Featured can catholics Go To God Directly In prayers?

You never take things in context Previously he had just said call together the presbyters. Pray tell who are the presbyters? Church leadership? Actaully servant leaders there for "confess your sins to one another" The prebyters were to confess their sins as well.

 

Here is one: "To whom ye forgive any thing, I forgive also: for if I forgave any thing, to whom I forgave it, for your sakes forgave I it in the person of Christ." 2 Corinthians 2:10. "In the person of Christ" which translates in Latin to "in persona Christi."

 

There are two different topics and two different subjects. If a person is sick the text does not say call "one another" but specifically call the elders. Neither does he say call the elders to confess our sins to them but to call them to lay hands and pray for them.

However, in regard to common faults we are to confess them "one to another" but specific faults such as personal offences we are not to confess them one to another or even to utter than to anyone but the one sinned against us.

You simply cannot properly discern a change of subject in context. The book of James constantly changes from on topic to another.

 

What is your position? Do you agree that various passages of Scripture should harmonize and agree with each other? Of do you believe that they should contradict each other, and in their contradictions form new doctrines that also contradict the rest of the Bible? Which position is more tenable. The study of hermeneutics always opts for the former. The latter position is the position of the cults, and is the reason that cults form--Scripture taken out of its context and the context of other Scripture and then taught to mean something that goes directly contrary to the teaching of the rest of Scripture.

Thus, in that light, one legitimate question has already been asked. Where in Scripture do you find any apostle forgiving anyone's sins? Can you provide any example? If not then consider your interpretation invalid.

Second, look at other similar passages. The passage under question is this one.
John 20:22-23 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.

Are there similar passages, and what do they teach?
One parallel passage is found in Matthew 18

Matthew 18:15 Moreover 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.
--The fault spoken of here is something serious.
Barnes says:

If he does not listen to you, then the next step is to take with you one or two others that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.

Here is the final step:


Matthew 18:17 And 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.

--The final step is excommunication. Notice that Christ is speaking of the local church. This is a matter of the local church. It is one of the first mentions of the church in the NT. It is directions on how the church is to deal with erring members.

Now after that Christ says:


Matthew 18:18 Verily 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.

Matthew 18:19 Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven.

--These are very similar verses to those in John. They don't have the power to forgive sins. Verse 18 simply says that the decision that the local church has made God has honored. If they have made that decision to bind or excommunicate that man, then that decision is the same in heaven. If the decision was not made because of uncertain circumstances, then the Lord was with them also in that decision. Whatever the decision the local church made was also the decision of God.



Matthew 18:20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.

--Notice this is not the definition of a local church. If it is a small church and two or three make up the quorum then that decision made by that small number of people is a binding decision. Christ is in the midst of them.



The passage of John 20 is very much like this passage. It harmonizes with the same type of language. It has to do with church discipline, not forgiveness of sins. Let us not make new doctrines by a misinterpretation of Scriptures which contradicts the rest of the Bible.

 

This has nothing to do with someone given authority to forgive sins. Only God has that authority.
Paul is speaking here about the repentant sinner and the church's need to forgive and receive him back.

 

Very simple. It was sinful mortals who said those words and using "men" when it was only Jesus (the Son of God and therefore God) Who had said "Thy sins be forgiven thee."

Where in scripture does it say that any of the disciples ever spoke of forgiving anyone's sins? It still holds true that ONLY God can forgive sins and absolve anyone of all guilt and shame.

We can forgive people of things they do against us personally, but we cannot cleanse them of their sins and make it possible for them to enter heaven; only God can do that.

NO mortal can be our mediator between us and God, "For there is one God, and "ONE" mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus." 1 Tim. 2:5. I don't see mortal priests, disciples, or anyone else mentioned there. We can point people to the ONE Who saves, but we cannot save them ourselves.

Maybe if we were perfect, we could, but then we wouldn't still be here on earth. Can a sinful man save another sinful man when he can't even save himself? Exalting ourselves to the point of thinking we can forgive sins and save people from hell would make us equal to God. Are you saying you are equal to God?

 

Jon-Marc, please read posts #40 and #62. I believe they address the issues you raised here.

 

Yes and it does. You have the problem of using scripture like a smorgishboard. For instance you try to draw parallels in this post you make

It has one simple flaw that throws your whole point of view out the window. John 20 and Matthew 18 aren't contextually related. They aren't the same topic. They aren't even the same subject. In John 20, Jesus gives authority to the Apostles to forgive and retain sin. This is after the resurrection just before for he assends into heaven. He's not reviewing the topic of what to do if someone sins against you. No. Look at John 20 again verse 21 says

the context here is Jesus is sending the Apostles out to evangelize Matthew 18 is a teaching within a list of teachings on sin and forgiveness. Jesus in John 20 is giving authority

by giving them the Holy Spirit and telling them what that authority entails

which the text of the passage is clear the Apostles are given the authority to forgive and retain sin. Also where your problem comes in is that Jesus doesn't couch this statement with "if someone sins against you" Nor does he say "if they don't want to be forgiven". Sins are mentioned in general not a specific "against you". So what you've done is got two non-relevant parts of the bible and compared them to each other with out the slightest view that we have two different authors writing to two different audiences narrating two different time periods in Jesus time with us One before his death and resurrection and one after his death and resurrection. And speaking in two different contexts. So it is clear that you did this to support your personal view and applied it to two passages not related to each other in any way other than they happen to be two books out of the same library of scriptures we call the bible. Where as if you just read the verse in the context in which it was written you would have better understood the passage than read into it what you wanted it to say.

 

You intentionally passed over the one simply flaw in your view that he pointed out that invalidates your whole view.

You cannot find any example where Peter or any other apostle did what you interpret John 20 to teach. Every doctrine that is taught in the Bible also can be found illustrated in the Bible in either a postive or negative manner. Your interpetation has NO APPLICATION found in the Scriptures.

There is a period of time between the ascension of Christ and the coming of the Holy Spirit as "another comfortor" that the church is left without a "comforter." In this gap of ten days the Lord breathes upon them a special dispensation of the Spirit during this gap time for leadership abiltiy as demonstrated in that gap time in Acts 1:15-2:1.

The John 20 commission is the same as the commission in Luke 24:47 where their preaching remit sins of all who repent and believe the gospel while all who reject and refuse to repent and believe the gospel their sins are retained. This is precisely the message of repentance preached by John the Baptist (Jn. 3:36) and this is their commission.

Your Romanist doctrine is a complete fabrication of scriptures with NOT ONE SINGLE ILLUSTRATION in scripture.

 

Jesus taught it therefore can be assumed the Apostles practiced it and we see James alluding to it in his letter. Not everything Jesus did is recorded and not everything the apostles did is recorded.

Its sufficent that Jesus said it. And James alludes to it to be practiced.

 

Circular reasoning! Jesus taught it! How do I know it is true? Because it is illustrated by examples anywhere else in scritpure? No! Why? "Because Jesus taught it"!!!! This is the hermeneutics of stupidity on display.

Everything He taught as doctrine is illustrated. You are telling us that something as important as remitting sins cannot be found in scripture when the whole mission was in regard to preaching repentance and saving people from sins?

John 20 is in the context of mission to the lost whereas James is in context of the saved. James is not in the context of seeking elders for remission of sins but seeking "ONE ANOTHER" to simply confess faults unto.

Again, merely circuluar reasoning on both the statement of Jesus and James.

 

How is "jesus taught it therefore I follow it" circular reasoning? Seriously?

.
So according to you. You don't know if what Jesus said is true unless he proves it to you? Didn't satan tempt Jesus the same way?

So in essense in order for you to believe what Jesus said he must prove it to you or show you which is basically testing God. Didn't Jesus say to Thomas

 

Q

Circular reason is based up claiming something is true and then attempting to prove it is true based upon the claim it is true. That is precisely what you have done. I asked where is evidence that your interpretation is supported by any example of apostolic remission of sins in the scripture. You admitted there are no such examples but then said it must be true because Christ said it is true. That is circular reasoning! Your INTERPRETATION of his words does not prove that it is the RIGHT interpretation of his words simply by claiming it to be right.

.

Come on, gives us a break. We are talking about ROME'S INTEPRETATION of what Jesus said! It is this INTERPRETATION that must be proven to be true or false. Your very question ASSUMES it is true before it is even proven or disproven and thus another example of circular reasoning.

My approach is objective as I am demanding that ROME's INTERPRETATION be verified by Biblical EXAMPLES since remission of sins must be recognized as a CENTRAL and ESSENTAL doctrine in scripture.

The Bulk of Biblical evidence concerning remission of sins denies Romes INTERPRETATION but rather supports remission of sins through acceptance or rejection of the gospel of salvation - Lk. 24;47.

 

That is a non-sequitur. Jesus said and the fact that its in the bible is proof that he said it

The saying is clear the teaching is clear he gave this authority to the Apostles. I claim its true because Jesus said so and its recorded in the bible. Nothing circular about that.

I admitted no such thing I said James refers to it.

Rome has 2,000 years of support for its belief. You have only yourself and your understanding to back you up. Because you are your own authority. That is circular in the extreem. Ie you are saying "its not true because I said so". LOL

IN your dreams. Your basically saying to Jesus prove you mean that to be true.

 

Where does he say that in this passage

Because He wasn't talking about God he was talking to the apostles whom he gave the Holy Spirit to whom he said

He doesn't mean the Father when he says "you".

 

Jesus said no such thing! Now, you must demonstrate he said what ROME INTEPRETS him to be saying! Every heretic claims Jesus says what they teach and none admit what they say he teaches is really THEIR INTERPRETATION that must be first proved by immediate and overall context of scripture rather than mere assertion. If mere assertion were the only proof then every cult is true and no cult is false.

You are being modest! Rome has at least 5000 years for support of its beliefs as Mystery Babylon has been here much longer than merely 2000 years.

 

Acts 1 gives persists the authority

John 20 finalizes the sacrement of Connfession


John 20:21-23
King James Version (KJV)
21*Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you.

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.

 

LOL!!!!! I quoted directly from the ESV. So now you don't even trust the bible!

Hisop was inaccurate and proven to have been false. It only goes to show your bias.