Question for protestants

[Pizza Man]

I have a question for Protestants and people who don't believe in the forgiveness of sins, by Christ, through priests, by virtue of apostolic Succession.
What do you make of John 20: 21-23 "[Jesus] said to them again, "Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I sent you." And when He had said this, He breathed on them and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit. Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained""
It sounds like He is granting the power to forgive sins in His name, something Protestants do not believe in. I think there might be a kind of pseudo-confession thing, where a person would confess their sins to a minister and the minister would say something like "Be at peace, God loves you, god forgives you." A very physiological experience, for the benefit of expressing your sins out loud, and of having some accountability to this minister, something that would help the person curb their habits.

This is good, but is not really forgiving their sins. But Jesus grants an even more amazing and terrible power, the power to retain a persons sins. I don't think any protestant claims anything like that power. Indeed priests rarely use it, only when they think the person is not sorry at all, or has no intention whatsoever to stop their sinful behavior.

There is another aspect to the Catholic doctrine on the forgiveness of sin. A person may make an act of perfect contrition, a prayer that expresses true sorrow for sin because it offends God, along with the firm resolve to not sin again. If made truly, with a sincere heart, an act of perfect contrition can forgive all your sins. But because of the subjective nature of this mode of forgiveness, the Church requires that all mortal sins forgiven(or not forgiven) in this matter be confessed to a priest before reception of the other sacraments. Thus an act of perfect contrition is useful for the forgiveness of sins at any time that a priest is not available, but is not a substitute for confession.

But back to my question, what do you think about John 20: 21-23?

[WolfVanZandt]

Why do you think that power only applies to priests - or I should say - why do you think it only applies to ordained Catholic priests or has anything to do at all with Apostolic Succession?

The passage itself says that the power comes from receiving the Holy Spirit - not by being in an Apostoic line. And Paul calls all believers "priests".

Seems to me, the verse applies to all Christians. It's ignored too much by Protestants, I'll admit, but that's been changing the last few years.

One of the problems I've had with the Catholic church has been that, traditionally (at least until the Second Vatican Council where the Secretary General of the Ecumenical Council at St. Peter's read,
"Let pastors recognize and promote the dignity as well as the responsibilities of the laity in the church."), the priestly functions and responsibilites have been denied the laity. Even yoday, I find that most of the Catholics I know think that evangelism is the responsibility of the "priestly class" - not themselves.

So, no, that passgae has nothing to do with Apostolic Succession.

[Kolbitar]

[Pizza Man]

[WolfVanZandt]

[Kolbitar]

[WolfVanZandt]

Kolbitar, for your point to be actually a point, you'd have to show that these laity have retained sins when they shouldn't have (appeal of which could easily be made to other Christians), how the "professed Christians" as you specifically termed it, who made up the clergy were ordained by the church to start with so that they were given those powers through Apostolic Succession, and if this is a power that can actually be abused, period. The Bible said God gave the power through the installaion of the Holy Spirit without qualification - if God made a mistake, you take it up with Him. I'm gonna let Him do whatever He wants.

[Kolbitar]

::Kolbitar, for your point to be actually a point, you'd have to show that these laity have retained sins when they shouldn't have (appeal of which could easily be made to other Christians), how the "professed Christians" as you specifically termed it, who made up the clergy were ordained by the church to start with so that they were given those powers through Apostolic Succession, and if this is a power that can actually be abused, period. The Bible said God gave the power through the installaion of the Holy Spirit without qualification - if God made a mistake, you take it up with Him. I'm gonna let Him do whatever He wants.

Let me say, Wolf, I've never, anywhere, experienced, read or heard of such a position attributed to Protestants, nor would I have ever imagined it -- it seems like a stretch, and, given it's novelty, a huuuugely unlikely one.

Protestants, instead, see no necessity to go to another person in order to have their sins forgiven. They have what are called accountability groups, but that is merely helpful, not based off the idea that I must go through another person. Now, if any old professing Christian can forgive my sins, and any old professing Christian can retain my sins, then there's not really any point in granting such a power. Why? Becuase if person A can retain my sins, and he really doesn't like me so he decides to withhold my passport to Heaven by so doing, then what? Do I just go to another person? If so, then if someone who really should have their sins retained, because they're not really penetant, likewise goes on down the line till he finds his professing Christian buddy who lives in sin, gets drunk and watches porn habitually, then the "power" becomes a joke (is he really going to reatin them when they should be retained?). Priests, on the other hand, are trained, have rules to follow (which are necessary given this power, but not specifically found in the Bible), and are in a position which makes the experience holy, set apart, and an object of communal unity -- therefore to be taken seriosuly.

Ahh, I can't even really believe I'm arguing this... I don't say that out of frustration; I do say it with a chuckle of unbelief...

Jesse

[WolfVanZandt]

Which show the depths of your ignorance of the Protestant chuch. I didn't say that I thought there was a trend toward noticing this doctrine - I said that I saw the trend. And there has been an emphasis toward confession (some call it accountability) for some time now. Obviously, when you left the protestant church, you never looked back. You might be surprised at what's going on here.

[WolfVanZandt]

[Pizza Man]

[Pizza Man]

[WolfVanZandt]

Aw, fer cryin' out loud, Pizza Man, stay with the thread. We weren't talking about baptism and you know it.

Just because the Bible says that they weren't trained doesn't necessarily mean that they weren't trained but there's absolutely no reaso to believe that they wee trained and, more important, no injunction any where to train.

And you can shift punmctuation marks around all over and come up with all kinds of meanings but the most direct interpretation is that the power to forgive and bind sins came with the Holy Spirit, and there's no Biblical reason to believe otherwise.

As for training pastors, some of the greatest pastors I have known nver went to seminary and some who did were, in my opinion, ruined. No, I don't think it's necessary to train pastors - or,at least, the Hol Spirit is quite able to take care of it.

Do Catholics believe in the Holy Spirit at all? Or do they think He's a nebulous around-here-somewhere-but-not-really-doing-anything kind of floaty thing?

[CoinOperatedChristian]

Well, not only is there an agenda behind the original question, which I find polemical and divisive, but also there is a clear misunderstanding of the doctrines of (the majority) Protestantism. Amen, so be it, but I suspect your real issue is the “apostolic succession” thing and not that there can (and is) the forgiveness of sins through Jesus Christ, or the clergy, or the lay Christian “priests” as Wolf has already noted.
I for one do not see the issue of “apostolic succession” as a hill that I would want to die on.
It is not a particularly apropos to my daily walk in faith. What would prove more helpful, more interesting, is to explore why Pizza Man seems to think it is. I think he raises the clergy too high.
But then WolfVanZandt, who seems to rather despise seminary training… Appears to have too low a vision of their role. And the importance of being informed about the doctrines, history and practice of the Historic Christian Faith. It’s a view of the clergy that sort of underplays and sells short St. Paul’s admonition to those who desire to hold the office, the noble task, of Elders or Deacons.
I’m thinking that between these two positions the truth is likely to be found.

Sunny

[WolfVanZandt]

Oops, sorry.

I don't despise semnary training, although I don't think it's necessary.

There are good instructors and bad instructors in seminaries. There are also good seminaries and seminaries that I wonder what religion they're training preachers for.

I've known preachers with a solid love and respect for God and the scriptures go into seminary and come out with a solid love and respect for their job position.

Of course I've known some wonderful seminary trained pastors so I don't mean to imply that seminaries are necessarily bad.