Remitting Sins

[pointer]

Jesus is only speaking to his apostles here, the first bishops(priests) of the church.

'On the evening of that first day of the week, when the disciples were together' John 20:19 NIV

The word 'apostle' does not mean 'overseer' (bishop') anyway. The word 'priest' has pagan connotations and should not be used by English-speaking Christians.

Jesus gave them the power to forgive the sins of others, or not to forgive the sins of others.

That is complete fabrication. Why? Because Jesus' sentence is ambiguous. It is improper to force a particular meaning from an ambiguous source. There is much NT (and OT) evidence that Jesus here told the disciples that they would be in agreement with God, and there is not a scrap for auricular confession and absolution, which is blasphemous anyway! The former interpretation is the only proper and respectable one.

we as laypersons

There is no such thing as a layperson. The 'office' of 'priests' is a myth that comes from the world, with its hypocrisy and inability to show fruits of the Spirit, not from God. In the real church there are people who serve, perhaps temporarily, as overseers; they do not dress differently, or place themselves on raised platforms, because they do not need to impress. They are not called 'Reverend' or 'Father', because their authority is genuine, with the power of God.

History is crystal clear on this matter

Nothing could be more false. History is total mystery when it comes to the origin of the church, which totally disappeared from all historic record for at least a thousand years. Even today it is difficult to be sure that there is very much church in existence, certainly in the West, especially in the USA. The almost complete silence and absence of credible church history from the (very partial) history of Luke's Acts onwards is one of the most terrible indictments of humanity. That is entirely consistent with Jesus' statement that 'few are chosen', however.

[st. Worm]

People should not be encouraged to leave the church just because theirs has fallen into apostacy. No good can come from removing yourself from Christ's church.

An apostate church is not Christ's, but Christ's enemy, and must be treated as such by Christians, even if that means having no fellowship at all. The principle in both OT and NT is to have nothing to do with false teachers. If OT command was still applicable, many 'pastors' would have to be stoned! (And as many of them are legalistic Judaisers, they could hardly complain if they were!)

I did not say they should stay at their apostate churches, just that they should find new ones. Are you of the anti-church movement?

sw

Why do you call it an anti-church movement You continually bash those that are seeking the Lord in a way that would not be hindered by bad teaching. The Holy Spirit by far is the best teacher and leader we could ever have How can we be anti-church when WE ARE the CHURCH. You are so bound in your teachings by Luther who caused a great spliting of the church in my viewing, my mother is Lutheran and she is so cold hearted I can't even talk with her, that is what Luther has done

Where is the bashing of which you accuse me of? The only bashing I see is your bashing. There are several on this site who are caught up in a movement whereby they are leaving the church. I merely asked if you might be of that movement based on your prior comments. It is an anti-church movement so to use that term is not bashing. I won't even address your comments about Luther. Its not worth the trouble.

sw

[Openly Curious]

I'm certainly not as well versed in the scriptures as all of you. However, I believe there is scriptural support in the Book of Matthew to show that there's been a precedent for the confession of sin to an agrieved bretheren.

Matthew 18:

15 And if thy brother sin against thee, go, show him his fault between thee and him alone: if he hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.

16 But if he hear thee not, take with thee one or two more, that at the mouth of two witnesses or three every word may be established.

17 And if he refuse to hear them, tell it unto the church: and if he refuse to hear the church also, let him be unto thee as the Gentile and the publican.

18 Verily I say unto you, what things soever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and what things soever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Yours in Christ Jesus,

Tim.

Hello Hoosier,

I would agree with you here as this was what Butero was pointing out earlier in the thread when I was joking with him about the Lutheran's and the Catholic's although I did not totally accept all of Butero's full view I did however acknowledge as I also acknowledge you here that this is a valid point in relationship to us as members of a congregation. As the verse says in you have fault with a brother. So in the church we are to forgive one another their faults and failures as well but if they do not want to acknowledge their tresspasses and hurt towards others then they are to be looked at as a Gentile which simply means like a non-believer. but if this scripture was applied this would be remitting sins and also fall in line with binding which would be retaining and loosing would be remitting or letting it go. So I can see where the principle could be applied to the church in this way. But not in the confessionals style setup that I hear about.

OC

OC

[Openly Curious]

the historic orthodox church

The historic orthodox church agrees with OC, in the view of many. Supporters of the idea of confession and absolution have been vigorously gainsaid since the fourteenth century, which was not long after auricular confession was enforced by law in the thirteenth century!

pointer,

I would agree with this in my studies I have not found any scriptural basis thus far to support the the need for confession to church fathers. In fact I keep finding exactly the opposite teachings in the word thus far in this regards.

OC

[Openly Curious]

That is your opinion worm,

I welcomed and asked for all opinions not knowing who was going to respond. the verse was about retaining and remitting sins not on confessionals.

I did not intend to offend you and that was not the spirit in which I spoke from. i did read all of your posts with and open mind. but I did not agree with them just as you read what I had to say and now you are saying, that I only accept what I want to accept instead of your view. Well in this regards I could say the same thing about you but I am not. I thought by clarifying what my thoughts were towards the verse you would see where I was coming from but you do not like my view. but that is okay we don't have to agree we are both free moral agents who can freely choose what to accept or reject.

OC

You are entitled to your opinion but if you are so certain your opinion is right and the opinion of the historic orthodox church is wrong why do you even bother to ask the question?

sw

Reread my first post in which I said "Why". I want to see if I am Balanced to see if others came to the same conclusions that I had in my personal studies. And I have leaned in my conclusions thus far the way I did based on my study material on the verse and listening to others views here in the thread.

I have learned that I am not always right on any given subject or text of scriptures and I certainly don't claim that here nor suggesting such an idea. When I am uncertain about things I like to match my conclusions on the subject up to see if what my views are on the subject are in the same train of thoughts as others so I ask in hopes to learn thing for my own benefit.

I do not accept every single view that someone has to tell me. But at other times I may accept what you have to say based upon my observations of what scripture is meaning it depends.

again i am sorry you are offended or seem to be rejected but you should not take this personal.

OC

I am not the least bit offended. I am merely saying that if you don't want my opinion then don't solicite my response when you start a thread. Like I said, if you only want views that support your own you should say so.

sw

Good grief st. worm hang it up

I never said I didn't want your views did you not read my last post. And I am not soliciting anyone response. I welcome all responses but don't mean i will agree with all of them.

let it go and move on.

OC

Your first mistake was accusing Lutherans and Roman Catholics of trying to hijack your thread rather than just say you appreciate their answers and letting it go at that. That was just plain rude and disingenuous. Then you wanted to argue that my answers were not valid for you because you are not "Lutheran or Catholic" which I found to be equally rude and dishonest. When you post questions you are soliciting responses. If you don't grasp that then I just don't know what to tell you. I hate to keep repeating myself but if you don't want responses that you may disagree with you need to preface your questions by saying I only want responses that a fundamentalist evangelical might agree with. Its very clear you only wanted someone to prop up your own view and you really did not want honest responses. I could care less if you agree with me or not. What I resent was the thing you implied about my response, that I was trying to somehow hijack your thread by giving a sincere response. How much more dishonest can you be?

sw

st. worm st. worm

I was not accusing the Lutherans nor the Roman Catholics of trying to hijack this thread no where in any of my post will you find that. However I did have a little inside humor with Butero in one of my post. It was only that between he and me. I have told you repeatedly now that your comments are welcome and I read through them as all the others and consider what is being said by all but that doesn't mean I will accept or reject everything that is being said in the thread.

You accuse be of being rude and disingenuous and it is anything from the truth. If someone is not of the same beliefs as another don't you think it a little bit natural not to be inclined to lean that way it is not that i do not welcome your views but after i have read them I still do not fall in line with the thinking that has been presented it is no different that you disagreeing with me telling me I only want responses from fundamentalistic evangelical stand point. Well I might lean more in line that way in my beliefs but that doesn't make be disingenous or that I am seeking only their input and none else. I have often found truth in a lot of different faiths that I agree with and accept. And again you will not find anywhere in this thread where I accused you or anyone else of hijaking this thread nor will I.

OC

[st. Worm]

the historic orthodox church

The historic orthodox church agrees with OC, in the view of many. Supporters of the idea of confession and absolution have been vigorously gainsaid since the fourteenth century, which was not long after auricular confession was enforced by law in the thirteenth century!

pointer,

I would agree with this in my studies I have not found any scriptural basis thus far to support the the need for confession to church fathers. In fact I keep finding exactly the opposite teachings in the word thus far in this regards.

OC

Nice straw man. Individual confession and absolution is not required of anyone. It is a practice that should be encouraged and available but has been forgotten by a modern church that hates confession of sin in most instances. Pietism and "Christian lifestyle" are now the order of the day. What does any of that have to do with church Fathers anyway? Absolutely nothing.

sw

[EricH]

I am curious to what others opinions are relating to this verse of scripture it is found in

John 20:23--"Whosesoever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whosesoever sins ye retain, they are retained."

I have my own thoughts in my own study on this verse but I want others views about it so I can see if my own studies surrounding this verse is balanced. thank you in advance for your thoughts on this.

OC

It is as restatement of Matt. 16:19. Jesus referred to this has the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven. What a lot of people do not realize is that Jesus was a Rabbi. These words are not original with Jesus. It was customary for this to be said by a Rabbi to whose who were his disciples. A Rabbi's authority was three-fold. They had the power to judiciate, Legislate and teach. The disciples did a lot of teaching, and they legislated for the community of believers as we see in Acts 15, and this third part, the part that John 20:23 is dealing with is to judiciate, in other words to settle disputes within the community.

Jesus was NOT giving the disciples the power to forgive sins in the absolute sense, like Jesus Himself, did. He gave them power to judiciate between parties and hold a guilty party guilty, and to decree sentence on the guilty party. They also had the power to pardon if need be. All of this was only done of course as the Holy Spirit led.

Amen

[st. Worm]

That is your opinion worm,

I welcomed and asked for all opinions not knowing who was going to respond. the verse was about retaining and remitting sins not on confessionals.

I did not intend to offend you and that was not the spirit in which I spoke from. i did read all of your posts with and open mind. but I did not agree with them just as you read what I had to say and now you are saying, that I only accept what I want to accept instead of your view. Well in this regards I could say the same thing about you but I am not. I thought by clarifying what my thoughts were towards the verse you would see where I was coming from but you do not like my view. but that is okay we don't have to agree we are both free moral agents who can freely choose what to accept or reject.

OC

You are entitled to your opinion but if you are so certain your opinion is right and the opinion of the historic orthodox church is wrong why do you even bother to ask the question?

sw

Reread my first post in which I said "Why". I want to see if I am Balanced to see if others came to the same conclusions that I had in my personal studies. And I have leaned in my conclusions thus far the way I did based on my study material on the verse and listening to others views here in the thread.

I have learned that I am not always right on any given subject or text of scriptures and I certainly don't claim that here nor suggesting such an idea. When I am uncertain about things I like to match my conclusions on the subject up to see if what my views are on the subject are in the same train of thoughts as others so I ask in hopes to learn thing for my own benefit.

I do not accept every single view that someone has to tell me. But at other times I may accept what you have to say based upon my observations of what scripture is meaning it depends.

again i am sorry you are offended or seem to be rejected but you should not take this personal.

OC

I am not the least bit offended. I am merely saying that if you don't want my opinion then don't solicite my response when you start a thread. Like I said, if you only want views that support your own you should say so.

sw

Good grief st. worm hang it up

I never said I didn't want your views did you not read my last post. And I am not soliciting anyone response. I welcome all responses but don't mean i will agree with all of them.

let it go and move on.

OC

Your first mistake was accusing Lutherans and Roman Catholics of trying to hijack your thread rather than just say you appreciate their answers and letting it go at that. That was just plain rude and disingenuous. Then you wanted to argue that my answers were not valid for you because you are not "Lutheran or Catholic" which I found to be equally rude and dishonest. When you post questions you are soliciting responses. If you don't grasp that then I just don't know what to tell you. I hate to keep repeating myself but if you don't want responses that you may disagree with you need to preface your questions by saying I only want responses that a fundamentalist evangelical might agree with. Its very clear you only wanted someone to prop up your own view and you really did not want honest responses. I could care less if you agree with me or not. What I resent was the thing you implied about my response, that I was trying to somehow hijack your thread by giving a sincere response. How much more dishonest can you be?

sw

st. worm st. worm

I was not accusing the Lutherans nor the Roman Catholics of trying to hijack this thread no where in any of my post will you find that. However I did have a little inside humor with Butero in one of my post. It was only that between he and me. I have told you repeatedly now that your comments are welcome and I read through them as all the others and consider what is being said by all but that doesn't mean I will accept or reject everything that is being said in the thread.

You accuse be of being rude and disingenuous and it is anything from the truth. If someone is not of the same beliefs as another don't you think it a little bit natural not to be inclined to lean that way it is not that i do not welcome your views but after i have read them I still do not fall in line with the thinking that has been presented it is no different that you disagreeing with me telling me I only want responses from fundamentalistic evangelical stand point. Well I might lean more in line that way in my beliefs but that doesn't make be disingenous or that I am seeking only their input and none else. I have often found truth in a lot of different faiths that I agree with and accept. And again you will not find anywhere in this thread where I accused you or anyone else of hijaking this thread nor will I.

OC

Here is your earlier quote accusing Catholics and Lutherans of hijacking (my term) the thread:

"... thanks for taking on the Lutheran's and the Catolics in this thread who went off topic."

Your intent seems clear. I saw no posting by a Catholic or Lutheran that went off topic. Their postings just did not fit your pre-conceived views but were given in good faith and with good intent.

sw

[Openly Curious]

That is your opinion worm,

I welcomed and asked for all opinions not knowing who was going to respond. the verse was about retaining and remitting sins not on confessionals.

I did not intend to offend you and that was not the spirit in which I spoke from. i did read all of your posts with and open mind. but I did not agree with them just as you read what I had to say and now you are saying, that I only accept what I want to accept instead of your view. Well in this regards I could say the same thing about you but I am not. I thought by clarifying what my thoughts were towards the verse you would see where I was coming from but you do not like my view. but that is okay we don't have to agree we are both free moral agents who can freely choose what to accept or reject.

OC

You are entitled to your opinion but if you are so certain your opinion is right and the opinion of the historic orthodox church is wrong why do you even bother to ask the question?

sw

Reread my first post in which I said "Why". I want to see if I am Balanced to see if others came to the same conclusions that I had in my personal studies. And I have leaned in my conclusions thus far the way I did based on my study material on the verse and listening to others views here in the thread.

I have learned that I am not always right on any given subject or text of scriptures and I certainly don't claim that here nor suggesting such an idea. When I am uncertain about things I like to match my conclusions on the subject up to see if what my views are on the subject are in the same train of thoughts as others so I ask in hopes to learn thing for my own benefit.

I do not accept every single view that someone has to tell me. But at other times I may accept what you have to say based upon my observations of what scripture is meaning it depends.

again i am sorry you are offended or seem to be rejected but you should not take this personal.

OC

I am not the least bit offended. I am merely saying that if you don't want my opinion then don't solicite my response when you start a thread. Like I said, if you only want views that support your own you should say so.

sw

Good grief st. worm hang it up

I never said I didn't want your views did you not read my last post. And I am not soliciting anyone response. I welcome all responses but don't mean i will agree with all of them.

let it go and move on.

OC

Your first mistake was accusing Lutherans and Roman Catholics of trying to hijack your thread rather than just say you appreciate their answers and letting it go at that. That was just plain rude and disingenuous. Then you wanted to argue that my answers were not valid for you because you are not "Lutheran or Catholic" which I found to be equally rude and dishonest. When you post questions you are soliciting responses. If you don't grasp that then I just don't know what to tell you. I hate to keep repeating myself but if you don't want responses that you may disagree with you need to preface your questions by saying I only want responses that a fundamentalist evangelical might agree with. Its very clear you only wanted someone to prop up your own view and you really did not want honest responses. I could care less if you agree with me or not. What I resent was the thing you implied about my response, that I was trying to somehow hijack your thread by giving a sincere response. How much more dishonest can you be?

sw

st. worm st. worm

I was not accusing the Lutherans nor the Roman Catholics of trying to hijack this thread no where in any of my post will you find that. However I did have a little inside humor with Butero in one of my post. It was only that between he and me. I have told you repeatedly now that your comments are welcome and I read through them as all the others and consider what is being said by all but that doesn't mean I will accept or reject everything that is being said in the thread.

You accuse be of being rude and disingenuous and it is anything from the truth. If someone is not of the same beliefs as another don't you think it a little bit natural not to be inclined to lean that way it is not that i do not welcome your views but after i have read them I still do not fall in line with the thinking that has been presented it is no different that you disagreeing with me telling me I only want responses from fundamentalistic evangelical stand point. Well I might lean more in line that way in my beliefs but that doesn't make be disingenous or that I am seeking only their input and none else. I have often found truth in a lot of different faiths that I agree with and accept. And again you will not find anywhere in this thread where I accused you or anyone else of hijaking this thread nor will I.

OC

Here is your earlier quote accusing Catholics and Lutherans of hijacking (my term) the thread:

"... thanks for taking on the Lutheran's and the Catolics in this thread who went off topic."

Your intent seems clear. I saw no posting by a Catholic or Lutheran that went off topic. Their postings just did not fit your pre-conceived views but were given in good faith and with good intent.

sw

st. worm

as I already said this was a personal inside joke with me and Butero in which it was addressed to.

No where did I say anything about anyone hijaking this thread. But I did feel some of the things written within this thread did go off topic as far as I saw it a might but I am entitled to my opinion on that same as you as you don't feel you did get off topic well that is fine by me move on if you got something more to add to the thread by all means go ahead and I don't care if you give them in good faith or good intent it doesn't matter to me if you got something to add then add it.

As far as my views are concerned on what I am studying goes I haven't been disclosing but bits and pieces of it here and there so you do not even have a clue as what my views are in their entirety. Like I said I welcome all comments and it should not matter to you in what manner they are given in or not given in I still welcome everyone's comments whether they will or want fit my own views or not.

It is apparent that you are offended with my attempt at humor with Butero well that is all it was and I can only tell you of it but I cannot make you accept it I apologize if you are offended there is nothing more that I can say to you at this point if it is the last word you are seeking then I will give it to you but please move on.

OC

[st. Worm]

That is your opinion worm,

I welcomed and asked for all opinions not knowing who was going to respond. the verse was about retaining and remitting sins not on confessionals.

I did not intend to offend you and that was not the spirit in which I spoke from. i did read all of your posts with and open mind. but I did not agree with them just as you read what I had to say and now you are saying, that I only accept what I want to accept instead of your view. Well in this regards I could say the same thing about you but I am not. I thought by clarifying what my thoughts were towards the verse you would see where I was coming from but you do not like my view. but that is okay we don't have to agree we are both free moral agents who can freely choose what to accept or reject.

OC

You are entitled to your opinion but if you are so certain your opinion is right and the opinion of the historic orthodox church is wrong why do you even bother to ask the question?

sw

Reread my first post in which I said "Why". I want to see if I am Balanced to see if others came to the same conclusions that I had in my personal studies. And I have leaned in my conclusions thus far the way I did based on my study material on the verse and listening to others views here in the thread.

I have learned that I am not always right on any given subject or text of scriptures and I certainly don't claim that here nor suggesting such an idea. When I am uncertain about things I like to match my conclusions on the subject up to see if what my views are on the subject are in the same train of thoughts as others so I ask in hopes to learn thing for my own benefit.

I do not accept every single view that someone has to tell me. But at other times I may accept what you have to say based upon my observations of what scripture is meaning it depends.

again i am sorry you are offended or seem to be rejected but you should not take this personal.

OC

I am not the least bit offended. I am merely saying that if you don't want my opinion then don't solicite my response when you start a thread. Like I said, if you only want views that support your own you should say so.

sw

Good grief st. worm hang it up

I never said I didn't want your views did you not read my last post. And I am not soliciting anyone response. I welcome all responses but don't mean i will agree with all of them.

let it go and move on.

OC

Your first mistake was accusing Lutherans and Roman Catholics of trying to hijack your thread rather than just say you appreciate their answers and letting it go at that. That was just plain rude and disingenuous. Then you wanted to argue that my answers were not valid for you because you are not "Lutheran or Catholic" which I found to be equally rude and dishonest. When you post questions you are soliciting responses. If you don't grasp that then I just don't know what to tell you. I hate to keep repeating myself but if you don't want responses that you may disagree with you need to preface your questions by saying I only want responses that a fundamentalist evangelical might agree with. Its very clear you only wanted someone to prop up your own view and you really did not want honest responses. I could care less if you agree with me or not. What I resent was the thing you implied about my response, that I was trying to somehow hijack your thread by giving a sincere response. How much more dishonest can you be?

sw

st. worm st. worm

I was not accusing the Lutherans nor the Roman Catholics of trying to hijack this thread no where in any of my post will you find that. However I did have a little inside humor with Butero in one of my post. It was only that between he and me. I have told you repeatedly now that your comments are welcome and I read through them as all the others and consider what is being said by all but that doesn't mean I will accept or reject everything that is being said in the thread.

You accuse be of being rude and disingenuous and it is anything from the truth. If someone is not of the same beliefs as another don't you think it a little bit natural not to be inclined to lean that way it is not that i do not welcome your views but after i have read them I still do not fall in line with the thinking that has been presented it is no different that you disagreeing with me telling me I only want responses from fundamentalistic evangelical stand point. Well I might lean more in line that way in my beliefs but that doesn't make be disingenous or that I am seeking only their input and none else. I have often found truth in a lot of different faiths that I agree with and accept. And again you will not find anywhere in this thread where I accused you or anyone else of hijaking this thread nor will I.

OC

Here is your earlier quote accusing Catholics and Lutherans of hijacking (my term) the thread:

"... thanks for taking on the Lutheran's and the Catolics in this thread who went off topic."

Your intent seems clear. I saw no posting by a Catholic or Lutheran that went off topic. Their postings just did not fit your pre-conceived views but were given in good faith and with good intent.

sw

st. worm

as I already said this was a personal inside joke with me and Butero in which it was addressed to.

No where did I say anything about anyone hijaking this thread. But I did feel some of the things written within this thread did go off topic as far as I saw it a might but I am entitled to my opinion on that same as you as you don't feel you did get off topic well that is fine by me move on if you got something more to add to the thread by all means go ahead and I don't care if you give them in good faith or good intent it doesn't matter to me if you got something to add then add it.

As far as my views are concerned on what I am studying goes I haven't been disclosing but bits and pieces of it here and there so you do not even have a clue as what my views are in their entirety. Like I said I welcome all comments and it should not matter to you in what manner they are given in or not given in I still welcome everyone's comments whether they will or want fit my own views or not.

It is apparent that you are offended with my attempt at humor with Butero well that is all it was and I can only tell you of it but I cannot make you accept it I apologize if you are offended there is nothing more that I can say to you at this point if it is the last word you are seeking then I will give it to you but please move on.

OC

I wasn't offended by your attempt at humor if indeed that is what it was. What I did not like was your false accusation about going off topic after I answered your question in a way that you did not want. You don't want to acknowledge that, that's fine. However if you don't want to acknowledge your own words or just claim it was a joke I have no idea what you are apologizing about and why I should accept it. It doesn't seem to me you are really apologizing as much as saying I misunderstood your true intent.

sw