If it's possible for men to remit sins

[glorydaz]

[
As I read what your own church stated...the priest is not forgiving sin....only God can do that.

The priest is appealing to man to be reconciled with God.

The priest acts in persona christi, ie. in the person of Christ.

1443 During his public life Jesus not only forgave sins, but also made plain the effect of this forgiveness: he reintegrated forgiven sinners into the community of the People of God from which sin had alienated or even excluded them. A remarkable sign of this is the fact that Jesus receives sinners at his table, a gesture that expresses in an astonishing way both God's forgiveness and the return to the bosom of the People of God.44

1444 In imparting to his apostles his own power to forgive sins the Lord also gives them the authority to reconcile sinners with the Church. This ecclesial dimension of their task is expressed most notably in Christ's solemn words to Simon Peter: "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."45 "The office of binding and loosing which was given to Peter was also assigned to the college of the apostles united to its head."46

1445 The words bind and loose mean: whomever you exclude from your communion, will be excluded from communion with God; whomever you receive anew into your communion, God will welcome back into his. Reconciliation with the Church is inseparable from reconciliation with God.

Believers are given the spirit of reconciliation. I have no problem with the church elders excluding people from the assembly until they turn away from their sins. Then the church can welcome them back into fellowship in the spirit of reconciliation. But, even the Apostles could not absolve sins against God...they pointed to Christ's work on the cross. God, alone, sees the heart of man. No man can do that; no man takes the place of Christ. What the Apostles did was define the foundation that Christ laid out. They explained what was sin and what wasn't sin...binding us to the truth, and loosing us from false doctrine. They preached Christ and Him crucified. They never took the place of Christ...they were merely the messengers and "spoke" in His name. It seems you're relying on one verse that is supported nowhere else in scripture.

This is the authority given the Apostles...they are not given the power to forgive sins...but they are given the authority to put people out of fellowship. Heal...yes. Cast out devils...yes. Forgive sins against God...No.

Then he called his twelve disciples together, and gave them power and authority over all devils, and to cure diseases. And he sent them to preach the kingdom of God, and to heal the sick. And he said unto them, Take nothing for your journey, neither staves, nor scrip, neither bread, neither money; neither have two coats apiece. And whatsoever house ye enter into, there abide, and thence depart. And whosoever will not receive you, when ye go out of that city, shake off the very dust from your feet for a testimony against them.

 

[glorydaz]

We believe God forgives sins through the ministry of the Church - the priest acting in the person of Christ and the community's representative. Note carefully that it is the priest absolving the penitent, not merely relaying what God has already done in heaven (since the priest doesn't have a pipeline to God's mind to know such things...)

Regards

Indeed...the priest does not have a pipeline to God's mind.
Therefore, he cannot act in God's stead.

 

[chestertonrules]

[

Regards

Indeed...the priest does not have a pipeline to God's mind.
Therefore, he cannot act in God's stead.[/quote]


Can a priest or pastor baptize?

How about perform a marriage cermony?

 

[francisdesales]

Believers are given the spirit of reconciliation. I have no problem with the church elders excluding people from the assembly until they turn away from their sins. Then the church can welcome them back into fellowship in the spirit of reconciliation.

and so...?

But, even the Apostles could not absolve sins against God...

Even though God (Jesus) Himself said so...???

How did the Christians react to the Gospel on this matter? Did they or did they not consider priests and elders having the power to forgive sins and reconcile people back to the community, without which no one can be saved? What does history tell us?

I realize you've been taught otherwise, but has it occured to you that you've been taught wrongly?

they pointed to Christ's work on the cross. God, alone, sees the heart of man. No man can do that; no man takes the place of Christ. What the Apostles did was define the foundation that Christ laid out. They explained what was sin and what wasn't sin...binding us to the truth, and loosing us from false doctrine.

Baloney.

Where does ANYONE say this in Scriptures? Binding and loosening is juridicial power, according to Jewish sources. Again, you are being anacronistic with the Scriptures. The apostles didn't view the teachings of Jesus through the eyes of 21st century Protestants.

They preached Christ and Him crucified. They never took the place of Christ...

In one manner, you are corect, in another, you are not. They were His representatives, as Paul writes to the Corinthians. Not only are we to follow their examples, we are also to accept them as ambassadors - an ambasador is a reprsentative, a visible image of the person he represents.

They healed in the name of Christ, they spoke in the name of Christ. That means they were representatives of Christ, for Christ. THEY were the ones with authority to rule that a Gentile did not have to become circumcised, speaking for the Holy Spirit. Indeed, Paul seems QUITE adamant that He speaks for God, when writing to the Galatians.

In their minds, they spoke for God, were God's representatives of His Saving Word, spreading everything to the rest of the world.

This is the authority given the Apostles...they are not given the power to forgive sins...

You keep ignoring what the Scriptures say, quite frankly, this is cause for concern. I know you were not taught that, but the Scriptures clearly disagree with what you've been taught.

I realize you WANT to interpret this differently, but that is moving the cart (doctrine) before the horse ()the Word of God). You cannot honestly say you are respecting God's Word when you come up with theology first and THEN filter out all Scriptuers that disagree with this "theology", brushing it aside as if it is "being misunderstood". What is misunderstood is that the Bible disagrees with your point of view.

but they are given the authority to put people out of fellowship. Heal...yes. Cast out devils...yes. Forgive sins against God...No.

Where does the Bible say this - after the resurrection, when Christ gave this authority to men???

You are basing your paradigm upon pre-resurrection assumptions by the Pharisees, when the people CLEARLY recognized that MAN had been given the power to forgive sins, as per the healing of the paralytic. Because of Jesus, man has been given much power, to share in the work of God.

That's what a loving parent does - share with their children.

Regards

 

[glorydaz]

Can a priest or pastor baptize?

How about perform a marriage cermony?

Actually, any believer can baptize. I baptized my own children.
Elders usually perform marriages then they need to be licensed by the state.

 

[glorydaz]

Believers are given the spirit of reconciliation. I have no problem with the church elders excluding people from the assembly until they turn away from their sins. Then the church can welcome them back into fellowship in the spirit of reconciliation.

and so...?

But, even the Apostles could not absolve sins against God...

Even though God (Jesus) Himself said so...???

How did the Christians react to the Gospel on this matter? Did they or did they not consider priests and elders having the power to forgive sins and reconcile people back to the community, without which no one can be saved? What does history tell us?

I realize you've been taught otherwise, but has it occured to you that you've been taught wrongly?

they pointed to Christ's work on the cross. God, alone, sees the heart of man. No man can do that; no man takes the place of Christ. What the Apostles did was define the foundation that Christ laid out. They explained what was sin and what wasn't sin...binding us to the truth, and loosing us from false doctrine.

Baloney.

Where does ANYONE say this in Scriptures? Binding and loosening is juridicial power, according to Jewish sources. Again, you are being anacronistic with the Scriptures. The apostles didn't view the teachings of Jesus through the eyes of 21st century Protestants.

They preached Christ and Him crucified. They never took the place of Christ...

In one manner, you are corect, in another, you are not. They were His representatives, as Paul writes to the Corinthians. Not only are we to follow their examples, we are also to accept them as ambassadors - an ambasador is a reprsentative, a visible image of the person he represents.

They healed in the name of Christ, they spoke in the name of Christ. That means they were representatives of Christ, for Christ. THEY were the ones with authority to rule that a Gentile did not have to become circumcised, speaking for the Holy Spirit. Indeed, Paul seems QUITE adamant that He speaks for God, when writing to the Galatians.

In their minds, they spoke for God, were God's representatives of His Saving Word, spreading everything to the rest of the world.

This is the authority given the Apostles...they are not given the power to forgive sins...

You keep ignoring what the Scriptures say, quite frankly, this is cause for concern. I know you were not taught that, but the Scriptures clearly disagree with what you've been taught.

I realize you WANT to interpret this differently, but that is moving the cart (doctrine) before the horse ()the Word of God). You cannot honestly say you are respecting God's Word when you come up with theology first and THEN filter out all Scriptuers that disagree with this "theology", brushing it aside as if it is "being misunderstood". What is misunderstood is that the Bible disagrees with your point of view.

but they are given the authority to put people out of fellowship. Heal...yes. Cast out devils...yes. Forgive sins against God...No.

Where does the Bible say this - after the resurrection, when Christ gave this authority to men???

You are basing your paradigm upon pre-resurrection assumptions by the Pharisees, when the people CLEARLY recognized that MAN had been given the power to forgive sins, as per the healing of the paralytic. Because of Jesus, man has been given much power, to share in the work of God.

That's what a loving parent does - share with their children.

Regards

No, the early churches (in the Bible) never gave man the power to forgive sins.
You have one verse that you think means the apostles can forgive sins.
I believe you are misinterpreting that verse, as I've tried to explain.

As believers, we forgive those who have sinned against us.
Elders can forgive those who were kicked out of the fellowship and accept them back into the assembly.
If you're so convinced, where are other verses in the Word that suppport what you claim?

I really wish you'd quit referring to my early protestant teaching.
I was raised a Catholic...went to Catholic school...and, I hate to say this, but you will not let it go...I saw too much error in the CC to remain. One of those errors was the need to confess our sins to a priest when we have Christ in us and can come directly before the throne.

 

[francisdesales]

No, the early churches (in the Bible) never gave man the power to forgive sins.

You are wrong, glory. You obviously don't know your church history. Those men used the Bible and the oral teachings to justify the entire idea. They didn't just invent it in the third century, you know.

You have one verse that you think means the apostles can forgive sins.
I believe you are misinterpreting that verse, as I've tried to explain.

No, you are misinterpreting it. It says what it says. I realize you don't like what it says, but that is a problem with following God's Word, not interpreting it. It very clearly and unequivocally says "you forgive sins" "you retain sins". Nothing about preaching forgiveness, nothing about telling us something already done in heaven. You are the one who is inventing things here, glory, can't you see that?

As believers, we forgive those who have sinned against us.
Elders can forgive those who were kicked out of the fellowship and accept them back into the assembly.
If you're so convinced, where are other verses in the Word that suppport what you claim?

I agree with the above. But the Bible clearly says men have the power to forgive sins. Even in the days of Jesus, men saw this power had been given to man.

I really wish you'd quit referring to my early protestant teaching.
I was raised a Catholic...went to Catholic school...and, I hate to say this, but you will not let it go...

yea, lots of people went to Catholic school. How much they were actually taught about our faith remains a huge question mark. Everytime I discuss such issues with "former Catholics", I find they know very little about Catholicism. Nothing personal, of course, but the beginning of this conversation tells me you knew very little about what we teach. As such, your opinions about error have little to stand upon.

I saw too much error in the CC to remain. One of those errors was the need to confess our sins to a priest when we have Christ in us and can come directly before the throne.

Again, through my rather large experience with other "former catholics", the fact of the matter is they invariably fell away first, and THEN justified this by saying "the CC fell into error". How could you judge that if you don't even know what they taught? I'm thinking something else happened in your journey that you are not relating.

I don't know the specifics behind why you fell away and its none of my business, but it wasn't because of "error taught in the CC". That is baloney, an excuse, and you know it. :gah

That opinion came later as you became a Protestant and heard preacher "x" tell you about the "errors of the CC". OF COURSE Protestant preachers are going to preach about the "errors of Rome", that is OFTEN the subject of their teachings? And why not, so many are "former catholics", so you have to keep them in the pews and continue to convince them based upon lies and half truths. Because of your poor catechesis, you were unable to defend the charges of preacher "x", who is in error himself.

Going to a Catholic school, I'm finding, has little bearing on how much one knows about Catholicism. I also went to a Catholic school for eight years and it wasn't until I made it my faith as an adult, reading and learning on my own, that I began to KNOW my faith and move beyond spiritual immaturity.

My wife teaches at a Catholic school, and I can tell you many of the teachers don't know their faith very well, at least as they should, and some aren't even Catholic... Thus, it means very little to me when someone says "I went to Catholic school", as if now, you are an expert...

Please... I've been there and know that is false.

Forgive me if I am pressing here, but I would like to clear that up post haste...

Regards

 

[glorydaz]

francisdesales,

There's nothing to forgive, brother. I enjoy our exchange. That said...In the first place...I didn't "fall away", I left. And I'll just politely ignore your personal analysis of my history. You don't know what you're talking about. I really don't think it's necessary to get into all the details concerning what I consider error in the CC, this one particular error is what's on the table, and it doesn't seem to be going anywhere, either. It wasn't preacher "x" that showed me the errors I'm talking about...when I first got saved, I didn't go to any church. I realized, as I read the Word, that I had been misinformed by the nuns. We could blame them, I guess, but I found out that was the teaching of the Church.

It is God who forgives sin. To rely on one verse, that you don't really understand, (IMO) to say man can forgive sins is to ignore the rest of the Word of God. The "man" the people were so amazed that He could forgive sins was Jesus. The people assumed because He could other men could, too. That's exactly what you're doing...assuming. Those same people expected the Messiah to rule and reign as a conqueror, too, but they were wrong.

I, even I, am he that blotteth out thy transgressions for mine own sake, and will not remember thy sins.

Out of the depths have I cried unto thee, O LORD. Lord, hear my voice: let thine ears be attentive to the voice of my supplications. If thou, LORD, shouldest mark iniquities, O Lord, who shall stand? But there is forgiveness with thee, that thou mayest be feared.

To the Lord our God belong mercies and forgivenesses, though we have rebelled against him;

Who is a God like unto thee, that pardoneth iniquity, and passeth by the transgression of the remnant of his heritage? he retaineth not his anger for ever, because he delighteth in mercy.

What did Peter tell the people at Pentecost who asked what they should do? Do you see one word about confessing their sins to a man?

Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do? Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Here's an explanation about the Greek words used in this portion of scripture...maybe you could look into the Greek and see what you find. I believe this to be correct.

The Greek tenses of John 20:23 make it clear that the apostles were authorized only to announce the terms of forgiveness, and that upon the basis of God’s previous appointment. Literally, the text suggests: “Those whose sins you forgive, have already been forgiven; those whose sins you do not forgive, have not already been forgiven.†The first verbs in the two clauses are aorist tense forms, while the second verbs are in the perfect tense. The perfect tense verbs imply an abiding state which commenced before the action of the aorists. In other words, the apostles (and others since that time) were only authorized to declare forgiveness consistent with what the Lord had already determined.

This happens all the time in the Bible...Did God appoint Jeremiah to actually destroy and overthrow kingdoms, of just declare their destiny? He was only announcing what the fate of these men should be.

See, I have this day set thee over the nations and over the kingdoms, to root out, and to pull down, and to destroy, and to throw down, to build, and to plant.

And here...what the Pharoah's butler said regarding Joseph...did Joseph restore him to office or hang the baker? No, Joseph had merely announced what their fate would be.

And it came to pass, as he interpreted to us, so it was; me he restored unto mine office, and him he hanged.

 

[francisdesales]

francisdesales,

There's nothing to forgive, brother. I enjoy our exchange.

Then let's end it here. There is really nothing more to be said. You have your opinions and I have mine. No matter what evidence or logical arguments I provide, I have found that emotionalism and current paradigms trump them, so I would be wasting our time by continuing.

I have amply given the evidence on sacramental confession. If you choose not to accept it, that is your perogative. but the Scriptures are quite clear, man has been given the power to forgive sins, or retain them. You have not given any Scriptures post-resurrection that state otherwise. As such, a follower of the Word of God could not accept your argument. You are defending a denominational belief rather than the Word.

thanks and take care,

 

[glorydaz]

francisdesales,

There's nothing to forgive, brother. I enjoy our exchange.

Then let's end it here. There is really nothing more to be said. You have your opinions and I have mine. No matter what evidence or logical arguments I provide, I have found that emotionalism and current paradigms trump them, so I would be wasting our time by continuing.

I have amply given the evidence on sacramental confession. If you choose not to accept it, that is your perogative. but the Scriptures are quite clear, man has been given the power to forgive sins, or retain them. You have not given any Scriptures post-resurrection that state otherwise. As such, a follower of the Word of God could not accept your argument. You are defending a denominational belief rather than the Word.

thanks and take care,

I'll go with ...you have your opinions and I have mine. I hope I haven't frustrated you, brother, but emotionalism really has nothing to do with my views. It's a sacrament for you and I certainly have no problem with that. And, you have shown me some positive aspects of confession I hadn't considered before, so I thank you for that, as well. Our exchange has helped me to see there can be blessings for those who partake.

 

[francisdesales]

I'll go with ...you have your opinions and I have mine. I hope I haven't frustrated you, brother, but emotionalism really has nothing to do with my views. It's a sacrament for you and I certainly have no problem with that. And, you have shown me some positive aspects of confession I hadn't considered before, so I thank you for that, as well. Our exchange has helped me to see there can be blessings for those who partake.

Then this conversation has gone better than I could have hoped - and ending on a positive note.

Brother in Christ,

Joe

 

[glorydaz]

I'll go with ...you have your opinions and I have mine. I hope I haven't frustrated you, brother, but emotionalism really has nothing to do with my views. It's a sacrament for you and I certainly have no problem with that. And, you have shown me some positive aspects of confession I hadn't considered before, so I thank you for that, as well. Our exchange has helped me to see there can be blessings for those who partake.

Then this conversation has gone better than I could have hoped - and ending on a positive note.

Brother in Christ,

Joe

Yes, I have great respect for you, Joe. You've really opened my eyes in many areas. I've always believed there were believers in every church...we just need to find each other. We're definately members of the same body and worship the same Lord. :amen

Now, what shall we hash out next? :biglaugh