Posted on 07/05/2002 10:14:23 AM PDT by Polycarp
Now this follows upon their receiving the Holy Ghost; for, if they had not had an extraordinary spirit of discerning, they had not been fit to be entrusted with such an authority; for, in the strictest sense, this is a special commission to the apostles themselves and the first preachers of the gospel, who could distinguish who were in the gall of bitterness and bond of iniquity, and who were not.
By virtue of this power, Peter struck Ananias and Sapphira dead, and Paul struck Elymas blind. Yet it must be understood as a general charter to the church and her ministers, not securing an infallibility of judgment to any man or company of men in the world, but encouraging the faithful stewards of the mysteries of God to stand to the gospel they were sent to preach, for that God himself will stand to it.
The apostles, in preaching remission, must begin at Jerusalem, though she had lately brought upon herself the guilt of Christ’s blood: "Yet you may declare their sins remitted upon gospel terms.’’
And Peter did so, Acts 2:38; 3:19. Christ, being risen for our justification, sends his gospel heralds to proclaim the jubilee begun, the act of indemnity now passed; and by this rule men shall be judged, ch. 12:48; Rom. 2:16; Jam. 2:12. God will never alter this rule of judgment, nor vary from it; those whom the gospel acquits shall be acquitted, and those whom the gospel condemns shall be condemned, which puts immense honour upon the ministry, and should put immense courage into ministers. Two ways the apostles and ministers of Christ remit and retain sin, and both as having authority:—
[1.] By sound doctrine. They are commissioned to tell the world that salvation is to be had upon gospel terms, and no other, and they shall find God will say Amen to it; so shall their doom be.
[2.] By a strict discipline, applying the general rule of the gospel to particular persons. "Whom you admit into communion with you, according to the rules of the gospel, God will admit into communion with himself; and whom you cast out of communion as impenitent, and obstinate in scandalous and infectious sins, shall be bound over to the righteous judgment of God.’’
No whewre in Acts ot in the letters do the Apostles speak of forgiving mens sins. That was NOT their understanding..They preached forgivness in the blood of Christ!
If anything, sins used to be confessed in the presence of everyone in the church. As the Church grew, particularly after if became the official religion of the Roman Empire, this became problematic since the congregation often contained folks who would use such information in a less than Christian manner (their presence was much less likely while the Church was being persecuted).
Following this, confessions were done in the presence of a representative of the Church, someone who was sworn to confidentiality.
Show me anywhere in the NT where the Apostles said anyone but Jesus forgave sins..show me where they held confessional services?
Historically can you tell me when the practice of confession as we now see it began?
Actually, no. What I relayed to you was the historical reference to the practicality of the practice and should not be considered an admission of any such thing. The New Testament citations in support of the practice were cited in the original article. Why would I now attempt to admit to something not being "in the NT" when the contrary had just been proven?
'Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.'
Did Jesus lie or is the above statement true?
Becky
I've followed apologetics threads here for quite some time. Certain posters have a history of hit and run posting, not addressing the substance of a cohesive article such as this but simply posting their own personal opinions, and refusing to admit to the overwhelming evidence an article such as this presents, using one single proof text as their excuse to ignore the Truth.
No apologies necessary.
And if I post a thread and others refuse to address the points of that article, its not being a "hall monitor" to point that out and direct the poster back to the substantial arguments of the debate.
One proof text accompanied by your personal interpretation of same is hardly a refutation of the article in this thread.
I honestly doubt you read the article based on your thinking you've refuted it.
Do you understand the Christian doctrine of the Trinity?
What kind of inane statement is this?
That didn't answer my question. Was the statement true or was it a lie?
Sorry, but the article clearly did that. You just don't want to admit it even though the evidence is before you.
You may not have meant to admit the lack of early church evidence, but your wording says otherwise.
No, that's just wishful thinking on your part. The article proves the point of confession to the priesthood conclusively. I just added practicial reasoning on top of that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.