I Confess...........[The Complete Biblical Basis for Confession]

Show me where they held confession in any form...show me where they gave absolution to any mans sin..show me where they taught that principle allend..you keep repeating the quote..but that does not prove that their understanding of what Jesus said was the same as yours..

but that does not prove that their understanding of what Jesus said was the same as yours..

And just hod do you, who claims to follow the plain sense of scripture interpret this passge, whose sense is clear to us Catholics but apparently not you?

John 20:23

After Jesus said this to the apostles, what they did with it was to go tell people that the way to have sins forgiven was by trusting that forgiveness was recieved when they:

Rom.10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead thou shalt be saved.

1 John 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

Please, I am asking a sincere question. If a priest was required to mediate for us, don't you think that this would have been included in this passage from 1 John? He was speaking of being clceansed from all unrighteousness, if the priest was needed, that would be a very important fact. Also remember the verse in the article (see I did read it:) that says we are all part of a priesthood. Our acknowledgeing our sins TO GOD, seems to be all that is necessary to be forgiven. No mediator other then Jesus.

Wherefore he is able also to save them to the utter most that come unto God by him seeing he ever liveth to make interession for them

Becky

I believe what John says. But John never says you have to go to a priest to have your sins forgiven.

Becky

If a priest was required to mediate for us, don't you think that this would have been included in this passage from 1 John?

Only if you misunderstand the role of the Bible, and believe that, contrary to scripture, it is the sole rule of faith, to be used not only in the manner of a comprehensive catechism, but also as an encyclopedic compendium of all Christian practices, dogmas, and doctrines.

Of course, the Bible was never intended to be such.

Yet when the "reformers" violently ripped the heart, scripture, from the chest of its mother, the Church, it left both the protestant churches disconnected from its lifeblood as well as the scriptures unable to function properly, as they were intended to be neither a comprehensive catechism, nor an encyclopedic compendium of all Christian practices, dogmas, and doctrines.

Based on your criteria, we would not believe in the Trinity either, for "Trinity" as a word never occurs in scripture either.

In fact, I recently saw a "Christian" on another thread make just such an argument, which is one of the (un)natural yet obviously foreseen conclusions of Sola Scriptura.

To: RnMomof7; CCWoody

I might ask you where you might find the phrase "Trinity" in the Bible, but if memory serves me, you don't believe in the Trinity!

The word "Trinity" is not in the Bible, of course, so I do not use it as a description of God, because it is an invention of men. But, when you say, "you don't believe in the Trinity," that would depend entirely on what you mean by that word, which must have a human definition, since there is no Biblical one.

I believe God the Father is the creator of all things, that God the Son is fully God, that He has always been from eternity God the Son, that He was born of the Virigin Mary, was crucified, buried, resurrected, and ascended into heaven where He sitteth on the right hand of the Father. I believe the Holy Spirit is God, and convicts sinners of their sin, indwells believers, and is our comforter and internal witness of Salvation.

I refuse to use the word "Trinity," because it is not a Scriptural term. I also refuse to us The word "Trinity" is not in the Bible, of course, so I do not use it as a description of God, because it is an invention of men. But, when you say, "you don't believe in the Trinity," that would depend entirely on what you mean by that word, which must have a human definition, since there is no Biblical one.

I believe God the Father is the creator of all things, that God the Son is fully God, that He has always been from eternity God the Son, that He was born of the Virigin Mary, was crucified, buried, resurrected, and ascended into heaven where He sitteth on the right hand of the Father. I believe the Holy Spirit is God, and convicts sinners of their sin, indwells believers, and is our comforter and internal witness of Salvation.

I refuse to use the word "Trinity," because it is not a Scriptural term. I also refuse to use the word person, when describing God, because a person is an individual human being, and to ascribe that to the God head is blasphemy. Only God the Son, Jesus Christ, may rightly be called an individual human being (i.e.person). "God is a spirit and they that worship Him must worship Him in Spirit and in truth," not according to some human formula invented by a bunch of Catholics in some council.

Show my anything taught about God in the Bible, and use only Bible terms, and you will be showing me what I already believe. When men attempt to make God "easier to understand" than God has already made it in His Word, they always make God something less than He is. Have your inferior "trinitarian Catholic God," if you like, I accept only the God of the Bible.

Hank

31 posted on 7/7/02 10:16 PM Eastern by Hank Kerchief
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

Of course, while such discourse, silly as it seems, is common among non-Catholic Christians, such will not be the case within the official teachings of the RCC. We have that authority to lose and bind that is not only missing but rejected among the heirs of the protestant revolt, where no one can know for sure whether Hank above or his Calvinist detractors are correct in the end.

I cannot remember the exact words, but maybe someone could post them.

‘Our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath left power to his Church to absolve all sinners who truly repent and believe in him, of his great mercy forgive thee thine offences, and by his authority committed unto me, I absolve thee from all thy sins, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.’

ended with the death of the Apostles, do you?

Intersting to note that the LDS believes that "True Christianity" ended with the death of the Apostles. Of course, this would make a liar of Christ, who promised to be with His Church always, thus disproving His Divinity, and Christianity in general.

I hope that's not what Becky is saying too.

Yet the question must be asked: If Catholicism, the only Church which can draw its origen to Christ, and not reformers 500 years ago, truly fell into error, then again, Christ must have lied when He promised His Church the Holy Spirit to guide it to all truth.

No the burden is on the Catholic church to prove that Jesus was forfeiting His job as Judge and Saviour to them..

The burden is on the chruch to show that was the intent of Gods words seeing there is NO indication in the twords or teaching of the apostles to back that up

Show me the confessionals poly:>)

John 20:21-23. Again Jesus said, "Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, I am sending you." And with that he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven."

Please tell us exactly how the successors of the Apostles, as clearly instructed here by Christ, can forgive sins if the sinner does not confess those sins.

It is quite obvious Christ granted the authority to forgive sins in His Name.

Yet reason will tell you that if the sinner does not relate the sins to the Apostle, the Apostle cannot lose those sins.

To say its not written on the face of scripture and therefore untrue is no more to disprove the reasonable conclusion that the Apostles heard and forgave sins, than it is for Hank above to claim that since the word "Trinity" is not written on the face of scripture, the concept of "Triinity" that develops through reason from reading scripture is not true.

In other words, you have set up a straw man, or else you must not believe in the Trinity based on your own logic.

seeing there is NO indication in the twords or teaching of the apostles

See my replies # 70 & 74.

It is quite obvious Christ granted the authority to forgive sins in His Name.

Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained [John 20:23].

This is an important verse which is greatly misunderstood. When Christ enjoins the apostles to forgive sins, He does not convey to them what is peculiar to Himself. It belongs to Him to forgive sins. He only enjoins them in His name to proclaim the forgiveness of sins.

Nowhere in the Book of Acts or in the Epistles do we find any instance of an apostle remitting the sins of anyone. They do go everywhere, proclaiming the forgiveness of sins. Let me ask the question: What is it that forgives sins? Even God cannot just arbitrarily forgive sins. Forgiveness of sins is only and alone through the blood of Jesus Christ. Back in the Old Testament, the forgiveness of sins was based on the fact that Christ would come and die. God saved “on credit” in the Old Testament until Christ would come and pay the penalty. Today God forgives our sins when we believe that Christ died for them.

How can you and I remit sins? By telling the gospel! This is the greater work which we shall do. When somebody turned and believed on Jesus while He was here on earth, that was wonderful. But what is staggering is when you or I simply give out the Word of God, and someone is born again and becomes a new creature in Christ Jesus. “Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them” happens when you and I proclaim the gospel of the grace of God. That is the most glorious privilege that there is today.

BigMack

Show me where they held confession in any form...show me where they gave absolution to any mans sin..show me where they taught that principle

We know how the Apostles interpreted the scripture because we have the earliest Catechism of the Apostles as well as the understanding of the earliest Christians.

What is new and novel is the protestant rejection of this interpretation.

"In church confess your sins, and do not come to your prayer with a guilt conscience. Such is the Way of Life...On the Lord's own day,assemble in common to break bread and offer thanks; but first confess your sins,so that your sacrifice may be pure" Didache (The Writings of the Apostles),4:14,14:1(A.D.70),in ACW,6:18,23

Father who knowest the hearts of all grant upon this Thy servant whom Thou hast chosen for the episcopate to feed Thy holy flock and serve as Thine high priest,that he may minister blamelessly by night and day,that he may unceasingly behold and propriate Thy countenance and offer to Thee the gifts of Thy holy Church. And that by the high priestly Spirit he may have authority to forgive sins..." Hippolytus,Apostolic Tradition,3(A.D. 215),in AT,4-5

"In addition to these there is also a seventh, albeit hard and laborious: the remission of sins through penance...when he does not shrink from declaring his sin to a priest of the Lord" Origen,Homilies on Leviticus,2:4(A.D. 248),in JUR,I:207

I entreat you, beloved brethren, that each one should confess his own sin, while he who has sinned is still in this world, while his confession may be received, while the satisfaction and remission made by the priests are pleasing to the Lord?" Cyprian,To the Lapsed,28-29(A.D. 251),in ANF,IV:445

"For although in smaller sins sinners may do penance for a set time, and according to the rules of discipline come to public confession, and by imposition of the hand of the bishop and clergy receive the right of communion: now with their time still unfulfilled, while persecution is still raging, while the peace of the Church itself is not vet restored, they are admitted to communion, and their name is presented; and while the penitence is not yet performed, confession is not yet made, the hands Of the bishop and clergy are not yet laid upon them, the eucharist is given to them; although it is written, 'Whosoever shall eat the bread and drink the cup of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.' " Cyprian,To the Clergy,9(16):2 (A.D. 250),in ANF,IV:290

"It is necessary to confess our sins to those whom the dispensation of God's mysteries is entrusted." Basil,Rule Briefly Treated,288(A.D. 374),in JUR,II:26

Show me in the Bible..the early record of the church..written in the hand of the apostles where they understood Jesus to forfeit his right to be judge and a savior? Where is it poly?

The scripture is the question not the answer Poly..what did the apostles undersand his words to mean..You can not keep giving the question as the answer

Show me where Peter took upon himself or taught the early church that they were to replace Christ as judge and savior