To whom do we confess our sins?

[Guest shiloh357]

Shiloh

 

 

 

 

 

From the perspective of the people who had not yet come to embrace Jesus as God, it would appear that God had given divine authority to men.   Matthew isn't making a doctrinal comment.  He is simply relating how the people felt at the moment they saw the miracle.

 

 

Why do you persist in ignoring the plural...the perspective then would be singular God has given authority to this man and not men.

 

 

John’s account of the Great Commission,  Jesus, on the evening of His resurrection, gave to His disciples the authority to forgive sins as promised in Matt 9.  

 

 

Jesus established Christianity, no one has the right to change it.  For anyone to say otherwise is to say they know better than Jesus.  

 

 

Why do most people not doubt that the Apostles were able to heal people or that Peter raised a dead man?  Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, ‘Your sins are forgiven’, or to say, ‘Rise and take up your pallet and walk’?  (Mark 2:9).

 

 

 

I am not ignoring or doubting anything.  I simply don't accept theological or hermeneutical instruction from an unregenerate sinner.  

Jesus never gave the disciples authority to absolve people of sin.   You seem to want to ignore the difference between forgiveness and absolution.   I can forgive a sin committed against me.   But my act of forgiveness does NOT absolve another person of their guilt before God.   Jesus never transferred the authority of absolution to anyone.  

You claim no authority has been handed over to the church....that anything done in the name of Christ in the body of Christ has no substance. 

No, I never said that no authority had been handed to the Church.   I said that no authority to absolve sin had been handed over to the church.   You are promoting RCC doctrine, which is a lie of Satan. 

Christ gave Peter the keys to the kingdom, he gave his disciples his own Divine authority to make decisions and issue commands which would be binding upon all of his followers. The Apostles couldn’t do all these things if Christ hadn’t given them this Divine right.

 

The foregoing should now help make it clear why the Apostles could proclaim the forgiveness of sins, since Christ gave them the authority to act in his name. 

The "keys to the kingdom"  was a well-known rabbinic ordination term that referred to the authority to judicate, legislate and teach.   It had nothing to do with absolving sin.   Jesus gave rabbinic authority to the first Messianic Rabbis of Jerusalem.    Nowhere in the book of acts the any of the apostles ever absolve anyone of sin.

 

Shiloh

I'm not surprised by this answer, you don't even recognise the church establishment when Christ formed it in the NT.

How could you ossibly understand what authority Christ gave to the Church

 

 

The Bible never gives man the authority to remove another man's guilt before God.  No teacher or preacher has the authority stand in the place of God and take away our guilt.  only God can do that.

[Guest shiloh357]

Paul wrote in Romans about justification by grace through faith not works of the law. He referenced Isa 53:8 in chapter 4 when he said

Rom 4:25

Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification.

The same word for faults found in James 5 is the word for offenses here.

Now, I will NOT go as far as saying that we MUST confess our sin before another Christian and that we CANNOT confess straight to God by confessing unto Christ alone.  I have not studied to build that case as of yet.  But I have determined that confession of sins, faults, transgressions, offenses or if there be any other suitable phrase or word to describe our fallen acts before other Christians who are instructed to pray for our healing is what James is admonishing us to do.

I gave a single example of nonrefutable evidence that this is truth.  There are many many more.  If you won't accept this one then you won't accept any.

Have a good day and be blessed.

If you want to confess your sins and your faults to others, that is your business, but confessing sin from the RCC perspective is about finding absolution and that is how they interpret James 5.   That is what I am arguing against.    James uses the word for faults/offences differently than Paul uses it, just as James uses the word justification differently than Paul uses it. 

You can't just grab two verses with the same word and assume they mean the same thing.  You are mixing contexts and that is bad hermeneutics.  I can bet you would be offended if we treated your words and ideas as carelessly as you treat the words of Scripture.

[Guest shiloh357]

 

Shiloh

This is complete nonsense

The practice of reconciliation arises from the example and command of Jesus, who showed that human nature could be used by God as an instrument of grace and forgiveness.

He said "That you may know that the Son of Man has the power to forgive sin..." (Mt. 9:6; Mk 2:7-10; Lk 5:21-24).

The Hebrew title He used was "ben Adam" meaning "Son of Adam."

This was the Hebrew way of saying "a human being."

Jesus always gloried in His Humanity, since through It He redeemed us. He communicated this authority to His Apostles on Easter night, "Whose sins you shall forgive they are forgiven, whose sins you shall retain they are retained" (Jn 20:19-23). In this way He gave the Apostles the power to give "Peace" (v.21), which is nothing less than the reconciliation of man with God.

In the name of Jesus Christ...go and sin no more

Further this is not an invention of the RCC

Its existence in all the Churches of the First Millenium, even those separated from Rome, shows its apostolicity.

It requires humility to confess your sins. It also gives great peace to hear the priest say in Jesus' name "I absolve you from your sins in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit."

It is Christ's will that we hear those words, why do you think he formed it which is his body

 Yeah, it is all just RCC  heresy.    You used to be RCC so I can see why you would support that kind of demonic drivel. 

[gdemoss]

Paul wrote in Romans about justification by grace through faith not works of the law. He referenced Isa 53:8 in chapter 4 when he said

Rom 4:25

Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification.

The same word for faults found in James 5 is the word for offenses here.

Now, I will NOT go as far as saying that we MUST confess our sin before another Christian and that we CANNOT confess straight to God by confessing unto Christ alone.  I have not studied to build that case as of yet.  But I have determined that confession of sins, faults, transgressions, offenses or if there be any other suitable phrase or word to describe our fallen acts before other Christians who are instructed to pray for our healing is what James is admonishing us to do.

I gave a single example of nonrefutable evidence that this is truth.  There are many many more.  If you won't accept this one then you won't accept any.

Have a good day and be blessed.

If you want to confess your sins and your faults to others, that is your business, but confessing sin from the RCC perspective is about finding absolution and that is how they interpret James 5.   That is what I am arguing against.    James uses the word for faults/offences differently than Paul uses it, just as James uses the word justification differently than Paul uses it. 

You can't just grab two verses with the same word and assume they mean the same thing.  You are mixing contexts and that is bad hermeneutics.  I can bet you would be offended if we treated your words and ideas as carelessly as you treat the words of Scripture.

You reject the methodology used based upon varying contexts but I say unto you the context is quite the same topic. Sin against one another as well as sin against God.  

You may believe I handle scripture carelessly but God knows and the Lord judges.  Let him help me to see if I be in error for you have failed.

[hmbld]

 

The practice of reconciliation 

here you rightly speak, confessing to those you have offended brings reconciliation.  Forgiveness of sins is only possible through Jesus alone, He is our one and only mediator. 

[hmbld]

 

The practice of reconciliation 

here you rightly speak, confessing to those you have offended brings reconciliation.  Forgiveness of sins is only possible through Jesus alone, He is our one and only mediator. 

 

And you should be aware that when there are two or more people in a room Christ is with you.  

which has nothing to do with the fact that no man or priest is needed for forgiveness of sins. I see the merge your speaking of. There is a distinction Shiloh speaks of I believe is important to keep clear. Men are always seeking power when the power is God's. Our example is to serve, not to lord over believing we can forgive sin. 

[Guest shiloh357]

Paul wrote in Romans about justification by grace through faith not works of the law. He referenced Isa 53:8 in chapter 4 when he said

Rom 4:25

Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification.

The same word for faults found in James 5 is the word for offenses here.

Now, I will NOT go as far as saying that we MUST confess our sin before another Christian and that we CANNOT confess straight to God by confessing unto Christ alone.  I have not studied to build that case as of yet.  But I have determined that confession of sins, faults, transgressions, offenses or if there be any other suitable phrase or word to describe our fallen acts before other Christians who are instructed to pray for our healing is what James is admonishing us to do.

I gave a single example of nonrefutable evidence that this is truth.  There are many many more.  If you won't accept this one then you won't accept any.

Have a good day and be blessed.

If you want to confess your sins and your faults to others, that is your business, but confessing sin from the RCC perspective is about finding absolution and that is how they interpret James 5.   That is what I am arguing against.    James uses the word for faults/offences differently than Paul uses it, just as James uses the word justification differently than Paul uses it. 

You can't just grab two verses with the same word and assume they mean the same thing.  You are mixing contexts and that is bad hermeneutics.  I can bet you would be offended if we treated your words and ideas as carelessly as you treat the words of Scripture.

You reject the methodology used based upon varying contexts but I say unto you the context is quite the same topic. Sin against one another as well as sin against God.  

You may believe I handle scripture carelessly but God knows and the Lord judges.  Let him help me to see if I be in error for you have failed.

It's obviously two different contexts.   Paul is talking about Jesus dying for our sins.  Paul is talking about the plan of redemption.    James is not talking about that.  The context of James 5 in terms of confessing our faults speaks to mutual discipleship.   The failure is not on my part.  You are simply unskilled in handling Scripture AND you have a personal agenda to make the Bible fit your preconceived notions.

[Guest shiloh357]

 

Shiloh

This is complete nonsense

The practice of reconciliation arises from the example and command of Jesus, who showed that human nature could be used by God as an instrument of grace and forgiveness.

He said "That you may know that the Son of Man has the power to forgive sin..." (Mt. 9:6; Mk 2:7-10; Lk 5:21-24).

The Hebrew title He used was "ben Adam" meaning "Son of Adam."

This was the Hebrew way of saying "a human being."

Jesus always gloried in His Humanity, since through It He redeemed us. He communicated this authority to His Apostles on Easter night, "Whose sins you shall forgive they are forgiven, whose sins you shall retain they are retained" (Jn 20:19-23). In this way He gave the Apostles the power to give "Peace" (v.21), which is nothing less than the reconciliation of man with God.

In the name of Jesus Christ...go and sin no more

 

Further this is not an invention of the RCC

Its existence in all the Churches of the First Millenium, even those separated from Rome, shows its apostolicity.

It requires humility to confess your sins. It also gives great peace to hear the priest say in Jesus' name "I absolve you from your sins in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit."

It is Christ's will that we hear those words, why do you think he formed it which is his body

 Yeah, it is all just RCC  heresy.    You used to be RCC so I can see why you would support that kind of demonic drivel. 

 

then it's clear you  see no power in Christ's name. Further I would suggest you conduct a history listen on the churches

I see power in Christ's Name.   But there is no power given to men to remove spiritual guilt.   I cannot forgive a person to the extent that they are placed in right relationship with God.     God has vested no such power in anyone, not a priest, preacher, regular Christian, no one.   To say otherwise is to be a heretic.

[gdemoss]

Paul wrote in Romans about justification by grace through faith not works of the law. He referenced Isa 53:8 in chapter 4 when he said

Rom 4:25

Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification.

The same word for faults found in James 5 is the word for offenses here.

Now, I will NOT go as far as saying that we MUST confess our sin before another Christian and that we CANNOT confess straight to God by confessing unto Christ alone.  I have not studied to build that case as of yet.  But I have determined that confession of sins, faults, transgressions, offenses or if there be any other suitable phrase or word to describe our fallen acts before other Christians who are instructed to pray for our healing is what James is admonishing us to do.

I gave a single example of nonrefutable evidence that this is truth.  There are many many more.  If you won't accept this one then you won't accept any.

Have a good day and be blessed.

If you want to confess your sins and your faults to others, that is your business, but confessing sin from the RCC perspective is about finding absolution and that is how they interpret James 5.   That is what I am arguing against.    James uses the word for faults/offences differently than Paul uses it, just as James uses the word justification differently than Paul uses it. 

You can't just grab two verses with the same word and assume they mean the same thing.  You are mixing contexts and that is bad hermeneutics.  I can bet you would be offended if we treated your words and ideas as carelessly as you treat the words of Scripture.

You reject the methodology used based upon varying contexts but I say unto you the context is quite the same topic. Sin against one another as well as sin against God.  

You may believe I handle scripture carelessly but God knows and the Lord judges.  Let him help me to see if I be in error for you have failed.

It's obviously two different contexts.   Paul is talking about Jesus dying for our sins.  Paul is talking about the plan of redemption.    James is not talking about that.  The context of James 5 in terms of confessing our faults speaks to mutual discipleship.   The failure is not on my part.  You are simply unskilled in handling Scripture AND you have a personal agenda to make the Bible fit your preconceived notions.

I truly have a desire to be convinced of any error that might be in me for sure.  All that comes from you is accusations without any real substance to prove them to be true.  I will agree that I need improvement in my ability to handle the word as that skill does come with use.  I have learned that most accusations levied by others are those which they themselves are guilty of just as it is written in Romans.  They perceive others to be doing the things that they themselves are guilty of.  God is judge.  I have found this to be true in myself, I confess, and have watched closely for any accusation that may seek to come out of me.  It makes a great tool for seeing ones own sin trying to manifest.

Sin is sin regardless of whether we are talking about being redeemed from it or discipling one another involving it.  A preconceived notion being brought to the bible and seeking to make the bible adhere to it is dangerous I agree.  My convictions come from reading the bible and matching up what is happening with scripture.  An equally dangerous position to have is to hole up away from everything with a bible and think that your going to understand whats going on in the world around you by ones own personal perception of what is read.  I understand the difference between Paul speaking of salvation by grace through faith and James admonishing believers that true faith is faithful to that which it believes and therfore produces works and that faith without works is no faith at all.  Nevertheless a fault is a result of a fall and those who fall are in sin and in need of being corrected for that sin.  I do see that bit of contextual difference between the writings but that type of division is not biblical for the bible never teaches to divide the word that way.  That is a tradition on men.  Maybe developed to protect per doctrines as you warn of, I don't  know.  Unless of course you can provide the examples from scripture that I missed showing the New Testament writers doing this with Old Testament scriptures.  I would be more than willing to seek to understand.

Your going on about proper hermunetics has given rise to study revealing certain aspects of interpretaion that can be found in scripture such as Pauls expounding upon a law written about oxen that he showed applied to paying those who feed you spiritually.  I am sure there are more truths about proper hermunetics within the scriptures themselves.  If there is a case somewhere of admonishment concerning words up and changing meanings depending upon the content when in scripture I would like to see it.  

Thank you for your time and energy.  Whether you know it or not you do play a vital role in my learning.  Have a good day.

 

[Guest shiloh357]

 

Shiloh

This is complete nonsense

The practice of reconciliation arises from the example and command of Jesus, who showed that human nature could be used by God as an instrument of grace and forgiveness.

He said "That you may know that the Son of Man has the power to forgive sin..." (Mt. 9:6; Mk 2:7-10; Lk 5:21-24).

The Hebrew title He used was "ben Adam" meaning "Son of Adam."

This was the Hebrew way of saying "a human being."

Jesus always gloried in His Humanity, since through It He redeemed us. He communicated this authority to His Apostles on Easter night, "Whose sins you shall forgive they are forgiven, whose sins you shall retain they are retained" (Jn 20:19-23). In this way He gave the Apostles the power to give "Peace" (v.21), which is nothing less than the reconciliation of man with God.

In the name of Jesus Christ...go and sin no more

 

Further this is not an invention of the RCC

Its existence in all the Churches of the First Millenium, even those separated from Rome, shows its apostolicity.

It requires humility to confess your sins. It also gives great peace to hear the priest say in Jesus' name "I absolve you from your sins in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit."

It is Christ's will that we hear those words, why do you think he formed it which is his body

 Yeah, it is all just RCC  heresy.    You used to be RCC so I can see why you would support that kind of demonic drivel. 

 

then it's clear you  see no power in Christ's name. Further I would suggest you conduct a history listen on the churches

I see power in Christ's Name.   But there is no power given to men to remove spiritual guilt.   I cannot forgive a person to the extent that they are placed in right relationship with God.     God has vested no such power in anyone, not a priest, preacher, regular Christian, no one.   To say otherwise is to be a heretic.

You have failed to identify the church in the NT, how can you ever possibly understand what authority was given to it?

No one is arguing that sole Authority is vested with God to forgive sin, even the RCC acknowledges this, what you have failed to do is present evidence that God is incapable of transferring such Authority to His Church. That it is according to you heretical of God to excise his Authority in whatever way he wishes.

 

The NT Church is every true believer that believes the truth about Jesus and has accepted Jesus as sole divine Savior and Lord.   The RCC is not the NT Church and never was. They don't believe the pure Gospel of Jesus. So I don't identify Catholics as Christians.    Thus their doctrine of confession to a priest for absolution of sin is not a Christian doctrine.

My argument is not that God is incapable of transferring that authority of absolution to the Church.  I never said he could not do it.  I am saying He did not do it.  He made no such transfer of authority to allow men to absolve the guilt of sin in another person. 

The heresy is in believing that God has transferred that authority to anyone in the Church.

Edited October 27, 2015 by shiloh357