - Jesus says, “If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven. If you retain the sins of any, they are retained.” In order for the apostles to exercise this gift of forgiving sins, the penitents must orally confess their sins to them because the apostles are not mind readers. The text makes this very clear.

Matt. 9:8 - this verse shows that God has given the authority to forgive sins to “men.” Hence, those Protestants who acknowledge that the apostles had the authority to forgive sins (which this verse demonstrates) must prove that this gift ended with the apostles. Otherwise, the apostles’ successors still possess this gift. Where in Scripture is the gift of authority to forgive sins taken away from the apostles or their successors?

Matt. 9:6; Mark 2:10 - Christ forgave sins as a man (not God) to convince us that the “Son of man” has authority to forgive sins on earth.

Luke 5:24 - Luke also points out that Jesus’ authority to forgive sins is as a man, not God. The Gospel writers record this to convince us that God has given this authority to men. This authority has been transferred from Christ to the apostles and their successors.

Matt. 18:18 - the apostles are given authority to bind and loose. The authority to bind and loose includes administering and removing the temporal penalties due to sin. The Jews understood this since the birth of the Church.

John 20:22-23; Matt. 18:18 - the power to remit/retain sin is also the power to remit/retain punishment due to sin. If Christ’s ministers can forgive the eternal penalty of sin, they can certainly remit the temporal penalty of sin (which is called an “indulgence”).

2 Cor. 2:10 - Paul forgives in the presence of Christ (some translations refer to the presences of Christ as “in persona Christi”). Some say that this may also be a reference to sins.

2 Cor. 5:18 - the ministry of reconciliation was given to the ambassadors of the Church. This ministry of reconciliation refers to the sacrament of reconciliation, also called the sacrament of confession or penance.

James 5:15-16 - in verse 15 we see that sins are forgiven by the priests in the sacrament of the sick. This is another example of man’s authority to forgive sins on earth. Then in verse 16, James says “Therefore, confess our sins to one another,” in reference to the men referred to in verse 15, the priests of the Church.

1 Tim. 2:5 - Christ is the only mediator, but He was free to decide how His mediation would be applied to us. The Lord chose to use priests of God to carry out His work of forgiveness.

Lev. 5:4-6; 19:21-22 - even under the Old Covenant, God used priests to forgive and atone for the sins of others.
 
Originally Posted by **moondweller **
Catholics constantly accuse Protestants on this forum of “cherry picking” the Scriptures to back up their positions. I contend that this is exactly what you do with Jn. 20:23. But you don’t just reference this verse among many, you build your whole claim to authority and your sacrament of penance/reconciliation/forgiveness on this solitary verse. And yet none of it is to be found in that verse, nor in its immediate context (or the whole N.T., for that matter).
Not true … just because I am trying to fully discuss the scripture of John 20:21-23 does not mean there is no other scripture to reference.
I’ll give three posts to share the information in scripture and history.

1 - Jesus Christ Granted the Apostles His Authority to Forgive Sins
2 - The Necessity and Practice of Orally Confessing Sins (which I shared earlier today)

James 5:16 - James clearly teaches us that we must “confess our sins to one another,” not just privately to God. James 5:16 must be read in the context of James 5:14-15, which is referring to the healing power (both physical and spiritual) of the priests of the Church. Hence, when James says “therefore” in verse 16, he must be referring to the men he was writing about in verses 14 and 15 – these men are the ordained priests of the Church, to whom we must confess our sins.

Acts 19:18 - many came to orally confess sins and divulge their sinful practices. Oral confession was the practice of the early Church just as it is today.

Matt. 3:6; Mark 1:5 - again, this shows people confessing their sins before others as an historical practice (here to John the Baptist).

1 Tim. 6:12 - this verse also refers to the historical practice of confessing both faith and sins in the presence of many witnesses.

1 John 1:9 - if we confess are sins, God is faithful to us and forgives us and cleanse us. But we must confess our sins to one another.

Num. 5:7 - this shows the historical practice of publicly confessing sins, and making public restitution.

2 Sam. 12:14 - even though the sin is forgiven, there is punishment due for the forgiven sin. David is forgiven but his child was still taken (the consequence of his sin).

Neh. 9:2-3 - the Israelites stood before the assembly and confessed sins publicly and interceded for each other.

Sir. 4:26 - God tells us not to be ashamed to confess our sins, and not to try to stop the current of a river. Anyone who has experienced the sacrament of reconciliation understands the import of this verse.

Baruch 1:14 - again, this shows that the people made confession in the house of the Lord, before the assembly.

1 John 5:16-17; Luke 12:47-48 - there is a distinction between mortal and venial sins. This has been the teaching of the Catholic Church for 2,000 years, but, today, most Protestants no longer agree that there is such a distinction. Mortal sins lead to death and must be absolved in the sacrament of reconciliation. Venial sins do not have to be confessed to a priest, but the pious Catholic practice is to do so in order to advance in our journey to holiness.

Matt. 5:19 - Jesus teaches that breaking the least of commandments is venial sin (the person is still saved but is least in the kingdom), versus mortal sin (the person is not saved).
 
Originally Posted by moondweller
Catholics constantly accuse Protestants on this forum of “cherry picking” the Scriptures to back up their positions. I contend that this is exactly what you do with Jn. 20:23. But you don’t just reference this verse among many, you build your whole claim to authority and your sacrament of penance/reconciliation/forgiveness on this solitary verse. And yet none of it is to be found in that verse, nor in its immediate context (or the whole N.T., for that matter).
Originally Posted by cazayoux View Post
Not true … just because I am trying to fully discuss the scripture of John 20:21-23 does not mean there is no other scripture to reference.
I’ll give three posts to share the information in scripture and history.
1 - Jesus Christ Granted the Apostles His Authority to Forgive Sins
2 - The Necessity and Practice of Orally Confessing Sins
3 - The Early Church’s Practice of Oral Confession (Through the 3rd Century)

Do not come to prayer with a guilty conscience." Epistle of Barnabas, 19:12 (A.D. 74).

“In church confess your sins, and do not come to your prayer with a guilt conscience. Such is the Way of Life…On the Lord’s own day, assemble in common to break bread and offer thanks; but first confess your sins, so that your sacrifice may be pure." Didache, 4:14,14:1 (c. A.D. 90).

“Moreover, it is in accordance with reason that we should return to soberness[of conduct], and, while yet we have opportunity, exercise repentance towards God. It is well to reverence both God and the bishop.” Ignatius, Epistle to the Smyraeans, 9 (c. A.D. 110).

“Moreover, that this Marcus compounds philters and love-potions, in order to insult the persons of some of these women, if not of all, those of them who have returned to the Church of God–a thing which frequently occurs–have acknowledged, confessing, too, that they have been defiled by him, and that they were filled with a burning passion towards him. A sad example of this occurred in the case of a certain Asiatic, one of our deacons, who had received him (Marcus) into his house. His wife, a woman of remarkable beauty, fell a victim both in mind and body to this magician, and, for a long time, travelled about with him. At last, when, with no small difficulty, the brethren had converted her, she spent her whole time in the exercise of public confession, weeping over and lamenting the defilement which she had received from this magician.” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 1:13 (A.D. 180).

“Such are the words and deeds by which, in our own district of the Rhone, they have deluded many women, who have their consciences seared as with a hot iron. Some of them, indeed, make a public confession of their sins; but others of them are ashamed to do this, and in a tacit kind of way, despairing of [attaining to] the life of God, have, some of them, apostatized altogether; while others hesitate between the two courses, and incur that which is implied in the proverb, ‘neither without nor within;’ possessing this as the fruit from the seed of the children of knowledge.” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 1:13 (A.D. 180).

“Father who knowest the hearts of all grant upon this Thy servant whom Thou hast chosen for the episcopate to feed Thy holy flock and serve as Thine high priest, that he may minister blamelessly by night and day, that he may unceasingly behold and appropriate Thy countenance and offer to Thee the gifts of Thy holy Church. And that by the high priestly Spirit he may have authority to forgive sins…” Hippolytus, Apostolic Tradition, 3 (A.D. 215).

“The Pontifex Maximus–that is, the bishop of bishops–issues an edict: ‘I remit, to such as have discharged (the requirements of) repentance, the sins both of adultery and of fornication.’” Tertullian, Modesty, 1 (A.D. 220).

“In addition to these there is also a seventh, albeit hard and laborious: the remission of sins through penance…when he does not shrink from declaring his sin to a priest of the Lord.” Origen, Homilies on Leviticus, 2:4 (A.D. 248).

“For although in smaller sins sinners may do penance for a set time, and according to the rules of discipline come to public confession, and by imposition of the hand of the bishop and clergy receive the right of communion: now with their time still unfulfilled, while persecution is still raging, while the peace of the Church itself is not vet restored, they are admitted to communion, and their name is presented; and while the penitence is not yet performed, confession is not yet made, the hands Of the bishop and clergy are not yet laid upon them, the eucharist is given to them; although it is written, ‘Whosoever shall eat the bread and drink the cup of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.’” Cyprian, To the Clergy, 9 (16):2 (A.D. 250).

“Moreover, how much are they both greater in faith and better in their fear, who, although bound by no crime of sacrifice to idols or of certificate, yet, since they have even thought of such things, with grief and simplicity confess this very thing to God’s priests, and make the conscientious avowal, put off from them the load of their minds, and seek out the salutary medicine even for slight and moderate wounds, knowing that it is written, ‘God is not mocked.’ God cannot be mocked, nor deceived, nor deluded by any deceptive cunning. Yea, he sins the more, who, thinking that God is like man, believes that he evades the penalty of his crime if he has not openly admitted his crime…I entreat you, beloved brethren, that each one should confess his own sin, while he who has sinned is still in this world, while his confession may be received, while the satisfaction and remission made by the priests are pleasing to the Lord?” Cyprian, To the Lapsed, 28-29 (A.D. 251).
 
Not true … just because I am trying to fully discuss the scripture of John 20:21-23 does not mean there is no other scripture to reference.
I’ll give three posts to share the information in scripture and history.

1 - Jesus Christ Granted the Apostles His Authority to Forgive Sins

John 20:21 - before He grants them the authority to forgive sins, Jesus says to the apostles, “as the Father sent me, so I send you.” As Christ was sent by the Father to forgive sins, so Christ sends the apostles and their successors forgive sins.

John 20:22 - the Lord “breathes” on the apostles, and then gives them the power to forgive and retain sins. The only other moment in Scripture where God breathes on man is in Gen. 2:7, when the Lord “breathes” divine life into man. When this happens, a significant transformation takes place.

John 20:23 - Jesus says, “If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven. If you retain the sins of any, they are retained.” In order for the apostles to exercise this gift of forgiving sins, the penitents must orally confess their sins to them because the apostles are not mind readers. The text makes this very clear.

Matt. 9:8 - this verse shows that God has given the authority to forgive sins to “men.” Hence, those Protestants who acknowledge that the apostles had the authority to forgive sins (which this verse demonstrates) must prove that this gift ended with the apostles. Otherwise, the apostles’ successors still possess this gift. Where in Scripture is the gift of authority to forgive sins taken away from the apostles or their successors?

Matt. 9:6; Mark 2:10 - Christ forgave sins as a man (not God) to convince us that the “Son of man” has authority to forgive sins on earth.

Luke 5:24 - Luke also points out that Jesus’ authority to forgive sins is as a man, not God. The Gospel writers record this to convince us that God has given this authority to men. This authority has been transferred from Christ to the apostles and their successors.

Matt. 18:18 - the apostles are given authority to bind and loose. The authority to bind and loose includes administering and removing the temporal penalties due to sin. The Jews understood this since the birth of the Church.

John 20:22-23; Matt. 18:18 - the power to remit/retain sin is also the power to remit/retain punishment due to sin. If Christ’s ministers can forgive the eternal penalty of sin, they can certainly remit the temporal penalty of sin (which is called an “indulgence”).

2 Cor. 2:10 - Paul forgives in the presence of Christ (some translations refer to the presences of Christ as “in persona Christi”). Some say that this may also be a reference to sins.

2 Cor. 5:18 - the ministry of reconciliation was given to the ambassadors of the Church. This ministry of reconciliation refers to the sacrament of reconciliation, also called the sacrament of confession or penance.

James 5:15-16 - in verse 15 we see that sins are forgiven by the priests in the sacrament of the sick. This is another example of man’s authority to forgive sins on earth. Then in verse 16, James says “Therefore, confess our sins to one another,” in reference to the men referred to in verse 15, the priests of the Church.

1 Tim. 2:5 - Christ is the only mediator, but He was free to decide how His mediation would be applied to us. The Lord chose to use priests of God to carry out His work of forgiveness.

Lev. 5:4-6; 19:21-22 - even under the Old Covenant, God used priests to forgive and atone for the sins of others.
I did take a second look with the verse in John that you quoted. It is probably a verse that Protestant tend to gloss over. However, the Apostles were quite unique in that transitional period of church history. There were giving a might tasks and mission. However, the difficult jump is to understand how these unique gits, powers , and authority were transferred from the Apostles to modern day Priests. Apostolic Succession is a large jump to make. As you know, most Protestants believe that the title of Apostles ended with the New Testament cannon. I am familar with Ephesians 4 too.
 
Originally Posted by moondweller
Catholics constantly accuse Protestants on this forum of “cherry picking” the Scriptures to back up their positions. I contend that this is exactly what you do with Jn. 20:23. But you don’t just reference this verse among many, you build your whole claim to authority and your sacrament of penance/reconciliation/forgiveness on this solitary verse. And yet none of it is to be found in that verse, nor in its immediate context (or the whole N.T., for that matter).
Originally Posted by **cazayoux **
Not true … just because I am trying to fully discuss the scripture of John 20:21-23 does not mean there is no other scripture to reference.
I’ll give three posts to share the information in scripture and history.
1 - Jesus Christ Granted the Apostles His Authority to Forgive Sins
Originally Posted by **cazayoux **
2 - The Necessity and Practice of Orally Confessing Sins
3 - The Early Church’s Practice of Oral Confession (Through the 3rd Century)
3 - The Early Church’s Practice of Oral Confession (4th century)

“It is necessary to confess our sins to those whom the dispensation of God’s mysteries is entrusted.” Basil, Rule Briefly Treated, 288 (A.D. 374).

“These are capital sins, brethren, these are mortal.” Pacian of Barcelona, Penance, 4 (A.D. 385).

“For if any one will consider how great a thing it is for one, being a man, and compassed with flesh and blood, to be enabled to draw nigh to that blessed and pure nature, he will then clearly see what great honor the grace of the Spirit has vouchsafed to priests; since by their agency these rites are celebrated, and others nowise inferior to these both in respect of our dignity and our salvation. For they who inhabit the earth and make their abode there are entrusted with the administration of things which are in Heaven, and have received an authority which God has not given to angels or archangels. For it has not been said to them, ‘Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven, and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in Heaven.’ They who rule on earth have indeed authority to bind, but only the body: whereas this binding lays hold of the soul and penetrates the heavens; and what priests do here below God ratifies above, and the Master confirms the sentence of his servants. For indeed what is it but all manner of heavenly authority which He has given them when He says, ‘Whose sins ye remit they are remitted, and whose sins ye retain they are retained?’ What authority could be greater than this? ‘The Father hath committed all judgment to the Son?’ But I see it all put into the hands of these men by the Son.” John Chrysostom, The Priesthood, 3:5 (A.D. 387).

“The Church holds fast its obedience on either side, by both retaining and remitting sin; heresy is on the one side cruel, and on the other disobedient; wishes to bind what it will not loosen, and will not loosen what it has bound, whereby it condemns itself by its own sentence. For the Lord willed that the power of binding and of loosing should be alike, and sanctioned each by a similar condition…Each is allowed to the Church, neither to heresy, for this power has been entrusted to priests alone. Rightly, therefore, does the Church claim it, which has true priests; heresy, which has not the priests of God, cannot claim it. And by not claiming this power heresy pronounces its own sentence, that not possessing priests it cannot claim priestly power. And so in their shameless obstinacy a shamefaced acknowledgment meets our view. Consider, too, the point that he who has received the Holy Ghost has also received the power of forgiving and of retaining sin. For thus it is written: ‘Receive the Holy Spirit: whosesoever sins ye forgive, they are forgiven unto them, and whosesoever sins ye retain, they are retained.’ So, then, he who has not received power to forgive sins has not received the Holy Spirit. The office of the priest is a gift of the Holy Spirit, and His right it is specially to forgive and to retain sins. How, then, can they claim His gift who distrust His power and His right?” Ambrose, Concerning Repentance, I:7-8 (A.D. 388).

“All mortal sins are to be submitted to the keys of the Church and all can be forgiven; but recourse to these keys is the only, the necessary, and the certain way to forgiveness. Unless those who are guilty of grievous sin have recourse to the power of the keys, they cannot hope for eternal salvation. Open your lips, them, and confess your sins to the priest. Confession alone is the true gate to Heaven.” Augustine, Christian Combat (A.D. 397).

“Just as in the Old Testament the priest makes the leper clean or unclean, so in the New Testament the bishop and presbyter binds or looses not those who are innocent or guilty, but by reason of their office, when they have heard various kinds of sins, they know who is to be bound and who loosed.” Jerome, Commentary on Matthew, 3:16,19 (A.D. 398).
 
I did take a second look with the verse in John that you quoted. It is probably a verse that Protestant tend to gloss over. However, the Apostles were quite unique in that transitional period of church history. There were giving a might tasks and mission. However, the difficult jump is to understand how these unique gits, powers , and authority were transferred from the Apostles to modern day Priests. Apostolic Succession is a large jump to make. As you know, most Protestants believe that the title of Apostles ended with the New Testament cannon. I am familar with Ephesians 4 too.
John 20:22 shows us how the apostles received authority … by receiving the Holy Spirit.
[22] And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit.

We see the apostles passing this on to others.

Acts 8:17
[17] Then they laid their hands on them and they received the Holy Spirit.

It is not so difficult to see the transfer of power or position.

Acts 8:17 shows this.
Acts Chapter 1 shows this as well with a position (bishopric) that existed even though the apostle Judas was gone. The office existed and was empty … needing to be filled.

michel
 
Catholics constantly accuse Protestants on this forum of “cherry picking” the Scriptures to back up their positions. I contend that this is exactly what you do with Jn. 20:23. But you don’t just reference this verse among many, you build your whole claim to authority and your sacrament of penance/reconciliation/forgiveness on this solitary verse. And yet none of it is to be found in that verse, nor in its immediate context (or the whole N.T., for that matter).
1 - Jesus Christ Granted the Apostles His Authority to Forgive Sins
2 - The Necessity and Practice of Orally Confessing Sins
3 - The Early Church’s Practice of Oral Confession (Through the 3rd Century)
3 - The Early Church’s Practice of Oral Confession (4th century)
Sorry for the additional post here.
I wanted to at least give a single point with a link to each of the posts in the series.
I typically do not post so many scripture references like this … in firehose fashion.

Our discussion of John 20:21-23 has gone on so very long that the view is that the Catholic has nothing more than this verse to go on for the explanation of the sacrament of confession. This is absolutely not the case.

Between scripture (old and new testament) and history, there is more than enough evidence for the theology Catholics hold.

michel
 
I did take a second look with the verse in John that you quoted. It is probably a verse that Protestant tend to gloss over. However, the Apostles were quite unique in that transitional period of church history. There were giving a might tasks and mission. However, the difficult jump is to understand how these unique gits, powers , and authority were transferred from the Apostles to modern day Priests. Apostolic Succession is a large jump to make. As you know, most Protestants believe that the title of Apostles ended with the New Testament cannon. I am familar with Ephesians 4 too.
Even if you only believe the apostles had this … do you actually admit at least that the apostles did have this gift?

I realize that apostolic succession is a different discussion … which I’ll be happy to have … but we’ve had about 900 posts with the majority around what the apostles themselves have the ability to do … through the power of the Holy Spirit.

You and moondweller have given so much good for me to think about.
I very much appreciate the conversation.

michel
 
First of all, I would like to commend TriuneUnity and moondweller for calling out Reformed for placing Catholicism of the same level as Mormonism. You obviously do not believe in compromising accuracy for the sake of winning an argument. God bless you both! 👍

There is no comparison between Mormonism and Calvinism. Mormonism does not believe in an eternal God, is polytheistic, believes God had sexual relations with the Virgin Mary, has a leader that claims to receive direct divine revelations that often contradicts previous revelations, and that man can become equal to God by becoming gods themselves (eternal progression). And that’s not all. 🤷 There are plenty of similarities between Christianity and Zoroastrianism.

God Bless,
Michael
 
Confession is prefigured in the Old Testament.

In the book of Genesis we read all about the fall of Adam and Eve and about Cain killing Able. While God knew exactly what had happened and what sins had been committed, God still asks Adam and Eve [see Gen 3:11-14] what they had done.
Notice, Pax, you have to go back to the O.T. to try to find examples of confessing sins for divine forgiveness. That’s because you can’t find even one example where men lined up to confess their sins to the Apostles for absolution or the retaining of their sins - either before baptism or after.

As for Adam and Eve, God took the initiative to confront them about their transgression (they, in fact, hid from Him). Upon being confronted they finally admitted to it, but you do not read in the Genesis record that God absolved their sin, but instead we read that God pronounces judgment on them.
Again, when Cain kills Able in Gen 4:10, God asks Cain “What have you done?”
Again, it’s God who approaches Cain (not the other way around) and He doesn’t absolve his sin but, like his parents, He pronounces judgment on him - not absolution.
God wants us to confess and it is therefore necessary for us to do so.
Here’s the difference, Pax, and where you veer off from the gospel. Divine redemption has come through the, once for all, sacrificial work of Jesus Christ on the cross. And since Pentecost, with the coming of the Holy Spirit, whose ministry it is to convict the world of sin, the “forgiveness of sins” has been proclaimed first to the Jew, and also to the Gentile (Greek), on the basis of faith in Christ alone. This is the gospel (good news) the Apostles took to their generation and was subsequently recorded in Scripture: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,"They proclaimed it to the world and taught it doctrinally to the churchCol 1:14 “…in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.”

Col 2:13-14 "When you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us ALL our transgressions, having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us, which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross."Your sacrament of penance/reconciliation/forgiveness denies the truth of this gospel message and the doctrinal teaching of the efficacy of the sacrificial work of Christ on behalf of the one who believes; hence, the act of one confessing sins, for the sake of receiving divine, judicial absolution, must be considered an act of unbelief.
So where does the priest fit in? In Leviticus 5:5-6 we have a solid prefiguring/foreshadowing of confession and this is carried over into the New Covenant. In Lev. 5:5-6 it says, “When a man is guilty in any of these, he shall confess the sin he has committed, and he shall bring his guilt offering to the Lord for the sin which he has committed, a female from the flock, a lamb or a goat, for a sin offering; and the priest shall make atonement for him for his sin.”
Note how the penitent must confess and take his sin offering to the priest, and the priest shall make atonement for him for his sin. This requires knowledge of the sin on the part of the priest.
This doesn’t “prefigure” confessing sins. You’re quoting the Mosaic Law which prefigured/foreshadowed the, once for all (time), sacrificial work of Jesus Christ on the cross, through which ALL sins are now forgiven upon faith in Christ alone.Heb. 9:26b "…but now once at the consummation of the ages He has been manifested to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself."None of the sacrifices in the Mosaic Law could “put away” sin. Nor did the atonement sacrifices in the O.C. prefigure confession of sins under the N.C., Pax. You’ll find no such teaching either by Christ or His Apostles in the Scriptures. It is clearly taught, however, that they prefigured, foreshadowed the once for all, “one time fits all,” substitutionary, sacrifice of the Son of Man, bringing redemption from sin and reconciliation to God to all those who believe in Him. But Pax, believing in Him entails believing what He accomplished, once for all, for you.

Because Christ has once for all “put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself,” the position of “priest” has also been put away for lack of necessity. And for this reason you’ll never find the Greek word “hiereus” (priest) used in the Epistles written to the churches. And, no, you can’t get “priest” out of “presbuteros.” Nor is an “episkopos” (overseer/elder) ever referred to as a “hiereus.” In the church there is now only the general priesthood of all believers (1 Pet. 2:9; Rev. 1:6).
 
Regarding confession, I think Pax and cazayoux have done an excellent job. Here is a quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia on the Sacrament of Penance:

**As already stated, the power granted by Christ to the Apostles is twofold, to forgive and to retain, in such a way that what they forgive God forgives and what they retain God retains. But this grant would be nullified if, in case the Church retained the sins of penitent, he could, as it were, take appeal to God’s tribunal and obtain pardon. Nor would the power to retain have any meaning if the sinner, passing over the Church, went in the first instance to God, since by the very terms of the grant, God retains sin once committed so long as it is not remitted by the Church. It would indeed have been strangely inconsistent if Christ in conferring this twofold power on the Apostles had intended to provide some other means of forgiveness such as confessing “to God alone”. Not only the Apostles, but any one with an elementary knowledge of human nature would have perceived at once that the easier means would be chosen and that the grant of power so formally and solemnly made by Christ had no real significance (Palmieri, op. cit., thesis X). On the other hand, once it is admitted that the grant was effectual and consequently that the sacrament is necessary in order to obtain forgiveness, it plainly follows that the penitent must in some way make known his sin to those who exercise the power. This is conceded even by those who reject the Sacrament of Penance as a Divine institution. “Such remission was manifestly impossible without the declaration of the offences to be forgiven” (Lea, “History etc.”, I, p. 182). **

John 20:23 is clear. Jesus says “If you forgive anyone’s sins” and “if you retain anyone’s sins.” Objective grammar states indicates that the verb (forgive) applies to the subject (apostles). The verb is forgive, moondweller, not proclaim or preach. What you want us to do is the change the express verb Jesus Himself uses for a verb that is not there, that must be added to the text (proclaim or preach forgiveness). I think Pax and cazayoux have adequately demonstrated that the sacrament of penance is the historical teaching of Christianity and, though not numbered a sacrament, was maintained by Martin Luther and Lutherans as a biblical
practice (Confession and Absolution).

Obviously, a priest does not have infallible knowledge of whether a person is truly repentant or not. He might grant absolution, but if that person is not truly contrite, his sins are not forgiven and he just added another one. I still don’t see a proper explanation of retaining sins, moondweller. Are you saying that the apostles had a right to withhold the gospel from someone so that they were not saved?

God bless,
Michael
 
Sorry for the additional post here.
I wanted to at least give a single point with a link to each of the posts in the series.
I typically do not post so many scripture references like this … in firehose fashion.

Our discussion of John 20:21-23 has gone on so very long that the view is that the Catholic has nothing more than this verse to go on for the explanation of the sacrament of confession. This is absolutely not the case.

Between scripture (old and new testament) and history, there is more than enough evidence for the theology Catholics hold.

michel
I read all your posts to me, michel. But the fact still remains that no historical evidence can be provided to prove that men confessed their sins to the Apostles for judicial pardon. Nor can one find it being doctrinally taught to the churches in any of the Epistles. It was a post Apostolic development void of any Scriptural support.

And for that matter, it’s not even recorded in the Gospel accounts that men confessed their sins to Christ. His message to them was to “BELIEVE” in Him for eternal life. The same message the Apostles took to the world.
 
]Your sacrament of penance/reconciliation/forgiveness denies the truth of this gospel message and the doctrinal teaching of the efficacy of the sacrificial work of Christ on behalf of the one who believes; hence, the act of one confessing sins, for the sake of receiving divine, judicial absolution, must be considered an act of unbelief.
Then explain the following:

Matthew 6:14-15

14"For if you forgive others for their transgressions, your heavenly Father will also forgive you.
15"But if you do not forgive others, then your Father will not forgive your transgressions."


Mark 11:25-26

25"Whenever you stand praying, forgive, if you have anything against anyone, so that your Father who is in heaven will also forgive you your transgressions.
26But if you do not forgive, neither will your Father who is in heaven forgive your transgressions."


Jesus clearly has Christians in view since only theycan truly claim God to be their Father. A child of God is one who has been justified. What sins are the heavenly Father forgiving if that was already taken care of the moment a person believed? And why will God not forgive if we do not forgive others?

God Bless,
Michael
 
Obviously, a priest does not have infallible knowledge of whether a person is truly repentant or not. He might grant absolution, but if that person is not truly contrite, his sins are not forgiven and he just added another one. I still don’t see a proper explanation of retaining sins, moondweller. Are you saying that the apostles had a right to withhold the gospel from someone so that they were not saved?

God bless,
Michael
No. The gospel has nothing to do with confessing sins to men for absolution. The gospel has to do with believing, not confessing. Nor does that verse say anything about confessing sins.
 
Notice, Pax, you have to go back to the O.T. to try to find examples of confessing sins for divine forgiveness. That’s because you can’t find even one example where men lined up to confess their sins to the Apostles for absolution or the retaining of their sins - either before baptism or after.

As for Adam and Eve, God took the initiative to confront them about their transgression (they, in fact, hid from Him). Upon being confronted they finally admitted to it, but you do not read in the Genesis record that God absolved their sin, but instead we read that God pronounces judgment on them.Again, it’s God who approaches Cain (not the other way around) and He doesn’t absolve his sin but, like his parents, He pronounces judgment on him - not absolution.Here’s the difference, Pax, and where you veer off from the gospel. Divine redemption has come through the, once for all, sacrificial work of Jesus Christ on the cross. And since Pentecost, with the coming of the Holy Spirit, whose ministry it is to convict the world of sin, the “forgiveness of sins” has been proclaimed first to the Jew, and also to the Gentile (Greek), on the basis of faith in Christ alone. This is the gospel (good news) the Apostles took to their generation and was subsequently recorded in Scripture: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,"They proclaimed it to the world and taught it doctrinally to the churchCol 1:14 “…in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.”

Col 2:13-14 "When you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us ALL our transgressions, having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us, which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross."Your sacrament of penance/reconciliation/forgiveness denies the truth of this gospel message and the doctrinal teaching of the efficacy of the sacrificial work of Christ on behalf of the one who believes; hence, the act of one confessing sins, for the sake of receiving divine, judicial absolution, must be considered an act of unbelief.This doesn’t “prefigure” confessing sins. You’re quoting the Mosaic Law which prefigured/foreshadowed the, once for all (time), sacrificial work of Jesus Christ on the cross, through which ALL sins are now forgiven upon faith in Christ alone.Heb. 9:26b "…but now once at the consummation of the ages He has been manifested to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself."None of the sacrifices in the Mosaic Law could “put away” sin. Nor did the atonement sacrifices in the O.C. prefigure confession of sins under the N.C., Pax. You’ll find no such teaching either by Christ or His Apostles in the Scriptures. It is clearly taught, however, that they prefigured, foreshadowed the once for all, “one time fits all,” substitutionary, sacrifice of the Son of Man, bringing redemption from sin and reconciliation to God to all those who believe in Him. But Pax, believing in Him entails believing what He accomplished, once for all, for you.

Because Christ has once for all “put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself,” the position of “priest” has also been put away for lack of necessity. And for this reason you’ll never find the Greek word “hiereus” (priest) used in the Epistles written to the churches. And, no, you can’t get “priest” out of “presbuteros.” Nor is an “episkopos” (overseer/elder) ever referred to as a “hiereus.” In the church there is now only the general priesthood of all believers (1 Pet. 2:9; Rev. 1:6).
This is all nonsense. Look at all of the OT and NT scriptures already presented to you; look at the Didache; look at the ECF’s and look at the common practice of Christians since Pentecost. All of these point to confession. The Catholic Church and others have remained faithful to all of this. Those that have not done so have done it solely on their personal view and interpretation of scripture. IMHO, you really have no case.
 
Then explain the following:

Matthew 6:14-15

14"For if you forgive others for their transgressions, your heavenly Father will also forgive you.
15"But if you do not forgive others, then your Father will not forgive your transgressions."

Mark 11:25-26

25"Whenever you stand praying, forgive, if you have anything against anyone, so that your Father who is in heaven will also forgive you your transgressions.
26But if you do not forgive, neither will your Father who is in heaven forgive your transgressions."
All this is stated under the principle of law: if you do this, then your Father will do this in return. That’s LAW. But of the believer, now in Christ, it is taught: “for you are not under law but under grace” (Rom 6:14-15).

Now you tell me, how do you reconcile the verses you quoted (spoken not to His church but to Israel under the Law) with Acts 10:43; 13:38; Col. 1:14; 2:13-14; Heb. 9:26?
Jesus clearly has Christians in view since only theycan truly claim God to be their Father.
It’s true that only true believers in Christ can claim their spiritual adoption as sons. But Israel, nationally, called God “Father” based on their covenant relationship with Him. And this is who Jesus was addressing:Matt 23:1-9 “Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to His disciples (all these being Jews)…but do not be called Rabbi; for One is your Teacher, and you are all brothers…do not call {anyone} on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven.”
And why will God not forgive if we do not forgive others?
If the church was called according to law then that would be a legitimate question. But the true believer, baptized by the Holy Spirit into the body of Christ (the church), is not under law (the principle of) but under grace (the principle of).

All Scripture is written for us, but not all Scripture is necessarily written about us. This is especially true for the redeemed, now “in Christ Jesus.” Not everything Jesus said applies to His church. With His sacrificial death came this overall truth:Rom. 10:4 “For Christ is the end of law (the principle of) for righteousness to everyone who believes.”

Rom. 5:21 "…so that, as sin reigned in death, even so grace would reign (i.e., as king) through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord."Under the principle of law it’s: Do in order to be blessed.
Under the principle of grace it’s: Believe and you are blessed.
 
This is all nonsense. Look at all of the OT and NT scriptures already presented to you; look at the Didache; look at the ECF’s and look at the common practice of Christians since Pentecost. All of these point to confession. The Catholic Church and others have remained faithful to all of this. Those that have not done so have done it solely on their personal view and interpretation of scripture. IMHO, you really have no case.
Yes, I agree! According to your opinion I have no case; but according to the Scriptures I have won my case and the Divine verdict is in my favor. :tiphat:
 
Rom. 5:21 “…so that, as sin reigned in death, even so grace would reign (i.e., as king) through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.”[/indent]Under the principle of law it’s: Do in order to be blessed.
Under the principle of grace it’s: Believe and you are blessed.
Don’t you see that belief is an action word?

you cannot separate ‘believe’ and ‘do’.

the body requires the spirit and faith requires action.

michel
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top