Remitting Sins

[pointer]

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.

So what happens to those who die with unconfessed, unabsolved sins? The whole idea of auricular confession is to get absolution to enable the sinner to receive the forgiveness required for salvation.

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.

It is very notable that Roman Catholics, who habitually go to confession (or used to) have no fear of it, and quite often, when young, freely admit that they go straight back to committing sin on Monday, knowing that they can get absolution on the following Sunday.

Christians have always confessed, and always will confess to those they have offended, where possible, when convicted by the Holy Spirit. The person who does not do that, and make recompense where necessary, cannot be a Christian, because those things are the only loving things to do. However, for Christians, there is nothing so momentous or knee-quaking as confessing to the living God, who looks on the heart, not on appearances. It is a terrible thing to fall into His hands.

The Christian tradition is also to confess in public testimony, where to do so gives glory to God and spread His Word. It is true that this is not done as much as it might be, but it is done, and the Holy Spirit uses such confessions to bring people to Christ or to strengthen Christians. This practice was actually banned by a 'pope', and is more or less unheard of in catholic circles.

The catholic practice of private confession to a political appointee was eventually developed to control peasant populations for political purposes, and that motivation persists even today.

What does any of that have to do with church Fathers anyway? Absolutely nothing.

One cannot find auricular confession and absolution in Scripture, and those called 'Fathers' are the only other sources.

[Openly Curious]

This is a verse that modern day evangelicals, the same ones who hate to acknowledge true church authority, must tap dance around and twist. Not only does the verse point to the doctrine of confession and absolution through the church but also to church authority with regard to discipline of the unrepentant member.

While all sin was dealt with at the cross it pleases God to bring specific forgiveness through confession of those sins by true believers. For if we say we have no sin we make God out to be a liar. We are to confess these sins to one another. That is true not only for the worst unbeliever but also for the most pious Christian. Forgiveness of sin is applied through the means of grace, God's Word and His sacraments. Yet that is still somewhat different since those applications of forgiveness are completed without the synergisic activity of the sinner.

At any rate, the denial of the powers vested in His church by its founder, Jesus, continues to evolve even to the point that we now see many who have rejected the church altogether as they gather in their own little cocoons at home, free from the worry of real accountibility that a legitimate church provides. Unfortunately they have also removed themselves from another function of the true church, and that is the power to bind and loosen, to hear their confession and to absolve their sin.

sw

Worm

[st. Worm]

This is a verse that modern day evangelicals, the same ones who hate to acknowledge true church authority, must tap dance around and twist. Not only does the verse point to the doctrine of confession and absolution through the church but also to church authority with regard to discipline of the unrepentant member.

While all sin was dealt with at the cross it pleases God to bring specific forgiveness through confession of those sins by true believers. For if we say we have no sin we make God out to be a liar. We are to confess these sins to one another. That is true not only for the worst unbeliever but also for the most pious Christian. Forgiveness of sin is applied through the means of grace, God's Word and His sacraments. Yet that is still somewhat different since those applications of forgiveness are completed without the synergisic activity of the sinner.

At any rate, the denial of the powers vested in His church by its founder, Jesus, continues to evolve even to the point that we now see many who have rejected the church altogether as they gather in their own little cocoons at home, free from the worry of real accountibility that a legitimate church provides. Unfortunately they have also removed themselves from another function of the true church, and that is the power to bind and loosen, to hear their confession and to absolve their sin.

sw

Worm

[EricH]

I think there are many "legitimate" doctrines where evangelicals and Catholics find common ground and I think both groups would acknowledge this, i.e., the deity of Christ.

I would question that conclusion, since they pray to Mary and call her "queen of heaven" and "Mother of God".

Certainly they would differ on the subject of Mary. But there are some places they find common ground

[st. Worm]

I think there are many "legitimate" doctrines where evangelicals and Catholics find common ground and I think both groups would acknowledge this, i.e., the deity of Christ.

I would question that conclusion, since they pray to Mary and call her "queen of heaven" and "Mother of God".

mother of God is the appropriate description of Mary. That is unless you don't believe Jesus in the flesh was God. She is indeed the God bearer.

sw

[EricH]

I think there are many "legitimate" doctrines where evangelicals and Catholics find common ground and I think both groups would acknowledge this, i.e., the deity of Christ.

I would question that conclusion, since they pray to Mary and call her "queen of heaven" and "Mother of God".

mother of God is the appropriate description of Mary. That is unless you don't believe Jesus in the flesh was God.

sw

One would have to unpack what was meant by the term "mother of God". Mary did not give birth to Jesus diety in the sense that it did not exist before. Jesus was pre-existant to the incarnation and was always God

[st. Worm]

I think there are many "legitimate" doctrines where evangelicals and Catholics find common ground and I think both groups would acknowledge this, i.e., the deity of Christ.

I would question that conclusion, since they pray to Mary and call her "queen of heaven" and "Mother of God".

mother of God is the appropriate description of Mary. That is unless you don't believe Jesus in the flesh was God.

sw

One would have to unpack what was meant by the term "mother of God". Mary did not give birth to Jesus diety in the sense that it did not exist before. Jesus was pre-existant to the incarnation and was always God

You cannot divide his deity from his humanity. He is and was 100% God and 100% man even in the womb. Mary is the bearer of God. A hard pill for you to swallow?

sw

[EricH]

I think there are many "legitimate" doctrines where evangelicals and Catholics find common ground and I think both groups would acknowledge this, i.e., the deity of Christ.

I would question that conclusion, since they pray to Mary and call her "queen of heaven" and "Mother of God".

mother of God is the appropriate description of Mary. That is unless you don't believe Jesus in the flesh was God.

sw

One would have to unpack what was meant by the term "mother of God". Mary did not give birth to Jesus diety in the sense that it did not exist before. Jesus was pre-existant to the incarnation and was always God

You cannot divide his deity from his humanity. He is and was 100% God and 100% man even in the womb. Mary is the bearer of God. A hard pill for you to swallow?

sw

So are you saying that Jesus did not exist as God before he was born of a virgin?

[Kansasdad]

I would think it was obvious, but the Catholic Church does not teach that Mary created Jesus/God. It does teach that she was the earthly vessel that God used to created the humanness of Jesus God. They also teach that she was a very special vessel that was kept, with Gods grace, worthy of creating Jesus/man, which comes directly from scripture. ( I can find the verse that tells us Mary was full of Grace if you feel the need to challenge) I also have the feeling that WhySoBlind know this but is choosing to try to add confusion and inflammatory suggestions.

God Bless,

Kansas Dad

[Kansasdad]

Hey Eric H...

I am not sure I agree with all of your points on " the proper way to interpret scripture thread, but how would it fair when applied to the particular verse in question. Grammatically was the author referring to the apostles specifically, and to the sins of the people, Where does grammar point. Also in context. What was going on at the time Jesus said this to the Apostles, does it give us better understanding.

God Bless,

Kansas Dad