There's no OSAS

[JRKH]

I don’;t think it is just a handful… it seems that even those who profess not to believe in OSAS live like they DO believe in it… for instance, i know Christians who reject OSAS but treat others like dirt (and do other things), never seeming to repent or apologize or what have you… They don’t seem to fear God - or what happens in the afterlife… So, to me, they DO believe (virtually) OSAS is true…

As true as the above is, in all fairness I’ve known Catholics who act just the same way. They seem to think that, so long as they go to church (and not even every week), they are still a “good catholic” regardless of how they act otherwise.

Peace
James

 

[Phil12123]

How do you suppose the gospel writer misunderstood? Why did he not write “man”? Who are the other “men” referenced here?

I think you are misconstruing the sense of what is being said. God and “men” or mankind are being contrasted. To them Jesus was just a man and the gospel writer is merely expressing the marvel of the people, who didn’t know that Jesus is in fact God too. You are reading into it too much based on your own mindset, rather than understanding it from the mindset of the people Matthew was referring to.

How do you suppose that the Apostles all misunderstood, and passed on this misunderstanding to the bishops, priests, and deacons they ordained?

They didn’t.

How do you suppose that Christians misunderstood for 1800 years? Even Luther believed in sacramental confession.

Do Lutherans today believe in sacramental confession? Why not? Your argument that something was taught or believed for hundreds of years is not convincing. Does that make it right? Does might make right? Who had power for all those years and who had any freedom to question those in power? And how many people had the Word of God in their own tongue to read it for themselves? The dominance of one “church” that controlled the people does not make everything it taught true.

This is not a “Roman” phenomenon, as you seem to think. All the ancient Churches that were founded by the Apostles do this.

You are missing the point by saying anything about “Roman”. The fact remains that the Catholic Church teaches that confession to a priest is the normative, if not only, way for the average person to get sins committed after baptism forgiven. And yet you don’t see a single instance in Acts or any of the epistles where a saved person confesses to a church leader, apostle or otherwise, to get his post-baptism sins forgiven, or is even admonished, instructed, or encouraged to do so. NOT ONCE. And yet in the RCC, without it you cannot be saved and go to heaven. There seems to be a real discrepancy there.

Certainly not. Catholics don’t take single verses out of scripture and create doctrine with them, so “proving” things with a verse seems ridiculous to me. We understand the meaning of the Scripture by the TEaching that comes from Jesus and the Apostles. In the light of that teaching, and their practices it is clear that the persons being called upon are the presbyters (where we derive the English word "priest) and that their prayers result in healing and forgiveness.

The only teaching we can be sure came from Jesus and the Apostles is that set forth in the Word of God, which teaches nothing about “priests” in the Body of Christ during this church age. The only thing that “priests” and “presbyters” have in common is the first letter; they are two entirely different offices, functions, or gifts. Even Hebrews, yea, especially Hebrews, says nothing about “priests” in the church. Jesus is our High Priest and is contrasted with human priests, with no indication that we still had or needed “priests” when He fullfilled that function or office. Besides, the confession of sins “to one another” is obviously a two-way-street sort of thing, not everyone confessing in one direction, to the elders. And it is also obvious that it is to the person sinned against that the confession should be made, to heal relationships harmed by sin, "that you may be healed."

You gave a great answer following this, but you did not respond to my question.

Please show me scripturally where 1) “all their sins have been judged at the Cross…when they 2) accept it personally and individually for themselves”.

You gave me verses pertaining to Jesus bearing the sins of the world on the cross. That is not the point of the question. These two points above are the question.

It is your formulation of how one acquires the benefits of that sacrifice that I am questioning.

Right, but not everyone cashes in the voucher, do they? Some are not covered. You gave (above) a formula about how this atonement applies to you, when it does not apply to all humans. It is the method by which you vicariously acquire I am asking about.

My “formulation of how one acquires the benefits of that sacrifice” is based on what Jesus said should be preached—the Gospel and repentance and/for the forgiveness of sins, along with the many verses, like John 3:16, 18, 36; 20:31; Acts 16:31, etc., that teach we are saved by believing the Gospel, which is “the power of God unto salvation to everyone who believes” (Rom. 1:16). Those who hear the Gospel and do not repent or believe it, are lost (or, more correctly, remain lost) and do not acquire the benefits of Christ’s sacrifice.

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

Phil12123:

And yet you don’t see a single instance in Acts or any of the epistles where a saved person confesses to a church leader, apostle or otherwise, to get his post-baptism sins forgiven, or is even admonished, instructed, or encouraged to do so. NOT ONCE. And yet in the RCC, without it you cannot be saved and go to heaven. There seems to be a real discrepancy there.

Luke 10:[16] “He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me.”

Is not Christ telling His apostles that what they do, Christ does through them?

Did not Peter participate in the judgement of God when Anannias and Sapphira lied to him? Did he not say that by lying to him that they lied to God? (Acts 5)

Do you think that this authority was restricted to the apostles and not passed on to their successors-the bishops and presbyters-priests? (Acts 6:6; 1 Tim 4:14; 2 Tim 1:6)

Matthew 9:[6] But that you may know that the Son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins" – he then said to the paralytic – “Rise, take up your bed and go home.”
[7] And he rose and went home.
[8] When the crowds saw it, they were afraid, and they glorified God, who had given such authority to men.

James 5:16 “Therefore confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous man has great power in its effects.”

How do you explain these verses from scripture which clearly tells us to confess our sins to one another?

Now if by “the laying on of hands” the grace of apostleship, the grace that “whoever hears you hears Me” resides in those called, and if James says that we are to “confess our sins to one another and pray for one another, that you may be healed”, and that God has given authority to men to forgive sins, how do you explain these scripture passages that clearly support the sacrament of confession/reconciliation?

 

[Phil12123]

GreyPilgrim, could you please read all the previous posts on the subject of confession. You’ve jumped into the middle of the conversation and what you’re asking has already been answered.

 

[JRKH]

**
You are missing the point by saying anything about “Roman”. The fact remains that the Catholic Church teaches that confession to a priest is the normative, if not only, way for the average person to get sins committed after baptism forgiven. And yet you don’t see a single instance in Acts or any of the epistles where a saved person confesses to a church leader, apostle or otherwise, to get his post-baptism sins forgiven, or is even admonished, instructed, or encouraged to do so. NOT ONCE. And yet in the RCC, without it you cannot be saved and go to heaven. There seems to be a real discrepancy there.

The only teaching we can be sure came from Jesus and the Apostles is that set forth in the Word of God**, which teaches nothing about “priests” in the Body of Christ during this church age. The only thing that “priests” and “presbyters” have in common is the first letter; they are two entirely different offices, functions, or gifts. Even Hebrews, yea, especially Hebrews, says nothing about “priests” in the church. Jesus is our High Priest and is contrasted with human priests, with no indication that we still had or needed “priests” when He fullfilled that function or office. Besides, the confession of sins “to one another” is obviously a two-way-street sort of thing, not everyone confessing in one direction, to the elders. And it is also obvious that it is to the person sinned against that the confession should be made, to heal relationships harmed by sin, “that you may be healed.”

Phil,
I pulled these sections out of your post to make one simple observation.
You claim that the only way we know what authentically came from Jesus is that which is contained in the “Word of God”; a title you seem to reserve to be exclusively belonging to the Bible. Yet how can this be? Jesus never wrote anything down, nor did any of his diciples write anything while Jesus was walked among us.

Instead He instituted a Church to which He promised a Guiding Spirit, the Paraclete. He also promised that He would be with His Church and that the Gates of Hell would not prevail against it.
He gave this Church the mission of spreading the good news of the kingdom. He gave this Church authority, to bind and loose, to forgive sins and to hold sins, and to speak in His name.
He gave this Church a Steward, or Vicar and leaders to establish order and grow the Church.
He also promised that He would write His Law upon our hearts.

In none of the above was a written “manual” ever stated or implied by Jesus other than for those scriptures already written at the time he walked among us.
So how is it that you have this “Word of God” in written form?
How can you know it IS, in fact, the “Word of God”?
How can you know it is the “Complete” Word of God?
By what authority do you accept and use this book?
Why do you accept it?
And most importantly, why do you accept the Bible outside of the early traditions of the Church?

You treat the Bible as though it was intended to be a “How to” manual for church building even though there is precious little actual technical data in it as regards how the Church was set up in various cities. You then ignore the other writings of the early, pre-biblical, Church as set down by the Early Church Fathers. Why?

If the Early Church Fathers, those who are within only a very few generations of the Apostles and Christ Himself, cannot be trusted to have recorded the actual teachings of the apostles, we have a very real problem with regards the Bible.
For if these men were not Spirit filled, inspired leaders of The Only Christian Church at the time, how can we trust them in anything they wrote or did? How can we know that they correctly selected the Books used in the Bible? So the volume we call the Bible then comes into question.
However, if we take on faith, as we must, that these men were indeed Spirit filled Christian Leaders and the Holy Spirit guided and guarded their work, then it follows that their writings, and teachings on the structure of the Church are likewise guarded, though not considered to be appropriate for inclusion in the Bible, since the Bible has a different function.

The Bible’s function was to be the gathering and codifying of only the oldest and most widely regarded of the Church writings. The Bible was intended to only carry the most narrow group of commonly accepted books. It was never intended to be used outside of the Church which compiled it.

So in summary, you say that the only thing you can know for sure is that which you find in “God’s Word”. To you that means, “The Bible”. Yet without the Early Church, without Tradition, you cannot show that the Bible IS the Word of God. So your argument that priestly confession is not biblical is mute since it is practiced in the Early Church during pre-bible times. That is during a time when the Church was governed by OT Scripture, by the Apostles or by those directly apointed and approved by them as Guided by the Holy Spirit.

Peace
James

 

[Ronald_E]

James, Your message above is so clear. If we had a thread to discuss only what you have presented above and not get off track I think it would be very beneficial.
Without knowing the foundation of the Church we are scattered.
Thanks for your crystal clear insight.

 

[Phil12123]

Phil,
I pulled these sections out of your post to make one simple observation.
You claim that the only way we know what authentically came from Jesus is that which is contained in the “Word of God”; a title you seem to reserve to be exclusively belonging to the Bible. Yet how can this be? Jesus never wrote anything down, nor did any of his diciples write anything while Jesus was walked among us.

Instead He instituted a Church to which He promised a Guiding Spirit, the Paraclete. He also promised that He would be with His Church and that the Gates of Hell would not prevail against it.
He gave this Church the mission of spreading the good news of the kingdom. He gave this Church authority, to bind and loose, to forgive sins and to hold sins, and to speak in His name.
He gave this Church a Steward, or Vicar and leaders to establish order and grow the Church.
He also promised that He would write His Law upon our hearts.

In none of the above was a written “manual” ever stated or implied by Jesus other than for those scriptures already written at the time he walked among us.
So how is it that you have this “Word of God” in written form?
How can you know it IS, in fact, the “Word of God”?
How can you know it is the “Complete” Word of God?
By what authority do you accept and use this book?
Why do you accept it?
And most importantly, why do you accept the Bible outside of the early traditions of the Church?

You treat the Bible as though it was intended to be a “How to” manual for church building even though there is precious little actual technical data in it as regards how the Church was set up in various cities. You then ignore the other writings of the early, pre-biblical, Church as set down by the Early Church Fathers. Why?

If the Early Church Fathers, those who are within only a very few generations of the Apostles and Christ Himself, cannot be trusted to have recorded the actual teachings of the apostles, we have a very real problem with regards the Bible.
For if these men were not Spirit filled, inspired leaders of The Only Christian Church at the time, how can we trust them in anything they wrote or did? How can we know that they correctly selected the Books used in the Bible? So the volume we call the Bible then comes into question.
However, if we take on faith, as we must, that these men were indeed Spirit filled Christian Leaders and the Holy Spirit guided and guarded their work, then it follows that their writings, and teachings on the structure of the Church are likewise guarded, though not considered to be appropriate for inclusion in the Bible, since the Bible has a different function.

The Bible’s function was to be the gathering and codifying of only the oldest and most widely regarded of the Church writings. The Bible was intended to only carry the most narrow group of commonly accepted books. It was never intended to be used outside of the Church which compiled it.

So in summary, you say that the only thing you can know for sure is that which you find in “God’s Word”. To you that means, “The Bible”. Yet without the Early Church, without Tradition, you cannot show that the Bible IS the Word of God. So your argument that priestly confession is not biblical is mute since it is practiced in the Early Church during pre-bible times. That is during a time when the Church was governed by OT Scripture, by the Apostles or by those directly apointed and approved by them as Guided by the Holy Spirit.

**Whatever. Now, perhaps you might respond, if you like, to my specific points.

1. Nowhere do we see in any of the writings of the Apostles a single instance of where a saved person confesses to a church leader, apostle or otherwise, to get his post-baptism sins forgiven, or is even admonished, instructed, or encouraged to do so. NOT ONCE. And yet in the RCC, without it you cannot be saved and go to heaven. There seems to be a real discrepancy there.
2. The Apostles wrote nothing about “priests” in the Body of Christ during this church age. The only thing that “priests” and “presbyters” have in common is the first letter; they are two entirely different offices, functions, or gifts. Even Hebrews, yea, especially Hebrews, says nothing about “priests” in the church. Jesus is our High Priest and is contrasted with human priests, with no indication that we still had or needed “priests” when He fullfilled that function or office.
3. The confession of sins “to one another” is obviously a two-way-street sort of thing, not everyone confessing in one direction, to the elders. And it is also obvious that it is to the person sinned against that the confession should be made, to heal relationships harmed by sin, “that you may be healed.”**

 

[wisdomseeker]

**Whatever. Now, perhaps you might respond, if you like, to my specific points.

1. Nowhere do we see in any of the writings of the Apostles a single instance of where a saved person confesses to a church leader, apostle or otherwise, to get his post-baptism sins forgiven, or is even admonished, instructed, or encouraged to do so. NOT ONCE. And yet in the RCC, without it you cannot be saved and go to heaven. There seems to be a real discrepancy there.
2. The Apostles wrote nothing about “priests” in the Body of Christ during this church age. The only thing that “priests” and “presbyters” have in common is the first letter; they are two entirely different offices, functions, or gifts. Even Hebrews, yea, especially Hebrews, says nothing about “priests” in the church. Jesus is our High Priest and is contrasted with human priests, with no indication that we still had or needed “priests” when He fullfilled that function or office.
3. The confession of sins “to one another” is obviously a two-way-street sort of thing, not everyone confessing in one direction, to the elders. And it is also obvious that it is to the person sinned against that the confession should be made, to heal relationships harmed by sin, “that you may be healed.”**

“And we make the same demand of God and Christ and His Church thoughtout the whole of history. “If you exist , God,” we say, then show you’ll just have to show yourself. You’ll have to part the clouds that conceal you and give us the clarity taht we deserve. If you, Christ , are really the Son of God, and just another one of the ednlightened individuals who keep appearing in the course of history, then you’ll just have to prove it clearly that you are doing now. And if the Church is really supposed to be yours, you’ll have to make that much more obvious than it is at present.”
Pope Benedict XVI

 

[JRKH]

Whatever. Now, perhaps you might respond, if you like, to my specific points.

Given this response, why should I bother? I believe in both the Bible and in Christ’s duly intituted Church which compiled and tranmitted said Bible. Therefore I see no discrepency between the teachings of the Bible and the Sacraments of the Church.
You deny the Church instituted by Christ through His Apostles and their successors. You ignore the writings of the Early Church Fathers and the Traditions passed down through oral Teachings for at least 350 years before the Bible you hold even existed. Therefore you cut off the Words in the Bible from the Living Church of Christ.
If you wish for me to try and respond to your questions, I’m afraid you’re going to have to first convince me that the Bible (NT) is the property of God apart from the Catholic Church.

1. Nowhere do we see **in any of the writings of the Apostles **a single instance of where a saved person confesses to a church leader, apostle or otherwise, to get his post-baptism sins forgiven, or is even admonished, instructed, or encouraged to do so. NOT ONCE. And yet in the RCC, without it you cannot be saved and go to heaven. There seems to be a real discrepancy there.

1. **The Apostles wrote nothing **about “priests” in the Body of Christ during this church age. The only thing that “priests” and “presbyters” have in common is the first letter; they are two entirely different offices, functions, or gifts. Even Hebrews, yea, especially Hebrews, says nothing about “priests” in the church. Jesus is our High Priest and is contrasted with human priests, with no indication that we still had or needed “priests” when He fullfilled that function or office.

1. The confession of sins “to one another” is obviously a two-way-street sort of thing, not everyone confessing in one direction, to the elders. And it is also obvious that it is to the person sinned against that the confession should be made, to heal relationships harmed by sin, “that you may be healed.”

I think it is safe to say that you cannot prove that the Apostles ever wrote anything with the possible exception of some of the epistles. In most cases of the early Church, the oldest scriptural texts available were copies of even earlier texts.
These texts have been held as Scriptural due to the Tradition by which they were transmitted to the next generation.

Personally I have no problem conceding that the Bible contains only sketchy references to the items you list above. However, since I do not limit God to the one tiny slice of His revelation that happened to be written down, I don’t have a problem with this.
You see I trust Jesus and I take Him at His Word. That His Church has been built on Peter. I trust that hell has not prevailed and that the succesors to the Apostles have successfully protected the faith. I trust that God writes his Law in my heart, and that word cannot be corrupted.

Peace
James

 

[po18guy]

**Whatever. Now, perhaps you might respond, if you like, to my specific points.

1. Nowhere do we see in any of the writings of the Apostles a single instance of where a saved person confesses to a church leader, apostle or otherwise, to get his post-baptism sins forgiven, or is even admonished, instructed, or encouraged to do so. NOT ONCE. And yet in the RCC, without it you cannot be saved and go to heaven. There seems to be a real discrepancy there.
2. The Apostles wrote nothing about “priests” in the Body of Christ during this church age. The only thing that “priests” and “presbyters” have in common is the first letter; they are two entirely different offices, functions, or gifts. Even Hebrews, yea, especially Hebrews, says nothing about “priests” in the church. Jesus is our High Priest and is contrasted with human priests, with no indication that we still had or needed “priests” when He fullfilled that function or office.
3. The confession of sins “to one another” is obviously a two-way-street sort of thing, not everyone confessing in one direction, to the elders. And it is also obvious that it is to the person sinned against that the confession should be made, to heal relationships harmed by sin, “that you may be healed.”**

Phil, my brother in Christ, you have to take your Protestant glasses off to see what we are trying to teach about Catholicism (and Eastern Orthodoxy). Remember that scripture came as the Apostles realized that Jesus would not return in their lifetimes. OK so far? So, since the church was fairly well established, those practices that were commonly occurring were not written of in detail, specifically because they were the exact “traditions” that Paul exhorted the Thessalonians to keep. Since your faith “tradition” does not include the early church traditions of Paul, the limitations of scripture will not allow these arguments to make sense to you.

You must take a fresh, untinted look at the early church to see that it continues in the Orthodox and Catholic. Scripture is the Catholic’s right hand, but Tradition remains the left. The early celebration of the Eucharist is one of the Traditions that have been kept at a high price in blood. The many who suffered and died (sound familiar?) to preserve the faith had excellent reasons for defending what they recognized as God’s revealed truth. To see the others, you must examine the continuing, unbroken Traditions practiced by the Eastern Orthodox and Catholic churches.

But, it will remain a foreign language until you take your glasses off.

Christ’s peace be always with you.

 

[guanophore]

I was not being as serious about that silly offhand statement I made as you seem to believe. I should not have posted that comment though.

I would appreciate if you refrain. It is slanderous, and detracting.

The mention you make about some Protestants revelling in a sort of “soft-core propaganda porn” relating to the “lacivious little details” is not something that I have come across, although it likely does exist. Your defense against it, using the words “soft-core propaganda porn”, could be the Catholic reverse propaganda method of doing the same thing they complain about being done to them.

Then let us all avoid all of it, and get back to the topic.

Name calling on both sides, accomplishes no good. I will try to be more careful in my offhand remarks, but that will not prevent me from giving what I consider an honest assessment of what I believe, even though I know it will not be received well by some.

Were you trying to say that one does not need to repent of sins after being initially justified? I think you believe that God forgave all sins, past, present, and future, on the cross. Is that right?

 

[guanophore]

I don’;t think it is just a handful… it seems that even those who profess not to believe in OSAS live like they DO believe in it… for instance, i know Christians who reject OSAS but treat others like dirt (and do other things), never seeming to repent or apologize or what have you… They don’t seem to fear God - or what happens in the afterlife… So, to me, they DO believe (virtually) OSAS is true…

It seems like a lot for those in the United States, because that tradition is most common here. It seems to be linked with the founding principles of the country in individuality and freedom. “I can do as I please” is a common misunderstanding of the Constitution.

There is bigotry on both sides of the OSAS arguement. I have just bumped heads on another thread with a Catholic like what you describe here. Bigotry is no respecter of faith traditions.

 

[guanophore]

** I think you are misconstruing the sense of what is being said. God and “men” or mankind are being contrasted. To them Jesus was just a man and the gospel writer is merely expressing the marvel of the people, who didn’t know that Jesus is in fact God too. You are reading into it too much based on your own mindset, rather than understanding it from the mindset of the people Matthew was referring to.**

You are right that I am reading into it, and I do so from the perspective of the writers. We know from the history of the early Church that these passages were understood to refer to sacramental confession. The persons who wrote those words believed and practiced that way. It is a marvel, though, I agree with you.

They didn’t.

Indeed, they must have! What they understood and passed on was sacramental confession. So, my question is, when and how did they get so lost?

** Do Lutherans today believe in sacramental confession? Why not? Your argument that something was taught or believed for hundreds of years is not convincing. Does that make it right? Does might make right? **

Those who have separated themselves from Apostolic Teaching do not believe. I think this is because of the abuses that were taking place, specifically the perception that indulgences were for “sale”. I find those doctrines taught from the founding of the Church very convincing. But, since they are not so for you, please explain to me how the Apostles and their immediate successors got so off track on this point. Why did they misunderstand Jesus about forgiveness of sins?

What is right comes from Jesus. Those trained in the Apostolic traditions understand that Jesus taught the Sacrament of Reconciliation. How is it they all misunderstood?

** Who had power for all those years and who had any freedom to question those in power? And how many people had the Word of God in their own tongue to read it for themselves? The dominance of one “church” that controlled the people does not make everything it taught true.**

I think the conmingling of secular authority with spiritual authority has muddied the waters. Therefore, let us set this aside, and go to a source that was not involved in any of that. Let us look to the Eastern Church, who has received the same Teaching from the Apostles, yet did not have any secular power or language issues. How is it that the Orthodox also got mixed up on this point?

** You are missing the point by saying anything about “Roman”. The fact remains that the Catholic Church teaches that confession to a priest is the normative, if not only, way for the average person to get sins committed after baptism forgiven. And yet you don’t see a single instance in Acts or any of the epistles where a saved person confesses to a church leader, apostle or otherwise, to get his post-baptism sins forgiven, or is even admonished, instructed, or encouraged to do so. NOT ONCE.**

Well, we read it differently!

** And yet in the RCC, without it you cannot be saved and go to heaven. There seems to be a real discrepancy there.**

This is not taught by the Roman Church, or any other Catholic Rite, or the Orthodox, who have received the same Apostolic Teaching.

 

[guanophore]

** The only teaching we can be sure came from Jesus and the Apostles is that set forth in the Word of God, which teaches nothing about “priests” in the Body of Christ during this church age. **

How is it that you are not able to receieve the whole of Apostolic teaching, and limit yourself to what is in the NT?

In any case, the ministry of priests is clear in the NT. Our English word “priest” is derived from the Greek “presbyter”.

James 5:14-16
4 Is any among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; 15 and the prayer of faith will save the sick man, and the Lord will raise him up; and if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven. 16 Therefore confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another, that you may be healed.

The elders have always been called upon to pray, to annoint, to listen to confessions. This practice is not limited to the NT, but is clearly forshadowed in the old.

**
The only thing that “priests” and “presbyters” have in common is the first letter; they are two entirely different offices, functions, or gifts. Even Hebrews, yea, especially Hebrews, says nothing about “priests” in the church. Jesus is our High Priest and is contrasted with human priests, with no indication that we still had or needed “priests” when He fullfilled that function or office. **

It seems that you are lacking in some of your own family history when it comes to the role of the presbyter. What we read in James as the duty of the presbyter is exactly what the priest does today. Jesus is our High Priest, and it is true that he does not 'need" us, but chooses to allow us to participate in His ministry of reconciliation. The priests of the New Covenant are different from those of the Old. They are not born into their duties, but are called, and are after the order of Melchizadech.

** Besides, the confession of sins “to one another” is obviously a two-way-street sort of thing, not everyone confessing in one direction, to the elders. And it is also obvious that it is to the person sinned against that the confession should be made, to heal relationships harmed by sin, “that you may be healed.”**]/quote]

I agree, and priests do confess to one another. Confession is very healing in relationships. When a person cannot confess to the injured party, the priest is able to stand in for the community, and for the Lord. This is what is meant by the phrase “in the person of Christ”.

** My “formulation of how one acquires the benefits of that sacrifice” is based on what Jesus said should be preached—the Gospel and repentance and/for the forgiveness of sins, along with the many verses, like John 3:16, 18, 36; 20:31; Acts 16:31, etc., that teach we are saved by believing the Gospel, which is “the power of God unto salvation to everyone who believes” (Rom. 1:16). Those who hear the Gospel and do not repent or believe it, are lost (or, more correctly, remain lost) and do not acquire the benefits of Christ’s sacrifice.**

Indeed, the Gospel is the power to save. Yet it is not limited to a handful of picked verses. Jesus commissioned the Apostles to “teach all that I have commanded”. That is much, much more than can be reflected in these few verses.

There are many persons in the NT who believed, yet were not saved. Why not? If your formula works, why did those who had already come to belief ask what they must do? Why was hearing and believing not enough?

 

[po18guy]

Phil,
I pulled these sections out of your post to make one simple observation.
You claim that the only way we know what authentically came from Jesus is that which is contained in the “Word of God”; a title you seem to reserve to be exclusively belonging to the Bible. Yet how can this be? Jesus never wrote anything down, nor did any of his diciples write anything while Jesus was walked among us.

Instead He instituted a Church to which He promised a Guiding Spirit, the Paraclete. He also promised that He would be with His Church and that the Gates of Hell would not prevail against it.
He gave this Church the mission of spreading the good news of the kingdom. He gave this Church authority, to bind and loose, to forgive sins and to hold sins, and to speak in His name.
He gave this Church a Steward, or Vicar and leaders to establish order and grow the Church.
He also promised that He would write His Law upon our hearts.

In none of the above was a written “manual” ever stated or implied by Jesus other than for those scriptures already written at the time he walked among us.
So how is it that you have this “Word of God” in written form?
How can you know it IS, in fact, the “Word of God”?
How can you know it is the “Complete” Word of God?
By what authority do you accept and use this book?
Why do you accept it?
And most importantly, why do you accept the Bible outside of the early traditions of the Church?

You treat the Bible as though it was intended to be a “How to” manual for church building even though there is precious little actual technical data in it as regards how the Church was set up in various cities. You then ignore the other writings of the early, pre-biblical, Church as set down by the Early Church Fathers. Why?

If the Early Church Fathers, those who are within only a very few generations of the Apostles and Christ Himself, cannot be trusted to have recorded the actual teachings of the apostles, we have a very real problem with regards the Bible.
For if these men were not Spirit filled, inspired leaders of The Only Christian Church at the time, how can we trust them in anything they wrote or did? How can we know that they correctly selected the Books used in the Bible? So the volume we call the Bible then comes into question.
However, if we take on faith, as we must, that these men were indeed Spirit filled Christian Leaders and the Holy Spirit guided and guarded their work, then it follows that their writings, and teachings on the structure of the Church are likewise guarded, though not considered to be appropriate for inclusion in the Bible, since the Bible has a different function.

The Bible’s function was to be the gathering and codifying of only the oldest and most widely regarded of the Church writings. The Bible was intended to only carry the most narrow group of commonly accepted books. It was never intended to be used outside of the Church which compiled it.

So in summary, you say that the only thing you can know for sure is that which you find in “God’s Word”. To you that means, “The Bible”. Yet without the Early Church, without Tradition, you cannot show that the Bible IS the Word of God. So your argument that priestly confession is not biblical is mute since it is practiced in the Early Church during pre-bible times. That is during a time when the Church was governed by OT Scripture, by the Apostles or by those directly apointed and approved by them as Guided by the Holy Spirit.

Peace
James

WORD!

 

[Phil12123]

Indeed, they must have! What they understood and passed on was sacramental confession. So, my question is, when and how did they get so lost?

I do not wish to suggest that the Early Church Fathers are authoritive, but where do you see any of them expressing what you call “sacramental confession” in the form that it takes today in the CC? How do you know that the original Apostles “passed on” such a practice when none of them spoke of it in any of their writings. For all you know, its present form may have not occurred until hundreds of years after the Apostles, and you may be just assuming that it came from them. Man has always been prone to seek power and control over other men, usually out of pride, like the Pharisees or other religious leaders. What power it would be if they could get people to be required to come to them and bare their souls with such confessions, with the result of refusing to do so the nonforgiveness of sins that will damn their souls without such forgiveness. Teaching such a thing and getting people to not do the simple thing of confessing to God and obtaining His forgiveness directly would bring tremendous power and influence to them. And that would doubly be the case if they could add the people’s deceased relatives suffering in a nonexistent place called purgatory. All of that is so foreign to the love of Christ and any of His teachings.

Those who have separated themselves from Apostolic Teaching do not believe. I think this is because of the abuses that were taking place, specifically the perception that indulgences were for “sale”. I find those doctrines taught from the founding of the Church very convincing. But, since they are not so for you, please explain to me how the Apostles and their immediate successors got so off track on this point. Why did they misunderstand Jesus about forgiveness of sins?

What is right comes from Jesus. Those trained in the Apostolic traditions understand that Jesus taught the Sacrament of Reconciliation. How is it they all misunderstood?

**“Perception” that indulgences were for sale?? Come now, let’s not be a white-washing, historical revisionist. There is no doubt that they were being sold. That is what financed the building of St. Peter’s Basilica. I’ve heard of church building programs by non-Catholics seeking pledges, etc., but never based on payment for indulgences or for masses to be said for souls suffering in “purgatory”! What a con job! And because of the power and influence of that “church” and its control over millions of members who were ignorant of Scriptures that they did not have, or were not permitted to have, in their own tongue, they submitted and paid and hoped it would do some good, as they were led to believe.

Jesus taught repentance and faith in Him and His Work of redemption and that is what He commissioned them to go out and preach. All the Apostolic writers preached and wrote consistently with that. The fact that none of them ever wrote that believers were to confess their post-baptism sins to them or any other church leaders in order to obtain their forgiveness should be a clue to you how John 20 was in fact understood by them and put into practice by them during the early years of the church.**

 

[Phil12123]

Me: And yet in the RCC, without it [sacramental confession] you cannot be saved and go to heaven. There seems to be a real discrepancy there.

You:

This is not taught by the Roman Church, or any other Catholic Rite, or the Orthodox, who have received the same Apostolic Teaching.

What? Not taught? People commit mortal sins and they are NOT taught that they have to confess to a priest in order to obtain forgiveness, without which they are damned to hell and cannot go to heaven? Do I understand you correctly? How then do they obtain such forgiveness?

 

[Phil12123]

**How is it that you **are not able to receive the whole of Apostolic teaching, and limit yourself to what is in the NT?

**Because that is the safest way to guard against erroneous teachings, by having the NT as a plumbline or a standard.

Notice what Paul said to the Ephesian elders or presbyters:
**
Acts 20:
27. "For I have not shunned to declare to you the whole counsel of God.
28. "Therefore take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood.
29. "For I know this, that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock.
30. "Also from among yourselves men will rise up, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after themselves.
31. "Therefore watch, and remember that for three years I did not cease to warn everyone night and day with tears.
32. "And now, brethren, I commend you to God and to the word of His grace, which is able to build you up and give you an inheritance among all those who are sanctified.

We have that “word of His grace” in written form. It is able to build us up and give us an inheritance among all those who are sanctified. Plus it helps us know true doctrine and to distinguish that from what “savage wolves” come up with, including men within the church itself who “rise up, speaking perverse things.” The NT is sufficient for all those things. That is all we need. Why not use it?

In any case, the ministry of priests is clear in the NT. Our English word “priest” is derived from the Greek “presbyter”.

The Greek “presbyter” is derived from a word that means “older” or “old man” and hence is translated “elder”. Contrast that with “priest” which has sacerdotal connotations from OT usage. I like what Easton’s Bible Dictionary says under “priest”:

The whole priestly system of the Jews was typical. It was a shadow of which the body is Christ. The priests all prefigured the great Priest who offered “one sacrifice for sins” “once for all” (Heb. 10:10, 12). There is now no human priesthood. (See Epistle to the Hebrews throughout.) The term “priest” is indeed applied to believers (1 Pet. 2:9; Rev. 1:6), but in these cases it implies no sacerdotal functions. All true believers are now “kings and priests unto God.” As priests they have free access into the holiest of all, and offer up the sacrifices of praise and thanksgiving, and the sacrifices of grateful service from day to day. (emphasis added)

Indeed, **the Gospel **is the power to save. Yet it is not limited to a handful of picked verses. Jesus commissioned the Apostles to “teach all that I have commanded”. That is much, much more than can be reflected in these few verses.

The “handful of picked verses” were given in answer to your question as to my “formulation” of how a person acquires the benefits of His sacrifice and is saved, not all that he should be taught as a new believer, which obviously is much more.

There are many persons in the NT who believed, yet were not saved. Why not? If your formula works, why did those who had already come to belief ask what they must do? Why was hearing and believing not enough?

Which persons in the NT are you referring to? Citations please.

 

[guanophore]

** I do not wish to suggest that the Early Church Fathers are authoritive, **

Don’t you think they might be at least a reliable historical reference?

** but where do you see any of them expressing what you call “sacramental confession” in the form that it takes today in the CC? How do you know that the original Apostles “passed on” such a practice when none** of them spoke of it in any of their writings.

Oh, I don’t! Sins were confessed publicly since prior to the time of John the Baptist (this was also an Essene practice)

Mark 1:5
5 And there went out to him all the country of Judea, and all the people of Jerusalem; and they were baptized by him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins.

Acts 19:17-19
18 Many also of those who were now believers came, confessing and divulging their practices.

We know this was the Apostolic Teaching because this is the practice handed down to us. There have been many changes in form, and format. I am sure the Apostles never envisioned the confessional!

**
For all you know, its present form may have not occurred until hundreds of years after** the Apostles, and you may be just assuming that it came from them. Man has always been prone to seek power and control over other men, usually out of pride, like the Pharisees or other religious leaders. What power it would be if they could get people to be required to come to them and bare their souls with such confessions, with the result of refusing to do so the nonforgiveness of sins that will damn their souls without such forgiveness. Teaching such a thing and getting people to not do the simple thing of confessing to God and obtaining His forgiveness directly would bring tremendous power and influence to them. And that would doubly be the case if they could add the people’s deceased relatives suffering in a nonexistent place called purgatory. All of that is so foreign to the love of Christ and any of His teachings.

I know that the practice was changed from public to private when they realized that not everyone involved in the sin was ready to confess at the same time. To avoid adding public scandal to private, public confession was not required. But, you are right, this was a later development.

• Origen, a prolific theologian in the third-century Church, wrote:
  The layman who falls into sin cannot by himself wash away his fault. He must have recourse to the levite; he needs the priest. At times, he applies to one even greater: he needs the pontiff’s help, that he may obtain the forgiveness of sins (Hom. in Numeros 10, 1).
• St. Cyprian, bishop of Carthage, also writing in the third century, said:
  I entreat you, 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 his satisfaction and absolution given the priest are still pleasing to the Lord (De lapsis 28, 29).
• In the fourth century, St. Ambrose, bishop of Milan, wrote:
  Sins are forgiven through the Holy Ghost. Certainly, but men lend him their ministry. . . . They forgive sin, not in their own name, but in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost (De Spiritu Sancto iii, 137).

As to the power and control thing, I think you are imposing a worldly (secular) mind set of power. The only reason the priest would retain a sin is if the penitent lied (as did Ananias and Sapphira in Acts) or refused to stop sinning.

** “Perception” that indulgences were for sale?? Come now, let’s not be a white-washing, historical revisionist. There is no doubt that they were being sold. That is what financed the building of St. Peter’s Basilica. I’ve heard of church building programs by non-Catholics seeking pledges, etc., but never based on payment for indulgences or for masses to be said for souls suffering in “purgatory”! What a con job! **

I say that because it is not possible to “sell” an indulgence. I agree that there were greedy and faithless clergy members purporting that this is possible, but it is not. I realize that this deceptive practice was used as a fundraiser also. I have not read anything in Catholic Teaching that would present such a thing. Calm yourself, though, that is not the topic of the thread!

**And because of the power and influence of that “church” and its control over millions of members who were ignorant of Scriptures that they did not have, or were not permitted to have, in their own tongue, they submitted and paid and hoped it would do some good, as they were led to believe. **

You have been wrongly informed about these matters, but I don’t think that is the topic of the thread either. How is the sinful behavior of ruthless, greedy clergymen claiming (falsely) that they are Catholic related to OSAS? I never claimed they were saved! Better a millstone be hung about their neck…

**Jesus taught repentance and faith in Him and His Work of redemption and that is what He commissioned them to go out and preach. All the Apostolic writers preached and wrote consistently with that. The fact that none of them ever wrote that believers were to confess their post-baptism sins to them or any other church leaders in order to obtain their forgiveness should be a clue to you how John 20 was in fact understood by them and put into practice by them during the early years of the church. **

Well, we read it differently!

 

[Phil12123]

**Yes, we have gotten off topic. Someone got onto a tangent about confession and I guess I took off with it! Sorry about that. [You may grant me absolution now.] **