Posted on 03/09/2011 11:22:47 AM PST by NYer
Re: 2 Cor 5:18-20,"Why start at verse 19, how about verse 18? ...It seems pretty clear that St. Paul speaks of a “ministry of Reconciliation” and that he [and the Apostles] were ambassadors for Christ as if God were appealing through us [The Apostles and thus the Church were sent/founded by Christ and are his instruments of reconciliation]"
No. God reconciled us to Himself. Us refers to anyone and everyone who "is in Him", which does not refer to some special class of folks. 2 Cor 5:21, "21 God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God. Us here does not refer to some special class, it refers to ALL those that value the same things that God does. It is in Him, not in "special class, or group of folks, nor in some subset those that are "in Him". The idea that God reconciled only a few and only through them others could be reconciled to God is counter to what God taught and is reprehensible.
Yes.
Thanks for your post.
spunkets:
Nowhere in my post did I say that God only reconciled a few as I am not a Hyper Predestination kind of guy, i.e. God reconciled a few elect and those he did not he created for the purpose of sending into hell.
St. Paul speaks of a ministry of reconciliation, which is linked to the authority Christ gave the Apostles to forgive sins in his name as recorded in St. John’s Gospel [cf John 20: 21-23] and the authority to bind and loose as recorded in St. Mathew’s Gospel [cf. Mt 18:18]. In addition, St. James in his Epistle (cf. James 5:13-17] clearly refers to both “Confession” and “Annointing of the Sick” which are both in Catholic Theology Sacraments of Reconciliation and the context of the passage starting in verse 13 is “to call the presbyters of the Church” so the “confess your sins directive” related to the ministry of reconciliation/confession that Christ gave to the Church.
Finally, I will not link all the Church Fathers who interpreted Christ statements such as above to refer to the fact that Christ gave His Church the authority to forgive sins as they are many and thus the Church and the Sacraments are thuse the “normative instrument” thru which God reconciles humanity back to himself despite your “protests” otherwise.
There was no such authority given to the Apostles exclusively, nor are folks to forgive in anyone elses name- including in God's name. They are to forgive the sins of others in their own name and the ministry of reconciliation was given to all. What is written in the Gospels is God's word to all, not just the few, or a few.
"... as recorded in St. John’s Gospel [cf John 20: 21-23]
John 20:23, "If you forgive anyone’s sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.” This passage has more than one meaning, because it's not fundamental. It could mean that if someone does not forgive somone else's sin(s), the sin may rest on the one who failed to do as they were requested by God. In that event, the person who chose not to forgive, based their decision on values that conflicted with those of those held by the Holy Spirit. The passage could also mean that the one that makes the decision not to forgive does hold the same values of the Holy Spirit and God Himself will not forgive, as per the fundamental statement on the matter given by God in Matt 12:32, "Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come."
"...and the authority to bind and loose as recorded in St. Mathew’s Gospel [cf. Mt 18:18]."
God did not come to teach the few; He came to teach the many- all of them. His words were addressed to all, not just the few who have taken it upon themselves to monopolize and userp the gifts of sentience, rationality and free will that were given with the gift of creation. It is the epitome of arrogance to claim that the Keys to the Kingdom, were given to anyone other than the individual whose own decisions will be judged by God.
"In addition, St. James in his Epistle (cf. James 5:13-17] clearly refers to both “Confession” and “Annointing of the Sick” which are both in Catholic Theology Sacraments of Reconciliation and the context of the passage starting in verse 13 is “to call the presbyters of the Church” so the “confess your sins directive” related to the ministry of reconciliation/confession that Christ gave to the Church.
James concludes... James 5:16, "Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous person is powerful and effective." It's clear that James analysis and conclusion are in opposition to yours, which calls for an exclusivity in both an order to praying and healing foreign to James.
"Finally, I will not link all the Church Fathers who interpreted Christ statements such as above to refer to the fact that Christ gave His Church the authority to forgive sins"
Democracy is not a logical operation. The truth of a concluison can not be jusitfied by appealing to the decisions made by any particular, or anonymous multitudes of individual(s). The truth of the matter must depend only on the evidence supporting the conclusion.
The fundamental and universally applicable writ on the matter, addressed to all and applying to all, is the following from Matt 6:14, "For if you forgive other people when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you."
As per above, this conclusion is not supported by the evidence, unless the instrument is the presentation of counter-examples to what God taught, to provide for confusion and other effective stumbling blocks.
"... despite your “protests” otherwise."
I simply presented what is written and presented the matter with clear logic and evidence. That is not protest.
The "clear logic" and "evidence" shows me that Jesus, on the night after he rose from the dead (pretty significant point in time!) appeared to the Apostles, breathed on them, and gave them both the power and the authority to remit sins in his name.
Given the circumstances and text of John 20:22, I see no other possibility. I'm in pretty good company, because Christians have understood that verse that way for 2000 years. All of the Orthodox churches understand it the same way we do.
In fact, confession is such a natural, obvious thing that evangelicals have had to re-invent it. They call it "accountability partners," but it's the same thing, just without the apostolic authority passed down through the bishops.
Christ is the priest and minister of every sacrament. The human priest merely acts as an instrument.
As I said before, we aren't searching for reconciliation, we already have it in abundance.
Actually, it doesn't. It defines, in part, what reconciliation is, not how to get it.
(Non-imputation of sins is the bare minimum; God seeks to completely remove our sins from us along with all of the damage they've caused. He doesn't stop at mere non-imputation.)
The evidence shows that He taught them and everyone else how to pray and in that lesson was contained the same things said as was repeated after the resurrection. Matt 6:9-15: “This, then, is how you should pray:
“‘Our Father in heaven,
hallowed be your name,
your kingdom come,
your will be done,
on earth as it is in heaven.
Give us today our daily bread.
And forgive us our debts,
as we also have forgiven our debtors.
And lead us not into temptation,
but deliver us from the evil one.
For if you forgive other people when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive others their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins.
Folks had the power and authority to forgive sins from the beginning, because of their gifts of sentience, rationality and free will. Their was no special gift of authority to some special class of folks. All have always had the power and the authority, and all were taught by God to use it to perform the particular act of forgiving that they were taught to repeat in their prayers.
"Given the circumstances and text of John 20:22, I see no other possibility. I'm in pretty good company, because Christians have understood that verse that way for 2000 years. All of the Orthodox churches understand it the same way we do."
Democracy is not a logical operation and I'm sure Isaiah would agree, even though this lesson is barely parable. I say barely, because some will insist on punishment as a debt owed for sin, and a nessesary conditional for "forgiveness" to be extended. the lesson clearly says not only the trespass, but the debt should be forgiven too. I don't see, as the preist forgives me, or has forgiven me anywhere in that lesson, or in the rest of the Gospels.
"In fact, confession is such a natural, obvious thing that evangelicals have had to re-invent it. They call it "accountability partners," but it's the same thing, just without the apostolic authority passed down through the bishops."
The power and authority were given as a gift with life in Gen 1:26-27 Then God said, "Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."
"So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them."
No apostolic authority passed down through any bishops is needed. If folks choose to discuss matters, including values, sin, their own sins and/or anything else with others, they are and were always free to do so.
spunkets:
I understand your views are your views but nobody, and I mean no orthodox Church Father interpreted the Sacred Scriptures and formulated doctrines consistent with what you posted. End of discussion and God bless.
Read also verse 18: "And all things are of God, who HATH RECONCILED US UNTO HIMSELF BY JESUS CHRIST, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation;".
It's past tense. It is ALREADY HAPPENED. It is not an ongoing process of reconciliation. Unless you believe you play a part in the reconciliation process. Then you work and suffer and work some more, all works of the flesh, not at all to the edifying of the spirit. Making a fair shew in the flesh, with outward signs, fasting, an ash cross on your forehead, the mass, etc, but accomplishing nothing except a pat on your back and all the atta-boys the flesh can muster.
How can this be? Is Scripture like a foreign language, or cryptic code, that it has to be interpreted? I've heard complaints about how those very same Church Fathers made up the Gospels themselves. I find it amazing how they didn't even try to justify their own claims in that writing. Instead, what they supposedly wrote contradicts their own claims and actions, and fixed those contradictions permanently in doctrine through the applicaiton of democratic process.
God Bless.
spunkets:
THe methodology you are using is one that lacks continuity with the Tradition of the Apostles as handed on to the Apostolic Fathers [i.e. those that new the Apostles such as St. Clement of Rome and St. Polycarp] who then handed the orthodox Apostolic Tradition to the earliest Church Fathers. These same Church Fathers did not make up the Gospels for themselves, it is thru them and their defense against the various heretical movements starting in the early 2nd century such as the Gnostics [Marcionites, Ebionitites] and continuing with the Modalist, Montanist in the early 3rd century moving on to the Arians, Manicheans, Donatist, Nestorians in the 4th and 5th that the Bible as we know it came to be.
So what Doctrines of the early Church do you reject? Do you reject St. Ignatius of Antioch’s writings [circa 107 AD] against the Docetist? Do you reject Pope Pius I’s rejection of Marcion’s doctrines in circa 144 AD? Do you reject St. Irenaeus’s writings against the various Gnostic Movements written circa 175-180AD? Do you reject the early 3rd century writings of ST. Hippolytus of Rome and the various statements of various Popes in the early 3rd century that rejected Modalism? Do you reject the Decrees of the Council of Nicea in 325AD?
I will stop at this point as I am trying to figure out your theological methodology for arriving at the views you are positing here on FR?
Regards and God Bless
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.