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

[cazayoux]

… but according to the Scriptures I have won my case and the Divine verdict is in my favor. :tiphat:

not even close.
cheers, brother.

michel

 

[Reformed]

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

Well, how do we know this transfer of power or position didn’t go to the modern day prophets? Even some fringe Protestant groups claim a form of apostolic succession. Those verses of laying of hands are used by many many religious groups.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Well, how do we know this transfer of power or position didn’t go to the modern day prophets? Even some fringe Protestant groups claim a form of apostolic succession. Those verses of laying of hands are used by many many religious groups.

Yes, but the Protestants who “appeal” to such passages are in fact self appointed…contrary to Scripture (eg 2 Tim 4:3 “itching ears”) and Church history:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=107819&highlight=concord

 

[Reformed]

Yes, but the Protestants who “appeal” to such passages are in fact self appointed…contrary to Scripture (eg 2 Tim 4:3 “itching ears”) and Church history:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=107819&highlight=concord

That’s interesting because I can use the writings of the Apostle Paul too to support what I believe.

1 Timothy 4

Some Will Depart from the Faith

Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons, through the insincerity of liars whose consciences are seared, who forbid marriage and require abstinence from foods that God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth. For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, for it is made holy by the word of God and prayer.

 

[cazayoux]

That’s interesting because I can use the writings of the Apostle Paul too to support what I believe.

1 Timothy 4

Some Will Depart from the Faith

Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons, through the insincerity of liars whose consciences are seared, who forbid marriage and require abstinence from foods that God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth. For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, for it is made holy by the word of God and prayer.

At least you recognize that you are using scripture to support your errant beliefs.
This is also evidenced in the fact that you can’t accept ALL scripture.
I will call it … ‘the dance’.

I remember a college professor once saying … the best way to lie is with statistics. Hold the data a certain way and you get a slant that you want to see.

1 Tim 6:20-21
[20]O Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to you. Avoid the godless chatter and contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge,
[21] for by professing it some have missed the mark as regards the faith.

michel

 

[cazayoux]

Well, how do we know this transfer of power or position didn’t go to the modern day prophets? Even some fringe Protestant groups claim a form of apostolic succession. Those verses of laying of hands are used by many many religious groups.

Do I take this comment to be an addmission that …
1 - The apostles had the power to forgive sins?
2 - The apostles, in scripture, pass on power to others?

michel

 

[mikeledes]

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?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."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.

The problem with your interpretation is that Mark 11:25-26 is specifically addressed to His apostles:

**19When evening came, they would go out of the city.
20As they were passing by in the morning, they saw the fig tree withered from the roots up.
21Being reminded, Peter said to Him, “Rabbi, look, the fig tree which You cursed has withered.”
elieve that you have received them, and they will be granted you.
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.
26"But if you do not forgive, neither will your Father who is in heaven forgive your transgressions." **

So he is not talking about Israelites or a so-called principle of law. He was speaking to believers. And I highly doubt that Jesus would preach “law” as a means of salvation to his own apostles. The problem is that this verse clearly indicates that forgiveness of sins does not occur once in a person’s life. But this is not the only verse that contradicts this notion:

James 5:14-15

14Is anyone among you sick? Then he must call for the elders of the church and they are to pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord;
15and the prayer offered in faith will restore the one who is sick, and the Lord will raise him up, and if he has committed sins, they will be forgiven him.

This passage clearly has Christians in view. What sins are being forgiven if past, present, and future sins have been eternally forgiven at justification?

God Bless,
Michael

 

[PerryJ]

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.

In the OT Moses laid hands on successors. Why would this tradition/belief not also be found in the NT? The OT traditions can not be ignored. The OT is fulfilled by the NT.

 

[mikeledes]

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:

And that is your opinion. You cite passages that talk about faith and forgiveness of sins (justification) - and an unbeliever, BTW, cannot receive absolution - and somehow expect them to explain away the plain words of Jesus Christ Himself:

23"If you forgive the sins of any, their sins have been forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they have been retained."

You are asking us to ignore the iobjective rules of grammar and semantics and submit to your subjective interpretation of this verse and the other verses you keep citing. This verse does not say, “If you preach forgiveness of sins, they have been forgiven.” You are asking us to add words to the carefully chosen words of Jesus by adding a verb (preach/proclaim) that He does not use, replacing one that He actually does use (forgive). Jesus says if YOU (apostles) FORGIVE sins and if YOU RETAIN sins. The verb “forgive” applies to the subject (apostles). That is plain objective grammar. “Forgive sins” means forgive sins. That is the plain meaning based on the objective rules of semantics.

In addition, you have yet to explain how the apostles “retain sins.” If you have done so, can you please point to the exact post. All I see are verses about the forgiveness of sins.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[moondweller]

The problem with your interpretation is that Mark 11:25-26 is specifically addressed to His apostles:

19When evening came, they would go out of the city.
20As they were passing by in the morning, they saw the fig tree withered from the roots up.
21Being reminded, Peter said to Him, “Rabbi, look, the fig tree which You cursed has withered.”
elieve that you have received them, and they will be granted you.
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.
26"But if you do not forgive, neither will your Father who is in heaven forgive your transgressions."

So he is not talking about Israelites or a so-called principle of law. He was speaking to believers. And I highly doubt that Jesus would preach “law” as a means of salvation to his own apostles. The problem is that this verse clearly indicates that forgiveness of sins does not occur once in a person’s life.

Sure He’s teaching law: do, so that our Father will do in return. That’s the principle of law. Jesus wasn’t preaching the gospel. The cross had no yet occurred. The gospel (good news) of Divine, judicial forgiveness of sins is based on the cross of Christ. His sacrificial blood.

James 5:14-15

14Is anyone among you sick? Then he must call for the elders of the church and they are to pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord;
15and the prayer offered in faith will restore the one who is sick, and the Lord will raise him up, and if he has committed sins, they will be forgiven him.

This passage clearly has Christians in view. What sins are being forgiven if past, present, and future sins have been eternally forgiven at jusification?

This is not in the context of Divine, *judicial *forgiveness. James seems to be suggesting here that the person’s sickness is related directly to sins committed. This is all in the context of one’s experiential sanctification, not justification.

Why is it you avoid answering my question? How do you reconcile these verses with Acts 10:43; 13:38; Col. 1:14; 2:13-14?

 

[Reformed]

At least you recognize that you are using scripture to support your errant beliefs.
This is also evidenced in the fact that you can’t accept ALL scripture.
I will call it … ‘the dance’.

I remember a college professor once saying … the best way to lie is with statistics. Hold the data a certain way and you get a slant that you want to see.

1 Tim 6:20-21
[20]O Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to you. Avoid the godless chatter and contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge,
[21] for by professing it some have missed the mark as regards the faith.

michel

We obviously disagree with each other. So did others 500 years ago. Due to Scripture and their conscience before God, they seperated from the Roman Catholic Church. I did start a thread about discussing what has changed in 500 years. Do you agree with the other Catholics that nothing has changed doctrinally in 500 years? Ecumenism makes no sense unless there is substantial change in regards to the essentials of the Christian Faith. Rome proclaims the same gospel as it did at the Reformation, correct? The doctrine of justification is the heart of the gospel of God’s grace which gives God all the glory for saving sinners. The person and work of Christ is sufficient for those who believe. Scripture is authorative above all apparent claimed revelation from God.

 

[Reformed]

Do I take this comment to be an addmission that …
1 - The apostles had the power to forgive sins?
2 - The apostles, in scripture, pass on power to others?

michel

I never really gave much thought to it, and haven’t come to much of a conclusion. It is only important to Christians who claim a form of apostolic succession such as Roman Catholic Christians, LDS Christians, and some fringe Protestant Christians.

 

[ralphinal]

I never really gave much thought to it, and haven’t come to much of a conclusion. It is only important to Christians who claim a form of apostolic succession such as Roman Catholic Christians, LDS Christians, and some fringe Protestant Christians.

Anglicans and Methodists are Fringe?

 

[Reformed]

In the OT Moses laid hands on successors. Why would this tradition/belief not also be found in the NT? The OT traditions can not be ignored. The OT is fulfilled by the NT.

Sure, there is great continunity between the OT and NT! The OT types and shadows all point to Christ and the gospel of God’s grace. Moses was a type of Christ. I think there is a difference between what is written in the OT and OT traditions. Since many Catholics believe the Roman Catholic Church gave us the NT, who gave us the OT? I believe Jesus Christ is our Sabbath rest. I also see that many Roman Catholics are not willing to enter that Sabbath rest found in Christ alone. Jesus is also our Great High Priest.

Hebrews 4

Therefore, while the promise of entering his rest still stands, let us fear lest any of you should seem to have failed to reach it. For good news came to us just as to them, but the message they heard did not benefit them, because they were not united by faith with those who listened. For we who have believed enter that rest, as he has said,

“As I swore in my wrath,
‘They shall not enter my rest,’”

although his works were finished from the foundation of the world. For he has somewhere spoken of the seventh day in this way: “And God rested on the seventh day from all his works.” And again in this passage he said,

“They shall not enter my rest.”

Since therefore it remains for some to enter it, and those who formerly received the good news failed to enter because of disobedience, again he appoints a certain day, “Today,” saying through David so long afterward, in the words already quoted,

“Today, if you hear his voice,
do not harden your hearts.”

For if Joshua had given them rest, God would not have spoken of another day later on. 9 So then, there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God, for whoever has entered God’s rest has also rested from his works as God did from his.

Let us therefore strive to enter that rest, so that no one may fall by the same sort of disobedience. For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart. And no creature is hidden from his sight, but all are naked and exposed to the eyes of him to whom we must give account.

 

[moondweller]

And that is your opinion. You cite passages that talk about faith and forgiveness of sins (justification) - and an unbeliever, BTW, cannot receive absolution - and somehow expect them to explain away the plain words of Jesus Christ Himself:

23"If you forgive the sins of any, their sins have been forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they have been retained."

You are asking us to ignore the iobjective rules of grammar and semantics and submit to your subjective interpretation of this verse and the other verses you keep citing. This verse does not say, “If you preach forgiveness of sins, they have been forgiven.” You are asking us to add words to the carefully chosen words of Jesus by adding a verb (preach/proclaim) that He does not use, replacing one that He actually does use (forgive). Jesus says if YOU (apostles) FORGIVE sins and if YOU RETAIN sins. The verb “forgive” applies to the subject (apostles). That is plain objective grammar. “Forgive sins” means forgive sins. That is the plain meaning based on the objective rules of semantics.

In addition, you have yet to explain how the apostles “retain sins.” If you have done so, can you please point to the exact post. All I see are verses about the forgiveness of sins.

God Bless,
Michael

I’ve done so twice. You go back and look it up.

You completely avoid those passages that state that through faith in Christ the believer has redemption, the forgiveness of sins, and that God has forgiven us ALL our transgressions, canceled out the certificate of debt against us, which was hostile to us, and has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross. And that now, ONCE at the consummation of the ages Christ was manifested to “put away sin” by the sacrifice of Himself.

This objective truth regarding sin and the substitutionary sacrifice of Christ you refuse to believe. Ever persisting on trying to prove this “good news” wrong.

That’s the thing about faith, it’s personal, it speaks to the heart of man. I think for that reason God chose it as the vehicle by which He justifies sinners.

 

[moondweller]

In the OT Moses laid hands on successors. Why would this tradition/belief not also be found in the NT? The OT traditions can not be ignored. The OT is fulfilled by the NT.

But not replicated.

 

[Reformed]

Originally Posted by Reformed
I never really gave much thought to it, and haven’t come to much of a conclusion. It is only important to Christians who claim a form of apostolic succession such as Roman Catholic Christians, LDS Christians, and some fringe Protestant Christians.

Anglicans and Methodists are Fringe?

I never called Anglicans and Methodists as fringe Protestants. To my fallible knowledge, I don’t think Anglicans are Protestants and their 39 Articles of Faith is very good. I don’t think John Wesley believed in apostolic sucession. Fringe Protestant groups claim exclusive authority through their particular church and vary in size. They claim a form of apostolic succession similar to Roman Catholicism and Mormonism. You can find therse fringe groups through ministries like Hank Hanigraft or James White’s apologetics ministries.

equip.org/site/c.muI1LaMNJrE/b.2106253/

aomin.org/

 

[po18guy]

Anglicans and Methodists are Fringe?

The Eastern Orthodox are fringe? Isn’t the fringe rather those who dismiss Apostolic succession and choose to make themselves apostles by their own authority? Sounds like someone is projecting here, a little bit.

 

[Reformed]

The Eastern Orthodox are fringe? Isn’t the fringe rather those who dismiss Apostolic succession and choose to make themselves apostles by their own authority? Sounds like someone is projecting here, a little bit.

That’s a good point. I only called fringe groups in reference to Protestant groups who deviate from Scripture as final authority to claiming apostolic succession instead. I never stated that Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodox being a fringe group. The interesting point between the East and the West, is that they claim mutually exclusive apostolic sucessions and both claim to be the One True Church. The East seperated from the West before the Reformation too? Maybe the East is correct over the West? Don’t the East and the West claim tradition and history to support their mutually exclusive claims? It’s much easier to embrace the Holy Scriptures as final authority as compared to selecting a church denomination who claims final authority over the Scriptures. It’s a matter of the sufficiency of the Scriptures and the sufficiency of Jesus Christ.

 

[East_and_West]

That’s a good point. I only called fringe groups in reference to Protestant groups who deviate from Scripture as final authority to claiming apostolic succession instead. I never stated that Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodox being a fringe group. The interesting point between the East and the West, is that they claim mutually exclusive apostolic sucessions and both claim to be the One True Church. The East seperated from the West before the Reformation too? Maybe the East is correct over the West? Don’t the East and the West claim tradition and history to support their mutually exclusive claims? It’s much easier to embrace the Holy Scriptures as final authority as compared to selecting a church denomination who claims final authority over the Scriptures. It’s a matter of the sufficiency of the Scriptures and the sufficiency of Jesus Christ.

Although the differences between the East and the West are complicated by linguistic differences and theological experessions. Both Catholic and Orthodox Christians, for the most part (and I know there are many Eastern Orthodox Christians who will disagree) profess the same apostolic faith. There is a schism between us but it is not the same as their being two different religions. I believe the only real issue of contentin between us now, is the issue of Vatican I’s defintion of the papacy. All, other issues, when approached without emtional baggagae, can be reconciled. Therefore, what you are talking about is not all that complicated. Its clear for Catholics. We are either following the Apostolic faith handed on by Christ himself to his holy Catholic Church (and for the most part preseverd in Eastern Orthdoxy as well) as taught in the scirpturs, or we are following the innovations of Protestantism. Protestantism is not about the sufficiency of scirptures or of Jesus Christ. If Protestants thought that Jesus Christ was enough, then they would follow the Apostolic Faith given by Jesus. They would not follow the traditions of men. As it stands, they please men and not God.