Doctrinal Question - Someone Please Take a Shot at This.
 

I was thinking recently about the Catholic doctrine of confession (to a priest), which we of course know is an unscriptural practice.

However, the Catholic church feels they have biblical justification for it. The scripture they use is (John 20:22-23):

22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost: 23 Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.

Therefore according to this argument, Roman Catholic priests, based on the authority handed down from the apostles, have the power to remit or retain sins.

Your thoughts please... How would you respond to someone who is Catholic, and defends the practice using that particular scripture?

Hmmm interesting...I wondered when I saw that scripture if "we" also lean on that scripturte for our stance on Sins ONLY being remitted when a "man" plunges one beneaththe water and calls on the name of the Lord.

Do we make ourselves an instument of remitting someones sins. No ones sins can remitted without a "preist/preacher" doing the work fo rthem.

Just a side thought TRF....sorry, it's not an answer to your question. :star

Well, if you are in the Confessional and the Priest does not grant Absolution, slip him a few buck under the divide. He wll then "remit" your sins. If not, just go to another Priest. Hey, sometimes you have to shop the sin around some...but there's no problem.

I have always thought of this as a forgiveness passage...

Apples and oranges sir. Apples and oranges. But I wont even bother explaining because 1/ it may not really make a difference anyway , and 2/ I'd like to stay on topic if possible.

I hear you. But I think a Catholic could plausibly state that it's more than a forgiveness passage, since Jesus already said we should forgive one another (up to 70x 7).

Appreciate the input though.

I understand the 70 x 7.

But that statement goes to human nature.

The fact is humans have a hard time with forgiveness...

Since sins are remitted at water baptism, if you refuse to baptise someone then they remain in their sins and if you baptism someone their sins are remitted.
After initial baptism, we confess our sins to God directly 1John1:7

Let..I say Let the Catholic Priest show us where in Acts this was done...

The Catholic Encyclopedia defines “Absolution” as: that act of the priest whereby, in the Sacrament of Penance, HE FREES MAN FROM SIN. It presupposes on the part of the penitent, contrition, confession, and promise at least of satisfaction; on the part of the minister, valid reception of the Order of Priesthood and jurisdiction, GRANTED BY COMPETENT AUTHORITY, OVER THE PERSON RECEIVING THE SACRAMENT. That there is in the CHURCH POWER TO ABSOLVE SINS committed after baptism the Council of Trent thus declares: "But the Lord then principally instituted the Sacrament of Penance, when, being raised from the dead, He breathed upon His disciples saying, 'Receive ye the Holy Ghost. Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them, and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.' By which action so signal, and words so clear the consent of all the Fathers has ever understood that THE POWER OF FORGIVING AND RETAINING SINS WAS COMMUNICATED TO THE APOSTLES, AND TO THEIR LAWFUL SUCCESSORS for the reconciling of the faithful who have fallen after baptism" (Sess. XIV, i). (UPPERCASES added for emphasis)

Where does such practice lead? Look at what the Universal Life Church does with such forgiveness power:

:SIGH: Why do men always fight so against the simplicity of God’s Word?

Please consider this; Jesus told the Apostles that whatever sins they remitted would be remitted, and whatever sins they retained would be retained (See John 20:22, 23). Jesus never meant this as a promise that these men—or any men—would have power to absolve or condemn sin. This is especially true when one sees that the Bible says that only God has such power (See Mark 2:7, 10). Through the whole counsel of God’s Word what we do find is that Jesus was telling His Apostles that their word would play a key role in making His gospel promise a reality in men and women. To solidify this Jesus gave these men the keys to His kingdom (See Matt 16:13-19). A key is an instrument through which one can gain access to that which was unavailable to them. Jesus said that these apostolic keys would either bind men and keep them from accessing things here on earth and in heaven, or it would loose them to experience things here on earth and in heaven. “Bind” is to declare to be improper and unlawful; “loose” is to declare lawful. Here we see that the key is the Apostles’ Words and it functions according to how it is received by the hearer.

Now look at what Jesus prayed: “Neither pray I for these alone, BUT FOR THEM ALSO WHICH SHALL BELIEVE ON ME THROUGH THEIR WORD.” (John 17:20)

What word would they preach? Jesus answered that in verse eight and fourteen of the same chapter:

John 17:8
(8) For I HAVE GIVEN UNTO THEM THE WORDS WHICH THOU GAVEST ME; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me.

John 17:14
(14) I HAVE GIVEN THEM THY WORD; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.

I hope this helps.

Brother thank you for such great truth.

In Jesus Name

Brother Benincasa

www.OnTimeJournal.com

The Apostles had power to remit sins it was practiced by baptizing the penitent in Jesus Name that power is vested in the ministry today.

I believe it has more to do with church discipline. The soon to be apostles were granted authority to lay the sins of those who rebelled against the gospel of Jesus Christ upon them. When a brother sins all efforts to restore him should be exhausted. However, if he will not repent and seek to reconcile himself with the Lord and those he has wronged his sins are to be layed upon him and he be given over to Satan. Jesus explained it as follows:

Matthew 18:15-18
15Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.
16But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.
17And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.
18Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Paul also explained this authority:

I Corinthians 5:1-13
1It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father's wife.
2And ye are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he that hath done this deed might be taken away from among you.
3For I verily, as absent in body, but present in spirit, have judged already, as though I were present, concerning him that hath so done this deed,
4In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ,
5To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.
6Your glorying is not good. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump?
7Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us:
8Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.
9I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:
10Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world.
11But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolator, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.
12For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within?
13But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.

Being an elder comes with great spiritual responsibility. We shouldn't see this verse as something that grants an authority to use lightly. It is perhaps one of the most serious of responsibilities given to church leadership. Always strive to restore such a one...only bind their sins upon them if they absolutlely refuse to repent...in the hopes that being turned over to their sins will shake them to ultimately repent.

See there TRF...and you said it was apples and oranges.

I could have prophesied who it would be to come along and claim to be able to remit sins, but then...........


Lost and Found: thanks for the great explanation you gave

I am shocked you would disagree?????????????????:santathumb:christmoose:r udolph

I've baptized a few people...but I have never remitted any sins.

I'll leave that up to Jesus and the work of Calvary. I understand he shares his glory with no man.

You'd look good in on of those pope hats though Steve. :bells

Merry Christmas to you and the Mrs. E :santaelf

You were instrumental however if any sins are remitted God has to do it. Calvary remits man's sins we recieve that remission by being baptised in His name thus in that manner I am instrumental in the remission of sins.

So... if I lay hands on the sick and pray for their healing, and they are healed... then I healed them? So if I lay hands on someone and they recieve the Holy Ghost, I have baptized them with the Holy Ghost? Or I have baptized someone in the Name of Jesus Christ...I have forgiven (or remitted) their sins?

Hah, too many I's there...the work of healing and salvation was wrought at Calvary by Jesus Christ.

Sounds pretty Catholic to me, Padre.

The remission of sins at baptism theme can be followed in Acts:
Acts 2:38; Acts 10:43-44; Acts 13:38-39. The key needed for "remission of sins" was belief.

Aquila makes the same point that I was going to make concerning John 20:23. 1 Corithians 5 (the whole chapter) seems to be an example of what Jesus intended in john 20, along with Matthew 16:19 and Matthew 18.

Tell you what ... the papal/catholic views expressed by some of my PAJC brethren have reached new heights!!!

OMG .... it's not only papal to claim the apostles are instrumental in remitting sin ... but Mormon in character ...

From the LDS Articles of Faith:

I would never make the differences between 3 steppers and 1 steppers a point of fellowship ...

but if someone starts preaching this stuff at the church I pastor .... tell you what .... :star:star:star

I want to thank Bro. Epley for opening my eyes to the difference, and the Lord for allowing me to have an open heart to receive the truth.

Bro. Alicea knows of what I speak.

Let me see if I understand you; as a disciplinary measure, church leadership can bind the sins on someone who is disobedient and unrepentant and these disobedient believers are now turned over to Satan but if they repent then their sins are loosed (ie; remitted)?

It would be helpful if the word, remitted, appeared in any of the verses you choose to use to prove your point. Even the word, forgiveness, would help your cause.

You and Ronzo have brought nothing to the table but insults. Why don't you put up something of substance?:rudolph:rudolph:rudolph

Dan it pleased God to save men by preaching 1Cor. 1:21 does that make the preacher the Saviour? No it does not. Yet the preacher is instrumental. Thus the same is with remission of sins it takes place in baptism in Jesus Name and the preacher is instrumental does he the preacher himself remits sins? NO but but he again is instrumental. Look Jesus said it NOT me. Fuss with Him.

I posted the similar beliefs held by the Latter Day Saints ... that has to count for something .... *wink*

Give me a break ... you'd rather defend this heretical extreme viewpoint expressed by some in this thread, that I know you don't believe, than call a spade a spade.

:santathumb

I guess using that sort of lame logic you are papal and Mormon in character since they also both claim Jesus is God

exactly....that is par the course. No real substance, just insults and perjorative comments

What makes you think I don't believe it?

Remission of sins takes place at water baptism. Acts 2:38, Acts 22:16 If a minister will not baptise someone who they believe has not repented then that person sins are not remitted. Dan, I'm being very consistent in my beliefs as is Bro Elpey.

Perhaps I mispoke .... Then your view is as papal and Mormon as the good Elder's.

I wonder when Dan is going to answer the question and tell us how this verse is to be interpreted....could it be they remit sins by the preaching the word? If so they still have some "power"

23 Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.


When is sin remitted?
Who is remitting the sin?
Why did Jesus give them this authority?

The word "remission" is "aphesis" in the Greek. It simply means "forgiveness". In Acts 2:38 the baptism clause is in the passive voice thus indicating that it isn't the focus in relation to the remission of sins but rather repentance is. Acts 10 clearly indicates that yes, baptism is a command of Scripture. Acts 13:38-39 doesn't mention baptism but rather faith in Christ.

If sins are not remitted (forgiven) until baptism....how do individuals both in Scripture and in modern Pentecost receive the Holy Ghost prior to baptism? Can one receive the baptism of the Holy Ghost, God's Holy Spirit, without first being forgiven?

I'm not saying that Jesus name baptism isn't a command of Scripture to be preached and obeyed. What I'm saying is that the idea that sins are not remitted until baptism is essentially baptismal regeneration and renders baptism the basis of sins forgiveness and not the blood of Christ. The idea threatens the very atonement of the cross for a Pentecostal Sacramentalism. Please understand. I'm not saying that it's ok for one not to be baptized, because it's an explicit command of Scripture. What I'm questioning is what you claim happens at baptism.

I'll re-ask my questions so you can review and answer:

If sins are not remitted (forgiven) until baptism....how do individuals both in Scripture and in modern Pentecost receive the Holy Ghost prior to baptism? Can one receive the baptism of the Holy Ghost, God's Holy Spirit, without first being forgiven?

Does this mean that the Lord would allow a bitter minister to stand in the way of a repentant sinner's salvation?

"Dan is going to look through some commentaries and post a very long post", saith me! :christmoose

BUWWWWWAHHHHHAAAA!!!!

ROFL ... You forget .... in the 1 step view ... forgiveness and remission are one and the same ...

In your view remission is distinct ... it means to wash away ... erase ... blot out ... etc., etc.

The Greek uses one word for both forgiveness and remission ... APHESIS.

That's because the writers made no distinction ..... either ...

Yet today we have a backwards theology relying on the KJV distinctions to formulate FALSE doctrine.

What? A hypothetical question?

I don't know maybe the Lord will strike the bitter minister dead and allow a Spirit filled minister to take his place and baptize the repentent sinner in Jesus name.

See the post before this one for my long winded and arduous research!!!!