Joshua Charles and John 20

Thaddeus73

8:05a, 1/31/24

FYI - Joshua Charles is a recent convert...

THE VERSE THAT BEGAN MY JOURNEY TO THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
Since I was a boy, I loved the Bible. I read and discussed it all the time with my parents, friends, and mentors. My parents helped me get multiple study Bibles over the years.
But I remember clear as day being a teenager, and reading this verse for what felt like the first time. I was completely baffled:
"Jesus said to them [the Apostles] again, 'Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.' And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, 'Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained'" (John 20:21-23).
Jesus clearly gave the Apostles the authority to forgive sins. But this made no sense in my protestant, evangelical framework.
"Only God can forgive sins," I thought to myself. If the Apostles could forgive sins, that seemed to imply the Gospel I had learned was false. Why? Because when we were "saved," we believed all our sinsincluding future oneswere forgiven. Even protestants I knew who believed you could lose your salvation believed all we had to do to be forgiven was pray.
But this verse clearly said something very different. If the Apostles could forgive sins, that meant the Gospel the earliest Christians learned was quite different than the one I knew.
So I went to the study Bibles. I believe we had three at the time: the Geneva Study Bible, the Reformation Study Bible, and the ESV Study Bible.
I went straight to that verse in one of them, eager for an answer.
The commentary was blank.
Then I went to the other two, whose commentary amounted to saying "the verse doesn't mean what it plainly says." I remember being very disappointed at the absurdity of their "explanation."
At the time, I was teaching piano lessons on the side to earn some spending money. I saved up approximately $60 so I could buy another study Bible. I THINK it was the MacArthur Study Bible (1st ed.). When it arrived, I was giddy with excitement, convinced I would finally get an answer. I ripped open the box, opened the Bible to John 20, and…
Blank. The verses were completely skipped.
I was crushed.
At the time, I wasn't "anti-Catholic," but I had a general sense of "we left those quasi-pagans for good reasons, and good riddance." While I was VERY confused about this verse, I assumed some great theologian or teacher had figured it out.
As time went on, I occasionally read more commentaries on this verse. Time and again, like the first one, they never made sense. All of them basically denied the verse stated what it plainly stated, usually along the lines of what the MacArthur Study Bible (2nd ed.) in my library today states:
"This verse does not give authority to Christians to forgive sins. Jesus was saying that the believer can boldly declare the certainty of a sinner's forgiveness by the Father because of the work of his Son if that sinner has repented and believed the gospel. The believer with certainty can also tell those who do not respond to the message of God's forgiveness through faith in Christ that their sins, as a result, are not forgiven."
Clearly the verse says nothing like this. Jesus isn't speaking to all believers, but only the Apostles. Jesus didn't speak about certainty of forgiveness, etc. He said THE APOSTLES could forgive/not forgive sins. They were the agents He referred to. Jesus had other followers at the time, but didn't say this to them.
I remember how much doubt this verse gave me as a teenager. I trusted someone had figured it out. Nonetheless, I was genuinely shocked by it, and the answers I was given were completely unconvincing.
It was the first of many such experiences of reading the Bible and thinking "how on earth does this make sense in our theological framework?"
Now, after discovering the Church Fathers, this verse is no longer confusing. It is part of my life through the sacrament of confession.
Praise God!

dermdoc

8:25a, 1/31/24

In reply to Thaddeus73

Thaddeus73 said:

FYI - Joshua Charles is a recent convert...

THE VERSE THAT BEGAN MY JOURNEY TO THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
Since I was a boy, I loved the Bible. I read and discussed it all the time with my parents, friends, and mentors. My parents helped me get multiple study Bibles over the years.
But I remember clear as day being a teenager, and reading this verse for what felt like the first time. I was completely baffled:
"Jesus said to them [the Apostles] again, 'Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.' And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, 'Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained'" (John 20:21-23).
Jesus clearly gave the Apostles the authority to forgive sins. But this made no sense in my protestant, evangelical framework.
"Only God can forgive sins," I thought to myself. If the Apostles could forgive sins, that seemed to imply the Gospel I had learned was false. Why? Because when we were "saved," we believed all our sinsincluding future oneswere forgiven. Even protestants I knew who believed you could lose your salvation believed all we had to do to be forgiven was pray.
But this verse clearly said something very different. If the Apostles could forgive sins, that meant the Gospel the earliest Christians learned was quite different than the one I knew.
So I went to the study Bibles. I believe we had three at the time: the Geneva Study Bible, the Reformation Study Bible, and the ESV Study Bible.
I went straight to that verse in one of them, eager for an answer.
The commentary was blank.
Then I went to the other two, whose commentary amounted to saying "the verse doesn't mean what it plainly says." I remember being very disappointed at the absurdity of their "explanation."
At the time, I was teaching piano lessons on the side to earn some spending money. I saved up approximately $60 so I could buy another study Bible. I THINK it was the MacArthur Study Bible (1st ed.). When it arrived, I was giddy with excitement, convinced I would finally get an answer. I ripped open the box, opened the Bible to John 20, and…
Blank. The verses were completely skipped.
I was crushed.
At the time, I wasn't "anti-Catholic," but I had a general sense of "we left those quasi-pagans for good reasons, and good riddance." While I was VERY confused about this verse, I assumed some great theologian or teacher had figured it out.
As time went on, I occasionally read more commentaries on this verse. Time and again, like the first one, they never made sense. All of them basically denied the verse stated what it plainly stated, usually along the lines of what the MacArthur Study Bible (2nd ed.) in my library today states:
"This verse does not give authority to Christians to forgive sins. Jesus was saying that the believer can boldly declare the certainty of a sinner's forgiveness by the Father because of the work of his Son if that sinner has repented and believed the gospel. The believer with certainty can also tell those who do not respond to the message of God's forgiveness through faith in Christ that their sins, as a result, are not forgiven."
Clearly the verse says nothing like this. Jesus isn't speaking to all believers, but only the Apostles. Jesus didn't speak about certainty of forgiveness, etc. He said THE APOSTLES could forgive/not forgive sins. They were the agents He referred to. Jesus had other followers at the time, but didn't say this to them.
I remember how much doubt this verse gave me as a teenager. I trusted someone had figured it out. Nonetheless, I was genuinely shocked by it, and the answers I was given were completely unconvincing.
It was the first of many such experiences of reading the Bible and thinking "how on earth does this make sense in our theological framework?"
Now, after discovering the Church Fathers, this verse is no longer confusing. It is part of my life through the sacrament of confession.
Praise God!

I am not Catholic and have no problem believing that Jesus gave the apostles the ability to forgive sins. And heal people and perform miracles.

I do not see the problem here.

And to be honest, I do not understand the attempt to prove one certain denomination is correct on all matters.

Team Reformed, team Catholic, whatever. Why can't we just say Christian?

No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.

BluHorseShu

9:37a, 1/31/24

In reply to dermdoc

dermdoc said:
Thaddeus73 said:

FYI - Joshua Charles is a recent convert...

THE VERSE THAT BEGAN MY JOURNEY TO THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
Since I was a boy, I loved the Bible. I read and discussed it all the time with my parents, friends, and mentors. My parents helped me get multiple study Bibles over the years.
But I remember clear as day being a teenager, and reading this verse for what felt like the first time. I was completely baffled:
"Jesus said to them [the Apostles] again, 'Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.' And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, 'Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained'" (John 20:21-23).
Jesus clearly gave the Apostles the authority to forgive sins. But this made no sense in my protestant, evangelical framework.
"Only God can forgive sins," I thought to myself. If the Apostles could forgive sins, that seemed to imply the Gospel I had learned was false. Why? Because when we were "saved," we believed all our sinsincluding future oneswere forgiven. Even protestants I knew who believed you could lose your salvation believed all we had to do to be forgiven was pray.
But this verse clearly said something very different. If the Apostles could forgive sins, that meant the Gospel the earliest Christians learned was quite different than the one I knew.
So I went to the study Bibles. I believe we had three at the time: the Geneva Study Bible, the Reformation Study Bible, and the ESV Study Bible.
I went straight to that verse in one of them, eager for an answer.
The commentary was blank.
Then I went to the other two, whose commentary amounted to saying "the verse doesn't mean what it plainly says." I remember being very disappointed at the absurdity of their "explanation."
At the time, I was teaching piano lessons on the side to earn some spending money. I saved up approximately $60 so I could buy another study Bible. I THINK it was the MacArthur Study Bible (1st ed.). When it arrived, I was giddy with excitement, convinced I would finally get an answer. I ripped open the box, opened the Bible to John 20, and…
Blank. The verses were completely skipped.
I was crushed.
At the time, I wasn't "anti-Catholic," but I had a general sense of "we left those quasi-pagans for good reasons, and good riddance." While I was VERY confused about this verse, I assumed some great theologian or teacher had figured it out.
As time went on, I occasionally read more commentaries on this verse. Time and again, like the first one, they never made sense. All of them basically denied the verse stated what it plainly stated, usually along the lines of what the MacArthur Study Bible (2nd ed.) in my library today states:
"This verse does not give authority to Christians to forgive sins. Jesus was saying that the believer can boldly declare the certainty of a sinner's forgiveness by the Father because of the work of his Son if that sinner has repented and believed the gospel. The believer with certainty can also tell those who do not respond to the message of God's forgiveness through faith in Christ that their sins, as a result, are not forgiven."
Clearly the verse says nothing like this. Jesus isn't speaking to all believers, but only the Apostles. Jesus didn't speak about certainty of forgiveness, etc. He said THE APOSTLES could forgive/not forgive sins. They were the agents He referred to. Jesus had other followers at the time, but didn't say this to them.
I remember how much doubt this verse gave me as a teenager. I trusted someone had figured it out. Nonetheless, I was genuinely shocked by it, and the answers I was given were completely unconvincing.
It was the first of many such experiences of reading the Bible and thinking "how on earth does this make sense in our theological framework?"
Now, after discovering the Church Fathers, this verse is no longer confusing. It is part of my life through the sacrament of confession.
Praise God!

I am not Catholic and have no problem believing that Jesus gave the apostles the ability to forgive sins. And heal people and perform miracles.

I do not see the problem here.

And to be honest, I do not understand the attempt to prove one certain denomination is correct on all matters.

Team Reformed, team Catholic, whatever. Why can't we just say Christian?

I concur on the term Christian when referring to members of any Christian church. Drives me nuts when both Catholics and non-Catholics use the moniker of Christian and Catholic as an either or.

BiochemAg97

10:13a, 1/31/24

In reply to dermdoc

Pretty simple here. Jesus gave the apostles authority by proxy to judge and forgive sins. Jesus didn't abdicate that authority, so we can still receive forgiveness through Jesus.

It does raise some interesting questions.

For Catholic's, the belief is that authority has been pass from the Apostles to the modern Catholic clergy. If not, then the forgiveness still comes through Jesus, you just have two people (the sinner and the priest) praying for the sinner's forgiveness.

For forgiveness of sins through baptism, is it necessary for the baptizer to have the authority to forgive sins, or does baptism by its nature result in the forgiveness of sins through Jesus? John the Baptist was performing baptisms before Jesus's ministry, and doesn't seem to have been granted the power to forgive sins at the time.

TAM85

2:34p, 1/31/24

In my opinion and experience during the sacrament of reconciliation the penitent confesses sins that are forgiven by the absolution of the priest "in the name of the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit". The sacrament is not the priest and penitent praying for the forgiveness of sins. It is the priest absolving the penitent of her/his in the name of theFather, Son and the Holy Spirit. Reconciliation is not the same as two people praying for the forgiveness of sins.

Bob_Ag

2:46p, 1/31/24

In reply to dermdoc

dermdoc said:
Thaddeus73 said:

FYI - Joshua Charles is a recent convert...

THE VERSE THAT BEGAN MY JOURNEY TO THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
Since I was a boy, I loved the Bible. I read and discussed it all the time with my parents, friends, and mentors. My parents helped me get multiple study Bibles over the years.
But I remember clear as day being a teenager, and reading this verse for what felt like the first time. I was completely baffled:
"Jesus said to them [the Apostles] again, 'Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.' And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, 'Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained'" (John 20:21-23).
Jesus clearly gave the Apostles the authority to forgive sins. But this made no sense in my protestant, evangelical framework.
"Only God can forgive sins," I thought to myself. If the Apostles could forgive sins, that seemed to imply the Gospel I had learned was false. Why? Because when we were "saved," we believed all our sinsincluding future oneswere forgiven. Even protestants I knew who believed you could lose your salvation believed all we had to do to be forgiven was pray.
But this verse clearly said something very different. If the Apostles could forgive sins, that meant the Gospel the earliest Christians learned was quite different than the one I knew.
So I went to the study Bibles. I believe we had three at the time: the Geneva Study Bible, the Reformation Study Bible, and the ESV Study Bible.
I went straight to that verse in one of them, eager for an answer.
The commentary was blank.
Then I went to the other two, whose commentary amounted to saying "the verse doesn't mean what it plainly says." I remember being very disappointed at the absurdity of their "explanation."
At the time, I was teaching piano lessons on the side to earn some spending money. I saved up approximately $60 so I could buy another study Bible. I THINK it was the MacArthur Study Bible (1st ed.). When it arrived, I was giddy with excitement, convinced I would finally get an answer. I ripped open the box, opened the Bible to John 20, and…
Blank. The verses were completely skipped.
I was crushed.
At the time, I wasn't "anti-Catholic," but I had a general sense of "we left those quasi-pagans for good reasons, and good riddance." While I was VERY confused about this verse, I assumed some great theologian or teacher had figured it out.
As time went on, I occasionally read more commentaries on this verse. Time and again, like the first one, they never made sense. All of them basically denied the verse stated what it plainly stated, usually along the lines of what the MacArthur Study Bible (2nd ed.) in my library today states:
"This verse does not give authority to Christians to forgive sins. Jesus was saying that the believer can boldly declare the certainty of a sinner's forgiveness by the Father because of the work of his Son if that sinner has repented and believed the gospel. The believer with certainty can also tell those who do not respond to the message of God's forgiveness through faith in Christ that their sins, as a result, are not forgiven."
Clearly the verse says nothing like this. Jesus isn't speaking to all believers, but only the Apostles. Jesus didn't speak about certainty of forgiveness, etc. He said THE APOSTLES could forgive/not forgive sins. They were the agents He referred to. Jesus had other followers at the time, but didn't say this to them.
I remember how much doubt this verse gave me as a teenager. I trusted someone had figured it out. Nonetheless, I was genuinely shocked by it, and the answers I was given were completely unconvincing.
It was the first of many such experiences of reading the Bible and thinking "how on earth does this make sense in our theological framework?"
Now, after discovering the Church Fathers, this verse is no longer confusing. It is part of my life through the sacrament of confession.
Praise God!

I am not Catholic and have no problem believing that Jesus gave the apostles the ability to forgive sins. And heal people and perform miracles.

I do not see the problem here.

And to be honest, I do not understand the attempt to prove one certain denomination is correct on all matters.

Team Reformed, team Catholic, whatever. Why can't we just say Christian?

In all seriousness, how can we be Team Christian when the RCC declares other Christians anathema for not adhering to their specific doctrines? Its kind of hard to be on the same team when someone declares you cursed to hell.

Thaddeus73

3:25p, 1/31/24

The point is that some Christians believe that all of their sins, past, present, and future, are forgiven because of their belief that Jesus is God.
What Joshua found in the scriptures refutes that.

Which is why he converted.

Bob_Ag

3:54p, 1/31/24

In reply to Thaddeus73

Thaddeus73 said:
The point is that some Christians believe that all of their sins, past, present, and future, are forgiven because of their belief that Jesus is God.
What Joshua found in the scriptures refutes that.

Which is why he converted.

That's an odd way of putting atonement.

12 But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, 13 waiting from that time until his enemies should be made a footstool for his feet. 14 For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.
15 And the Holy Spirit also bears witness to us; for after saying,

16 "This is the covenant that I will make with them
after those days, declares the Lord:
I will put my laws on their hearts,
and write them on their minds,"

17 then he adds,

"I will remember their sins and their lawless deeds no more."

18 Where there is forgiveness of these, there is no longer any offering for sin.

The Holy Bible: English Standard Version (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles, 2016), Heb 10:1218.

The Apostle's were not preaching a different Gospel than is true today. We don't exegete Scripture in the way this person is trying to do. The reason why that particular verse doesn't require any great level of expounding in commentaries is due to the abundance of Scripture we have elsewhere that explain the forgiveness of sin.

BiochemAg97

4:21p, 1/31/24

In reply to TAM85

TAM85 said:
In my opinion and experience during the sacrament of reconciliation the penitent confesses sins that are forgiven by the absolution of the priest "in the name of the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit". The sacrament is not the priest and penitent praying for the forgiveness of sins. It is the priest absolving the penitent of her/his in the name of theFather, Son and the Holy Spirit. Reconciliation is not the same as two people praying for the forgiveness of sins.

Yes, but for the priest to absolve in the name of God, it presumes the priest has authority to forgive sins. This is the authority Christ gave the Apostles. Presumably that authority has been passed down to the modern priests from the Apostles.

I'm not a Catholic priest. I don't have the authority to forgive other people's sins in the name of God. I could say the same words, but it would have no more authority than me praying for someone else's sins to be forgiven. It also wouldn't be the sacrament of reconciliation.

Non-Catholics may not believe a Catholic Priests have that power, but probably doesn't matter because they won't be going to a Catholic Priest for confession.

Sorry if it was not clear in my earlier post that "2 people praying" only applies if the priest lacks the authority to forgive sins.

TAM85

4:34p, 1/31/24

Ok, I hear you. I was trying to clarify that absolution and praying for forgiveness of sins are much different. And would not use the word "proxy".

BiochemAg97

4:42p, 1/31/24

In reply to TAM85

TAM85 said:
Ok, I hear you but would delete the word "proxy".

Done. I meant that the priest has the authority to act on God's behalf (in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost). But I agree "proxy authority" is not the correct way to phrase that.

dermdoc

6:05p, 1/31/24

In reply to Bob_Ag

Bob_Ag said:
dermdoc said:
Thaddeus73 said:

FYI - Joshua Charles is a recent convert...

THE VERSE THAT BEGAN MY JOURNEY TO THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
Since I was a boy, I loved the Bible. I read and discussed it all the time with my parents, friends, and mentors. My parents helped me get multiple study Bibles over the years.
But I remember clear as day being a teenager, and reading this verse for what felt like the first time. I was completely baffled:
"Jesus said to them [the Apostles] again, 'Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.' And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, 'Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained'" (John 20:21-23).
Jesus clearly gave the Apostles the authority to forgive sins. But this made no sense in my protestant, evangelical framework.
"Only God can forgive sins," I thought to myself. If the Apostles could forgive sins, that seemed to imply the Gospel I had learned was false. Why? Because when we were "saved," we believed all our sinsincluding future oneswere forgiven. Even protestants I knew who believed you could lose your salvation believed all we had to do to be forgiven was pray.
But this verse clearly said something very different. If the Apostles could forgive sins, that meant the Gospel the earliest Christians learned was quite different than the one I knew.
So I went to the study Bibles. I believe we had three at the time: the Geneva Study Bible, the Reformation Study Bible, and the ESV Study Bible.
I went straight to that verse in one of them, eager for an answer.
The commentary was blank.
Then I went to the other two, whose commentary amounted to saying "the verse doesn't mean what it plainly says." I remember being very disappointed at the absurdity of their "explanation."
At the time, I was teaching piano lessons on the side to earn some spending money. I saved up approximately $60 so I could buy another study Bible. I THINK it was the MacArthur Study Bible (1st ed.). When it arrived, I was giddy with excitement, convinced I would finally get an answer. I ripped open the box, opened the Bible to John 20, and…
Blank. The verses were completely skipped.
I was crushed.
At the time, I wasn't "anti-Catholic," but I had a general sense of "we left those quasi-pagans for good reasons, and good riddance." While I was VERY confused about this verse, I assumed some great theologian or teacher had figured it out.
As time went on, I occasionally read more commentaries on this verse. Time and again, like the first one, they never made sense. All of them basically denied the verse stated what it plainly stated, usually along the lines of what the MacArthur Study Bible (2nd ed.) in my library today states:
"This verse does not give authority to Christians to forgive sins. Jesus was saying that the believer can boldly declare the certainty of a sinner's forgiveness by the Father because of the work of his Son if that sinner has repented and believed the gospel. The believer with certainty can also tell those who do not respond to the message of God's forgiveness through faith in Christ that their sins, as a result, are not forgiven."
Clearly the verse says nothing like this. Jesus isn't speaking to all believers, but only the Apostles. Jesus didn't speak about certainty of forgiveness, etc. He said THE APOSTLES could forgive/not forgive sins. They were the agents He referred to. Jesus had other followers at the time, but didn't say this to them.
I remember how much doubt this verse gave me as a teenager. I trusted someone had figured it out. Nonetheless, I was genuinely shocked by it, and the answers I was given were completely unconvincing.
It was the first of many such experiences of reading the Bible and thinking "how on earth does this make sense in our theological framework?"
Now, after discovering the Church Fathers, this verse is no longer confusing. It is part of my life through the sacrament of confession.
Praise God!

I am not Catholic and have no problem believing that Jesus gave the apostles the ability to forgive sins. And heal people and perform miracles.

I do not see the problem here.

And to be honest, I do not understand the attempt to prove one certain denomination is correct on all matters.

Team Reformed, team Catholic, whatever. Why can't we just say Christian?
In all seriousness, how can we be Team Christian when the RCC declares other Christians anathema for not adhering to their specific doctrines? Its kind of hard to be on the same team when someone declares you cursed to hell.

I know a ton of Catholics. Know a lot of priests. I know of no Catholics that think that. All my Catholic patients welcome my Protestant prayers.

Heck, my Jewish patients want me to pray for them.

And my Reformed friends are as bad or worse than Catholics.

Had a really good doc bud, devout Catholic, who died in an air crash. At the visitation, several Reformed docs basically said that because he was a Catholic, he might not be "saved".

If I was bigger, I would have punched them out. We are on the same team. Read again what the fruits of the spirit are.

People either know the Lord or they don't and by their fruits you know them.

No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.

Faithful Ag

10:53p, 1/31/24

In reply to Bob_Ag

Bob_Ag said:
dermdoc said:
Thaddeus73 said:

FYI - Joshua Charles is a recent convert...

THE VERSE THAT BEGAN MY JOURNEY TO THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
Since I was a boy, I loved the Bible. I read and discussed it all the time with my parents, friends, and mentors. My parents helped me get multiple study Bibles over the years.
But I remember clear as day being a teenager, and reading this verse for what felt like the first time. I was completely baffled:
"Jesus said to them [the Apostles] again, 'Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.' And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, 'Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained'" (John 20:21-23).
Jesus clearly gave the Apostles the authority to forgive sins. But this made no sense in my protestant, evangelical framework.
"Only God can forgive sins," I thought to myself. If the Apostles could forgive sins, that seemed to imply the Gospel I had learned was false. Why? Because when we were "saved," we believed all our sinsincluding future oneswere forgiven. Even protestants I knew who believed you could lose your salvation believed all we had to do to be forgiven was pray.
But this verse clearly said something very different. If the Apostles could forgive sins, that meant the Gospel the earliest Christians learned was quite different than the one I knew.
So I went to the study Bibles. I believe we had three at the time: the Geneva Study Bible, the Reformation Study Bible, and the ESV Study Bible.
I went straight to that verse in one of them, eager for an answer.
The commentary was blank.
Then I went to the other two, whose commentary amounted to saying "the verse doesn't mean what it plainly says." I remember being very disappointed at the absurdity of their "explanation."
At the time, I was teaching piano lessons on the side to earn some spending money. I saved up approximately $60 so I could buy another study Bible. I THINK it was the MacArthur Study Bible (1st ed.). When it arrived, I was giddy with excitement, convinced I would finally get an answer. I ripped open the box, opened the Bible to John 20, and…
Blank. The verses were completely skipped.
I was crushed.
At the time, I wasn't "anti-Catholic," but I had a general sense of "we left those quasi-pagans for good reasons, and good riddance." While I was VERY confused about this verse, I assumed some great theologian or teacher had figured it out.
As time went on, I occasionally read more commentaries on this verse. Time and again, like the first one, they never made sense. All of them basically denied the verse stated what it plainly stated, usually along the lines of what the MacArthur Study Bible (2nd ed.) in my library today states:
"This verse does not give authority to Christians to forgive sins. Jesus was saying that the believer can boldly declare the certainty of a sinner's forgiveness by the Father because of the work of his Son if that sinner has repented and believed the gospel. The believer with certainty can also tell those who do not respond to the message of God's forgiveness through faith in Christ that their sins, as a result, are not forgiven."
Clearly the verse says nothing like this. Jesus isn't speaking to all believers, but only the Apostles. Jesus didn't speak about certainty of forgiveness, etc. He said THE APOSTLES could forgive/not forgive sins. They were the agents He referred to. Jesus had other followers at the time, but didn't say this to them.
I remember how much doubt this verse gave me as a teenager. I trusted someone had figured it out. Nonetheless, I was genuinely shocked by it, and the answers I was given were completely unconvincing.
It was the first of many such experiences of reading the Bible and thinking "how on earth does this make sense in our theological framework?"
Now, after discovering the Church Fathers, this verse is no longer confusing. It is part of my life through the sacrament of confession.
Praise God!

I am not Catholic and have no problem believing that Jesus gave the apostles the ability to forgive sins. And heal people and perform miracles.

I do not see the problem here.

And to be honest, I do not understand the attempt to prove one certain denomination is correct on all matters.

Team Reformed, team Catholic, whatever. Why can't we just say Christian?
In all seriousness, how can we be Team Christian when the RCC declares other Christians anathema for not adhering to their specific doctrines? It's kind of hard to be on the same team when someone declares you cursed to hell.

There is a lot wrong with your post, Bob.

First, an anathema does not declare you cursed to hell. An anathema simple means you are outside the teachings of the Catholic Church and have effectively rejected what the church teaches. You are not in communion with the church. That's it.

Secondly, as a lifelong Catholic I can tell you it is very common for Protestants to declare that Catholics are not Christian. In fact, the hate and vitriol from many evangelicals towards Catholics is quite disturbing, and I have personally experienced this from grade school all the way through college and beyond.

Some of the most revered evangelicals like MacArthur, Sproul, Walter Martin, and countless more have said some of the most offensive things about Catholics and our faith. They declare that we are not Christians and are lost, and they do so in much more offensive ways including invoking Satan and the anti-Christ. It's effectively an anathema against Catholics, but with much more offensive language and personal attacks.

Bob_Ag

3:03p, 2/1/24

In reply to dermdoc

dermdoc said:
Bob_Ag said:
dermdoc said:
Thaddeus73 said:

FYI - Joshua Charles is a recent convert...

THE VERSE THAT BEGAN MY JOURNEY TO THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
Since I was a boy, I loved the Bible. I read and discussed it all the time with my parents, friends, and mentors. My parents helped me get multiple study Bibles over the years.
But I remember clear as day being a teenager, and reading this verse for what felt like the first time. I was completely baffled:
"Jesus said to them [the Apostles] again, 'Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.' And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, 'Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained'" (John 20:21-23).
Jesus clearly gave the Apostles the authority to forgive sins. But this made no sense in my protestant, evangelical framework.
"Only God can forgive sins," I thought to myself. If the Apostles could forgive sins, that seemed to imply the Gospel I had learned was false. Why? Because when we were "saved," we believed all our sinsincluding future oneswere forgiven. Even protestants I knew who believed you could lose your salvation believed all we had to do to be forgiven was pray.
But this verse clearly said something very different. If the Apostles could forgive sins, that meant the Gospel the earliest Christians learned was quite different than the one I knew.
So I went to the study Bibles. I believe we had three at the time: the Geneva Study Bible, the Reformation Study Bible, and the ESV Study Bible.
I went straight to that verse in one of them, eager for an answer.
The commentary was blank.
Then I went to the other two, whose commentary amounted to saying "the verse doesn't mean what it plainly says." I remember being very disappointed at the absurdity of their "explanation."
At the time, I was teaching piano lessons on the side to earn some spending money. I saved up approximately $60 so I could buy another study Bible. I THINK it was the MacArthur Study Bible (1st ed.). When it arrived, I was giddy with excitement, convinced I would finally get an answer. I ripped open the box, opened the Bible to John 20, and…
Blank. The verses were completely skipped.
I was crushed.
At the time, I wasn't "anti-Catholic," but I had a general sense of "we left those quasi-pagans for good reasons, and good riddance." While I was VERY confused about this verse, I assumed some great theologian or teacher had figured it out.
As time went on, I occasionally read more commentaries on this verse. Time and again, like the first one, they never made sense. All of them basically denied the verse stated what it plainly stated, usually along the lines of what the MacArthur Study Bible (2nd ed.) in my library today states:
"This verse does not give authority to Christians to forgive sins. Jesus was saying that the believer can boldly declare the certainty of a sinner's forgiveness by the Father because of the work of his Son if that sinner has repented and believed the gospel. The believer with certainty can also tell those who do not respond to the message of God's forgiveness through faith in Christ that their sins, as a result, are not forgiven."
Clearly the verse says nothing like this. Jesus isn't speaking to all believers, but only the Apostles. Jesus didn't speak about certainty of forgiveness, etc. He said THE APOSTLES could forgive/not forgive sins. They were the agents He referred to. Jesus had other followers at the time, but didn't say this to them.
I remember how much doubt this verse gave me as a teenager. I trusted someone had figured it out. Nonetheless, I was genuinely shocked by it, and the answers I was given were completely unconvincing.
It was the first of many such experiences of reading the Bible and thinking "how on earth does this make sense in our theological framework?"
Now, after discovering the Church Fathers, this verse is no longer confusing. It is part of my life through the sacrament of confession.
Praise God!

I am not Catholic and have no problem believing that Jesus gave the apostles the ability to forgive sins. And heal people and perform miracles.

I do not see the problem here.

And to be honest, I do not understand the attempt to prove one certain denomination is correct on all matters.

Team Reformed, team Catholic, whatever. Why can't we just say Christian?
In all seriousness, how can we be Team Christian when the RCC declares other Christians anathema for not adhering to their specific doctrines? Its kind of hard to be on the same team when someone declares you cursed to hell.
I know a ton of Catholics. Know a lot of priests. I know of no Catholics that think that. All my Catholic patients welcome my Protestant prayers.

Heck, my Jewish patients want me to pray for them.

And my Reformed friends are as bad or worse than Catholics.

Had a really good doc bud, devout Catholic, who died in an air crash. At the visitation, several Reformed docs basically said that because he was a Catholic, he might not be "saved".

If I was bigger, I would have punched them out. We are on the same team. Read again what the fruits of the spirit are.

People either know the Lord or they don't and by their fruits you know them.

Yes of course, and I agree with what you're saying and the disunity is certainly not something to be strived for. My point is I think the RCC creates unnecessary dividing lines and promotes disunity by doing so.

BluHorseShu

3:08p, 2/1/24

In reply to Bob_Ag

Bob_Ag said:
dermdoc said:
Thaddeus73 said:

FYI - Joshua Charles is a recent convert...

THE VERSE THAT BEGAN MY JOURNEY TO THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
Since I was a boy, I loved the Bible. I read and discussed it all the time with my parents, friends, and mentors. My parents helped me get multiple study Bibles over the years.
But I remember clear as day being a teenager, and reading this verse for what felt like the first time. I was completely baffled:
"Jesus said to them [the Apostles] again, 'Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.' And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, 'Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained'" (John 20:21-23).
Jesus clearly gave the Apostles the authority to forgive sins. But this made no sense in my protestant, evangelical framework.
"Only God can forgive sins," I thought to myself. If the Apostles could forgive sins, that seemed to imply the Gospel I had learned was false. Why? Because when we were "saved," we believed all our sinsincluding future oneswere forgiven. Even protestants I knew who believed you could lose your salvation believed all we had to do to be forgiven was pray.
But this verse clearly said something very different. If the Apostles could forgive sins, that meant the Gospel the earliest Christians learned was quite different than the one I knew.
So I went to the study Bibles. I believe we had three at the time: the Geneva Study Bible, the Reformation Study Bible, and the ESV Study Bible.
I went straight to that verse in one of them, eager for an answer.
The commentary was blank.
Then I went to the other two, whose commentary amounted to saying "the verse doesn't mean what it plainly says." I remember being very disappointed at the absurdity of their "explanation."
At the time, I was teaching piano lessons on the side to earn some spending money. I saved up approximately $60 so I could buy another study Bible. I THINK it was the MacArthur Study Bible (1st ed.). When it arrived, I was giddy with excitement, convinced I would finally get an answer. I ripped open the box, opened the Bible to John 20, and…
Blank. The verses were completely skipped.
I was crushed.
At the time, I wasn't "anti-Catholic," but I had a general sense of "we left those quasi-pagans for good reasons, and good riddance." While I was VERY confused about this verse, I assumed some great theologian or teacher had figured it out.
As time went on, I occasionally read more commentaries on this verse. Time and again, like the first one, they never made sense. All of them basically denied the verse stated what it plainly stated, usually along the lines of what the MacArthur Study Bible (2nd ed.) in my library today states:
"This verse does not give authority to Christians to forgive sins. Jesus was saying that the believer can boldly declare the certainty of a sinner's forgiveness by the Father because of the work of his Son if that sinner has repented and believed the gospel. The believer with certainty can also tell those who do not respond to the message of God's forgiveness through faith in Christ that their sins, as a result, are not forgiven."
Clearly the verse says nothing like this. Jesus isn't speaking to all believers, but only the Apostles. Jesus didn't speak about certainty of forgiveness, etc. He said THE APOSTLES could forgive/not forgive sins. They were the agents He referred to. Jesus had other followers at the time, but didn't say this to them.
I remember how much doubt this verse gave me as a teenager. I trusted someone had figured it out. Nonetheless, I was genuinely shocked by it, and the answers I was given were completely unconvincing.
It was the first of many such experiences of reading the Bible and thinking "how on earth does this make sense in our theological framework?"
Now, after discovering the Church Fathers, this verse is no longer confusing. It is part of my life through the sacrament of confession.
Praise God!

I am not Catholic and have no problem believing that Jesus gave the apostles the ability to forgive sins. And heal people and perform miracles.

I do not see the problem here.

And to be honest, I do not understand the attempt to prove one certain denomination is correct on all matters.

Team Reformed, team Catholic, whatever. Why can't we just say Christian?
In all seriousness, how can we be Team Christian when the RCC declares other Christians anathema for not adhering to their specific doctrines? Its kind of hard to be on the same team when someone declares you cursed to hell.

Thats not what the RCC teaches....at all. It teaches other Christians are still Christians who are in schism. They are not cursed but I realize that's a common trope as I was taught the same in my protestant days.

Bob_Ag

3:12p, 2/1/24

In reply to Faithful Ag

Faithful Ag said:
Bob_Ag said:
dermdoc said:
Thaddeus73 said:

FYI - Joshua Charles is a recent convert...

THE VERSE THAT BEGAN MY JOURNEY TO THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
Since I was a boy, I loved the Bible. I read and discussed it all the time with my parents, friends, and mentors. My parents helped me get multiple study Bibles over the years.
But I remember clear as day being a teenager, and reading this verse for what felt like the first time. I was completely baffled:
"Jesus said to them [the Apostles] again, 'Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.' And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, 'Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained'" (John 20:21-23).
Jesus clearly gave the Apostles the authority to forgive sins. But this made no sense in my protestant, evangelical framework.
"Only God can forgive sins," I thought to myself. If the Apostles could forgive sins, that seemed to imply the Gospel I had learned was false. Why? Because when we were "saved," we believed all our sinsincluding future oneswere forgiven. Even protestants I knew who believed you could lose your salvation believed all we had to do to be forgiven was pray.
But this verse clearly said something very different. If the Apostles could forgive sins, that meant the Gospel the earliest Christians learned was quite different than the one I knew.
So I went to the study Bibles. I believe we had three at the time: the Geneva Study Bible, the Reformation Study Bible, and the ESV Study Bible.
I went straight to that verse in one of them, eager for an answer.
The commentary was blank.
Then I went to the other two, whose commentary amounted to saying "the verse doesn't mean what it plainly says." I remember being very disappointed at the absurdity of their "explanation."
At the time, I was teaching piano lessons on the side to earn some spending money. I saved up approximately $60 so I could buy another study Bible. I THINK it was the MacArthur Study Bible (1st ed.). When it arrived, I was giddy with excitement, convinced I would finally get an answer. I ripped open the box, opened the Bible to John 20, and…
Blank. The verses were completely skipped.
I was crushed.
At the time, I wasn't "anti-Catholic," but I had a general sense of "we left those quasi-pagans for good reasons, and good riddance." While I was VERY confused about this verse, I assumed some great theologian or teacher had figured it out.
As time went on, I occasionally read more commentaries on this verse. Time and again, like the first one, they never made sense. All of them basically denied the verse stated what it plainly stated, usually along the lines of what the MacArthur Study Bible (2nd ed.) in my library today states:
"This verse does not give authority to Christians to forgive sins. Jesus was saying that the believer can boldly declare the certainty of a sinner's forgiveness by the Father because of the work of his Son if that sinner has repented and believed the gospel. The believer with certainty can also tell those who do not respond to the message of God's forgiveness through faith in Christ that their sins, as a result, are not forgiven."
Clearly the verse says nothing like this. Jesus isn't speaking to all believers, but only the Apostles. Jesus didn't speak about certainty of forgiveness, etc. He said THE APOSTLES could forgive/not forgive sins. They were the agents He referred to. Jesus had other followers at the time, but didn't say this to them.
I remember how much doubt this verse gave me as a teenager. I trusted someone had figured it out. Nonetheless, I was genuinely shocked by it, and the answers I was given were completely unconvincing.
It was the first of many such experiences of reading the Bible and thinking "how on earth does this make sense in our theological framework?"
Now, after discovering the Church Fathers, this verse is no longer confusing. It is part of my life through the sacrament of confession.
Praise God!

I am not Catholic and have no problem believing that Jesus gave the apostles the ability to forgive sins. And heal people and perform miracles.

I do not see the problem here.

And to be honest, I do not understand the attempt to prove one certain denomination is correct on all matters.

Team Reformed, team Catholic, whatever. Why can't we just say Christian?
In all seriousness, how can we be Team Christian when the RCC declares other Christians anathema for not adhering to their specific doctrines? It's kind of hard to be on the same team when someone declares you cursed to hell.
There is a lot wrong with your post, Bob.

First, an anathema does not declare you cursed to hell. An anathema simple means you are outside the teachings of the Catholic Church and have effectively rejected what the church teaches. You are not in communion with the church. That's it.

Secondly, as a lifelong Catholic I can tell you it is very common for Protestants to declare that Catholics are not Christian. In fact, the hate and vitriol from many evangelicals towards Catholics is quite disturbing, and I have personally experienced this from grade school all the way through college and beyond.

Some of the most revered evangelicals like MacArthur, Sproul, Walter Martin, and countless more have said some of the most offensive things about Catholics and our faith. They declare that we are not Christians and are lost, and they do so in much more offensive ways including invoking Satan and the anti-Christ. It's effectively an anathema against Catholics, but with much more offensive language and personal attacks.

Yes, but what is the effect of being ex-communicated from the Church? Anathema is essentially equivocal of declaring someone unrepentant and that only leads to one place...

I'm definitely not going to argue against your second point. Of course the vitriol exists on the Protestant side and we've seen it go both ways over the course of history.

My personal opinion, and that of many Protestants, is the RCC goes too far with doctrine and has unnecessarily caused disunity in the body of Christ. This is obviously a bigger can of worms, but the testimony of this individual above just leaves me shaking my head.

dermdoc

3:20p, 2/1/24

In reply to Bob_Ag

Bob_Ag said:
Faithful Ag said:
Bob_Ag said:
dermdoc said:
Thaddeus73 said:

FYI - Joshua Charles is a recent convert...

THE VERSE THAT BEGAN MY JOURNEY TO THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
Since I was a boy, I loved the Bible. I read and discussed it all the time with my parents, friends, and mentors. My parents helped me get multiple study Bibles over the years.
But I remember clear as day being a teenager, and reading this verse for what felt like the first time. I was completely baffled:
"Jesus said to them [the Apostles] again, 'Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.' And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, 'Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained'" (John 20:21-23).
Jesus clearly gave the Apostles the authority to forgive sins. But this made no sense in my protestant, evangelical framework.
"Only God can forgive sins," I thought to myself. If the Apostles could forgive sins, that seemed to imply the Gospel I had learned was false. Why? Because when we were "saved," we believed all our sinsincluding future oneswere forgiven. Even protestants I knew who believed you could lose your salvation believed all we had to do to be forgiven was pray.
But this verse clearly said something very different. If the Apostles could forgive sins, that meant the Gospel the earliest Christians learned was quite different than the one I knew.
So I went to the study Bibles. I believe we had three at the time: the Geneva Study Bible, the Reformation Study Bible, and the ESV Study Bible.
I went straight to that verse in one of them, eager for an answer.
The commentary was blank.
Then I went to the other two, whose commentary amounted to saying "the verse doesn't mean what it plainly says." I remember being very disappointed at the absurdity of their "explanation."
At the time, I was teaching piano lessons on the side to earn some spending money. I saved up approximately $60 so I could buy another study Bible. I THINK it was the MacArthur Study Bible (1st ed.). When it arrived, I was giddy with excitement, convinced I would finally get an answer. I ripped open the box, opened the Bible to John 20, and…
Blank. The verses were completely skipped.
I was crushed.
At the time, I wasn't "anti-Catholic," but I had a general sense of "we left those quasi-pagans for good reasons, and good riddance." While I was VERY confused about this verse, I assumed some great theologian or teacher had figured it out.
As time went on, I occasionally read more commentaries on this verse. Time and again, like the first one, they never made sense. All of them basically denied the verse stated what it plainly stated, usually along the lines of what the MacArthur Study Bible (2nd ed.) in my library today states:
"This verse does not give authority to Christians to forgive sins. Jesus was saying that the believer can boldly declare the certainty of a sinner's forgiveness by the Father because of the work of his Son if that sinner has repented and believed the gospel. The believer with certainty can also tell those who do not respond to the message of God's forgiveness through faith in Christ that their sins, as a result, are not forgiven."
Clearly the verse says nothing like this. Jesus isn't speaking to all believers, but only the Apostles. Jesus didn't speak about certainty of forgiveness, etc. He said THE APOSTLES could forgive/not forgive sins. They were the agents He referred to. Jesus had other followers at the time, but didn't say this to them.
I remember how much doubt this verse gave me as a teenager. I trusted someone had figured it out. Nonetheless, I was genuinely shocked by it, and the answers I was given were completely unconvincing.
It was the first of many such experiences of reading the Bible and thinking "how on earth does this make sense in our theological framework?"
Now, after discovering the Church Fathers, this verse is no longer confusing. It is part of my life through the sacrament of confession.
Praise God!

I am not Catholic and have no problem believing that Jesus gave the apostles the ability to forgive sins. And heal people and perform miracles.

I do not see the problem here.

And to be honest, I do not understand the attempt to prove one certain denomination is correct on all matters.

Team Reformed, team Catholic, whatever. Why can't we just say Christian?
In all seriousness, how can we be Team Christian when the RCC declares other Christians anathema for not adhering to their specific doctrines? It's kind of hard to be on the same team when someone declares you cursed to hell.
There is a lot wrong with your post, Bob.

First, an anathema does not declare you cursed to hell. An anathema simple means you are outside the teachings of the Catholic Church and have effectively rejected what the church teaches. You are not in communion with the church. That's it.

Secondly, as a lifelong Catholic I can tell you it is very common for Protestants to declare that Catholics are not Christian. In fact, the hate and vitriol from many evangelicals towards Catholics is quite disturbing, and I have personally experienced this from grade school all the way through college and beyond.

Some of the most revered evangelicals like MacArthur, Sproul, Walter Martin, and countless more have said some of the most offensive things about Catholics and our faith. They declare that we are not Christians and are lost, and they do so in much more offensive ways including invoking Satan and the anti-Christ. It's effectively an anathema against Catholics, but with much more offensive language and personal attacks.
Yes, but what is the effect of being ex-communicated from the Church? Anathema is essentially equivocal of declaring someone unrepentant and that only leads to one place...

I'm definitely not going to argue against your second point. Of course the vitriol exists on the Protestant side and we've seen it go both ways over the course of history.

My personal opinion, and that of many Protestants, is the RCC goes too far with doctrine and has unnecessarily caused disunity in the body of Christ. This is obviously a bigger can of worms, but the testimony of this individual above just leaves me shaking my head.

In my home town, my Baptist church did all kinds of ecumenical things with Catholics, Orthodox, mainline Protestant, even the Jewish synagogue. We were welcomed with open arms.

The more Calvinistic Reformed churches wanted nothing to do with it and refused to participate. And thought we were compromising our beliefs.

So my anecdotal experiences were the exact opposite of yours.

No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.

BluHorseShu

3:21p, 2/1/24

In reply to Bob_Ag

Bob_Ag said:
dermdoc said:
Bob_Ag said:
dermdoc said:
Thaddeus73 said:

FYI - Joshua Charles is a recent convert...

THE VERSE THAT BEGAN MY JOURNEY TO THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
Since I was a boy, I loved the Bible. I read and discussed it all the time with my parents, friends, and mentors. My parents helped me get multiple study Bibles over the years.
But I remember clear as day being a teenager, and reading this verse for what felt like the first time. I was completely baffled:
"Jesus said to them [the Apostles] again, 'Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.' And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, 'Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained'" (John 20:21-23).
Jesus clearly gave the Apostles the authority to forgive sins. But this made no sense in my protestant, evangelical framework.
"Only God can forgive sins," I thought to myself. If the Apostles could forgive sins, that seemed to imply the Gospel I had learned was false. Why? Because when we were "saved," we believed all our sinsincluding future oneswere forgiven. Even protestants I knew who believed you could lose your salvation believed all we had to do to be forgiven was pray.
But this verse clearly said something very different. If the Apostles could forgive sins, that meant the Gospel the earliest Christians learned was quite different than the one I knew.
So I went to the study Bibles. I believe we had three at the time: the Geneva Study Bible, the Reformation Study Bible, and the ESV Study Bible.
I went straight to that verse in one of them, eager for an answer.
The commentary was blank.
Then I went to the other two, whose commentary amounted to saying "the verse doesn't mean what it plainly says." I remember being very disappointed at the absurdity of their "explanation."
At the time, I was teaching piano lessons on the side to earn some spending money. I saved up approximately $60 so I could buy another study Bible. I THINK it was the MacArthur Study Bible (1st ed.). When it arrived, I was giddy with excitement, convinced I would finally get an answer. I ripped open the box, opened the Bible to John 20, and…
Blank. The verses were completely skipped.
I was crushed.
At the time, I wasn't "anti-Catholic," but I had a general sense of "we left those quasi-pagans for good reasons, and good riddance." While I was VERY confused about this verse, I assumed some great theologian or teacher had figured it out.
As time went on, I occasionally read more commentaries on this verse. Time and again, like the first one, they never made sense. All of them basically denied the verse stated what it plainly stated, usually along the lines of what the MacArthur Study Bible (2nd ed.) in my library today states:
"This verse does not give authority to Christians to forgive sins. Jesus was saying that the believer can boldly declare the certainty of a sinner's forgiveness by the Father because of the work of his Son if that sinner has repented and believed the gospel. The believer with certainty can also tell those who do not respond to the message of God's forgiveness through faith in Christ that their sins, as a result, are not forgiven."
Clearly the verse says nothing like this. Jesus isn't speaking to all believers, but only the Apostles. Jesus didn't speak about certainty of forgiveness, etc. He said THE APOSTLES could forgive/not forgive sins. They were the agents He referred to. Jesus had other followers at the time, but didn't say this to them.
I remember how much doubt this verse gave me as a teenager. I trusted someone had figured it out. Nonetheless, I was genuinely shocked by it, and the answers I was given were completely unconvincing.
It was the first of many such experiences of reading the Bible and thinking "how on earth does this make sense in our theological framework?"
Now, after discovering the Church Fathers, this verse is no longer confusing. It is part of my life through the sacrament of confession.
Praise God!

I am not Catholic and have no problem believing that Jesus gave the apostles the ability to forgive sins. And heal people and perform miracles.

I do not see the problem here.

And to be honest, I do not understand the attempt to prove one certain denomination is correct on all matters.

Team Reformed, team Catholic, whatever. Why can't we just say Christian?
In all seriousness, how can we be Team Christian when the RCC declares other Christians anathema for not adhering to their specific doctrines? Its kind of hard to be on the same team when someone declares you cursed to hell.
I know a ton of Catholics. Know a lot of priests. I know of no Catholics that think that. All my Catholic patients welcome my Protestant prayers.

Heck, my Jewish patients want me to pray for them.

And my Reformed friends are as bad or worse than Catholics.

Had a really good doc bud, devout Catholic, who died in an air crash. At the visitation, several Reformed docs basically said that because he was a Catholic, he might not be "saved".

If I was bigger, I would have punched them out. We are on the same team. Read again what the fruits of the spirit are.

People either know the Lord or they don't and by their fruits you know them.
Yes of course, and I agree with what you're saying and the disunity is certainly not something to be strived for. My point is I think the RCC creates unnecessary dividing lines and promotes disunity by doing so.

The RCC didn't create anything. Scripture teaches any perceived dividing lines that exists because of eccesiology. Before the reformation, there were no pronounced divisions, only Christs Church. The difference is, Catholics believe the Church is an unbroken succession of Christs teachings handed down through the apostles etc, the core dogmas have never changed. In Protestantism, if you grow to disagree with some of the teachings of a denomination, you can just change denominations or create your own church with your own scriptural interpretations. This is what led from their being one true Church, to their being a multitude with ever changing statements of faith.
In the end Christ didn't establish a Church to be used as a choose your own adventure. There have always been definitive statements of faith that can't be altered.
Divorce is a prime example. Scripture is clear...and yet progressivism has morphed it into something to accomodate peoples preference over God

dermdoc

3:25p, 2/1/24

I think the problem is that both sides have a tremendously uninformed flawed view of the other. Which is sad.

No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.

TAM85

3:39p, 2/1/24

Unfortunately there is a surprising amount of bigotry among Christians.

94chem

4:42p, 2/1/24

If men can forgive sins, how can Jesus be God?

94chem,
That, sir, was the greatest post in the history of TexAgs. I salute you. -- Dough

dermdoc

4:45p, 2/1/24

In reply to 94chem

94chem said:
If men can forgive sins, how can Jesus be God?

Because Jesus gave them the power to as the Scripture says?

No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.

94chem

5:09p, 2/1/24

In reply to dermdoc

dermdoc said:
94chem said:
If men can forgive sins, how can Jesus be God?
Because Jesus gave them the power to as the Scripture says?

He just delegates the one thing he came to earth to do. That's exactly what the Jehovah's Witnesses told me. I guess it was no big deal when Jesus forgave the sins of the paralytic. Tell me, then, why did the scribes get so upset?

94chem,
That, sir, was the greatest post in the history of TexAgs. I salute you. -- Dough

dermdoc

5:14p, 2/1/24

In reply to 94chem

94chem said:
dermdoc said:
94chem said:
If men can forgive sins, how can Jesus be God?
Because Jesus gave them the power to as the Scripture says?

He just delegates the one thing he came to earth to do. That's exactly what the Jehovah's Witnesses told me. I guess it was no big deal when Jesus forgave the sins of the paralytic. Tell me, then, why did the scribes get so upset?

Because they did not know Jesus was God on earth. And they thought only the Jewish God could forgive sins.

Even though Jesus was the Jewish God.incarnate in human form.

No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.

Mark Fairchild

6:53p, 2/1/24

In reply to TAM85

We believe that the priest forgives sins "in persona Christi", in the person of Christ.

Gig'em, Ole Army Class of '70

94chem

7:43p, 2/1/24

In reply to dermdoc

dermdoc said:
94chem said:
dermdoc said:
94chem said:
If men can forgive sins, how can Jesus be God?
Because Jesus gave them the power to as the Scripture says?

He just delegates the one thing he came to earth to do. That's exactly what the Jehovah's Witnesses told me. I guess it was no big deal when Jesus forgave the sins of the paralytic. Tell me, then, why did the scribes get so upset?

And they thought only the Jewish God could forgive sins.

Was not their thinking correct? Like when Jesus said, "Before Abraham was, I am." They recognized a claim to deity when they saw one.

94chem,
That, sir, was the greatest post in the history of TexAgs. I salute you. -- Dough

BluHorseShu

9:55a, 2/2/24

In reply to 94chem

94chem said:
If men can forgive sins, how can Jesus be God?

Men are only imparting the forgiveness that comes from Jesus. Jesus was a man on earth and forgave sins. And when he left, he left a succession of men who he gave the power to do in his name. Of themselves, they could do nothing...its only through Christ.

94chem

10:07a, 2/2/24

In reply to BluHorseShu

BluHorseShu said:
94chem said:
If men can forgive sins, how can Jesus be God?
Men are only imparting the forgiveness that comes from Jesus. Jesus was a man on earth and forgave sins. And when he left, he left a succession of men who he gave the power to do in his name. Of themselves, they could do nothing...its only through Christ.

Yeah, I get that part. It's what allows me to have fellowship with Catholics. But when Jesus said he had authority to forgive sins, he was claiming equality with God. The scribes recognized that. The Jehovah's Witnesses recognize that. It's why they told me that God "delegated" that authority to Christ. They know that if he possessed it intrinsically, he is God, and that makes them...wrong. No one can share that glory.

94chem,
That, sir, was the greatest post in the history of TexAgs. I salute you. -- Dough

AgLiving06

9:37a, 2/3/24

In reply to Thaddeus73

Respectfully, Joshua sounds like somebody who never read his Bible.

Matthew 6:

9 Pray then like this:
"Our Father in heaven,
hallowed be your name.
10 Your kingdom come,
your will be done,
on earth as it is in heaven.
11 Give us this day our daily bread,
12 and forgive us our debts,
as we also have forgiven our debtors.
13 And lead us not into temptation,
but deliver us from evil.
14 For if you forgive others their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you, 15 but if you do not forgive others their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.

Note this was not some special command given to the Apostles, but that which He gave to all.

For someone to walk away with the thought that all their sins are automatically forgiven or that we don't have to forgive others is foreign to Scriptures, and no Reformer, and probably no Protestant would take that position.

FTACo88-FDT24dad

2:02p, 2/3/24

In reply to TAM85

TAM85 said:
In my opinion and experience during the sacrament of reconciliation the penitent confesses sins that are forgiven by the absolution of the priest "in the name of the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit". The sacrament is not the priest and penitent praying for the forgiveness of sins. It is the priest absolving the penitent of her/his in the name of theFather, Son and the Holy Spirit. Reconciliation is not the same as two people praying for the forgiveness of sins.

The prayer of absolution-

God the Father of mercies, through the death and resurrection of his Son has reconciled the world to himself and sent the Holy Spirit among us for the forgiveness of sins; through the ministry of the Church may God give you pardon and peace, and I absolve you from your sins in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.

FTACo88-FDT24dad

2:49p, 2/3/24

In reply to 94chem

94chem said:
BluHorseShu said:
94chem said:
If men can forgive sins, how can Jesus be God?
Men are only imparting the forgiveness that comes from Jesus. Jesus was a man on earth and forgave sins. And when he left, he left a succession of men who he gave the power to do in his name. Of themselves, they could do nothing...its only through Christ.

Yeah, I get that part. It's what allows me to have fellowship with Catholics. But when Jesus said he had authority to forgive sins, he was claiming equality with God. The scribes recognized that. The Jehovah's Witnesses recognize that. It's why they told me that God "delegated" that authority to Christ. They know that if he possessed it intrinsically, he is God, and that makes them...wrong. No one can share that glory.

We're glossing over some of the most important parts of John 20. Having risen from the dead and just walked through a wall:

21 Jesus said to them again, "Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you."

Those to whom Jesus is speaking are being given a commission, sent in the same way God the Father sent God the Son.

22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit.

This one seems pretty self-explanatory but before anyone just waives it away, the risen Jesus, God the Son, is imparting God the Holy Spirit on the people he is sending, sending in the same way that God the Father sent God the Son, FOR A PURPOSE, and that purpose is:

23 If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained."

Only God can forgive sins. We all agree. But don't gloss over the other part of this. These people on whom God the Son just breathed imparting God the Holy Spirit upon them, also have been told that they can withhold forgiveness. Both of these propositions necessarily imply that someone has first come to these people asking for forgiveness and that they are empowered to forgive them or not forgive them.

Are those who have been empowered and are being sent now God? No, of course not. So what's going on? Those being sent, apostles, have been given authority to do something only God can do.

In this regard, all four Gospels make an amazing claim. They give Jesus universal divine authority. He says, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me" (Matt. 28:18). The Father "has given all things into his hand" (John 3:35). He has authority over all people (John 17:2), and his authority has been given to him by his Father in heaven (Luke 10:22). In his epistles, Paul also affirms the divine authority that Jesus claimed (1 Cor. 15:27, Eph.1:2022, Phil.2:910).

The Gospels also show how Jesus intended his ministry to continue on earth after he was gone. As the Gospels clearly show, Jesus called twelve men to lead his followers. With this in mind and so they could do so with power and authority, Jesus gave the apostles a share in his own divine authority and sends the apostles in the same way that the Father sent him. Jesus, God the Son, had the authority to cast out demons and teach the truth. In Luke 9:13, he gives his apostles the authority to do the same. Jesus says whoever listens to them listens to him (Luke 10:16).

At the end of all four Gospels, Jesus gives the apostles special authority to continue his work. In Matthew 28:18-20 and Mark 16:15, he tells them to preach the truth and baptize. In Luke 24:45-48, he commands them to understand Scripture and preach repentance for the forgiveness of sins, and in John 20:23 he gives them his authority to forgive sins. Jesus, knowing he would not always be on earth, clearly intended this ministry to continue, because in Matthew 28:20 he promises to be with the apostles until the end of time. Then, in John's gospel, he promises to send the Holy Spirit to help with the work of understanding the truth (John 16:13) and says the Holy Spirit will remain with the apostles forever (John 14:16). And of course, all of this should be understood in the context of the church that Jesus built upon the rock of Peter and the assurance he gave that the gates of hell would not prevail against it.

If all we need to do is have faith alone or say the sinner's prayer and accept Jesus into our hearts and our sins are forgiven and there's nothing else to do, why is God the Son doing all that breathing and sending and authorizing and church creating?

Thaddeus73

3:02p, 2/3/24

Quote:
For someone to walk away with the thought that all their sins are automatically forgiven

Maybe I'm wrong, but I thought that there were a whole lot of Christians who believe this, due to their imputed righteousness of Christ...

AgLiving06

6:33p, 2/3/24

In reply to Thaddeus73

Thaddeus73 said:
Quote:
For someone to walk away with the thought that all their sins are automatically forgiven
Maybe I'm wrong, but I thought that there were a whole lot of Christians who believe this, due to their imputed righteousness of Christ...

You're wrong.