Homestar Runner Wiki Forum

OK, I understand. But wouldn't the bread & wine taste like flesh & blood?

_________________

Why should that make a difference? Isn't faith about trusting in God even when everything points to the contrary, or as Hebrews says, "the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things unseen." We believe that the Holy Spirit lives in us, despite the lack of physical proof, then why must we require physical evidence in order to trust that God is indeed giving his Body and Blood to us, despite the fact our senses cannot detect them?

_________________

OK, thanks for that.

Next topic: Indulgences. If I confess my sin(s) to God in a prayer, & Jesus forgives me, then that sin no longer exists. Therefore, I can't be punished. Besides, do I need good works to know that I'm forgiven?

What's with Catholicism & good works, anyway? Christianity is about salvation by grace, isn't it?

_________________

I'll put this - why should an individual's personal salvation be more important than performing good deeds? To be concerned primarily with one's own salvation is a selfish concern, however that salvation may come about - and to perform good deeds is of benefit for everyone and makes the world a better place to live.

I'll agree that you shouldn't perform good works if you are using them as a passport to salvation or omission of sin. I was taught that good works in the Catholic sense need to be a genuine expression of repentance and Christian love, not a way of getting into heaven through the back door.

Sure, good works are great to do, WHF, but I'm fairly sure Catholics believe that good works are how to get to heaven. If we all had to do good works to get to heaven, there's no way that we'd ever be good enough to get there. The Bible says that Christ can tolerate no sin, and no amount of good works can hids the fact that we have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. So, sure, everyone should do good works, but it should come from obedience to God's commands, and not as the way to get to heaven. The reason Christ died was to provide a way for us to get to heaven, by being able to go right to him with our sins, and not to a priest.

That's what I meant. Based on what I was taught personally, good works are supposed to be an expression of your faith. They don't replace faith, and belief in good works doesn't omit belief in grace. That's my point about good works needing to be genuine - if you do a good work in order to get into heaven, it's not genuine. I was taught good works are supposed to represent your love for God - but you shouldn't expect any favours.

And it would be foolish for any Catholic to think that they can wipe their slate clean by confession - every Christian I've ever spoken to believes that God is the final judge, and that the intervention of man means nothing.

Though I don't know what the official Vatican line is, so I won't venture down that road.

I think that Catholics would probably say this is how they view the role of works in their salvation. Works will not save you, only the grace of God through the Atonement of Christ, but the Lord expects us to try to be as good as possible.

_________________

That's exactly how it is.



Nope. Being a Catholic, I've always been taught that just having faith is enough, but we are encouraged by God to do good.



Remember what I wrote earlier. The priest isn't the one doing the forgiving. God is. You're confessing your sins to God with the "moral support" so to speak, of a priest. Here's a Bible quote that might be appropriate.

_________________
beep beep I'm a Jeep

I would add to that that a pastor or a priest is in fact an authorized agent to speak on God's behalf. Why? Because, in a very real sense, we represent the Body of Christ (the Church itself). The authority to forgive sins is actually given to all Christians, but as those called specifically to care for God's flock, it is typically the pastor or priest who does the forgiving. But I think I've made this point before.

In a nutshell, a priest or pastor cannot forgive sins of his own power, but only through the authority granted to him by Christ through the Church.

_________________

That all makes sense, Didy. Thanks. Now I do have one more question: Why should I stay a Protestant if Catholicism pretty much sounds the same, but certain things are just "executed" differently?

_________________

The whole point is, it doesn't matter if you are Protestant or Catholic. Myself, I prefer the solemnity of Catholic mass to the exuberance of certain Protestant sects. I like the rich, albeit checkered, history of the Catholic church. I like the art and music, and I feel it suits me better.

If you like the more exuberant aspect of Protestantism, more power to you, because in the end, we're both just Christians.

_________________
beep beep I'm a Jeep

That is a good question. One that you will have to answer yourself.

Personally, even though I think I have a better grasp of the concept than most Protestants, I still disagree with veneration and invocation of the saints. Saints are not omnipresent, and therefore I do not believe it is possible for them to hear all the invocations made to them. Plus, it does come a bit too close to idolatry for my tastes, treating them as mediators between God and man when there is only one Mediator.

Personally, and I've said this before, I believe we Lutherans have the best of both worlds, Catholicism and Protestantism. It's because we didn't trash everything without thinking it through first. We kept what was beneficial and acceptible by Scripture; we only got rid of those things which were not so beneficial or were contradicted by Scripture.

_________________

I agree with your point on saints, Didy. Next time I need wisdom in school, I'll ask the Lord, not Tomas de Aquino.

_________________

Don't be dissin' Thomas Aquinas. That was my nickname in college.

_________________

I'm not dissing him! I'm just pointing out that I need not rely on anyone else for guidance before the Lord Jesus Christ.

That being said, I do acknowledge the saints for leading such glorious examples of Christlike living; I have a Saltire flag hanging in my room.

_________________

That was a j-o-k-e, Ian.

_________________

I got a St. Christopher medal in my car, haven't had any car trouble since I got it.

_________________

Je sais, Didy. I just wanted to further extend my point.

Toast paint!

_________________

But, Dids, humans can't forgive sins. We don't have the authority. Only God does, as he is perfect. I kinda think that bringing your sins before a priest undermines the fact that Christ died on the cross so that we wouldn't have to do that anymore, and we can now go right to him.

Actually, yes we do have the authority to forgive sins.

"Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us."

"I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" (Matthew 16:19).

And here is the important one (because it is within the context of a discourse on confronting and forgiving sin: Matthew 18:15-20.

The Scriptures teach that we, the Church, are the Body of Christ. We are agents of His forgiveness here. It may have been popular belief among the rabbis of Jesus' day that people cannot forgive sins, but didn't Jesus prove them wrong by both forgiving and then healing a paralytic? Granted, Jesus, being God, had that right, which they did not recognize, but he has called us as his people to his ministry of reconciliation. Therefore, as his agents on earth, we are authorized, in fact commanded, to bring reconciliation and forgiveness into people's lives. So, yes, we Christians are to forgive sins, on account that he has given us his athority to do so.

_________________

I always thought that that means that we forgive people as in, "I forgive you." We're not clearing them of sin, just acknowledging there's no hard feelings or anything. The sin is still there in the sinner's heart.Only God can get rid of sin.



Jesus was speaking to Peter and the apostles here, correct? I take this to mean that they have authority over things, not sins.

And I also want to mention John 20:23 in regards to authority over sin: "If you forgive the sins of any, their sins have been forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they have been retained." Only God can forgive sins, and the disciples here are not given authority to forgive sins, but given authority to declare what God does when a person rejects or recieves Christ.



This is talking about rebuking and confronting sin, yes, but I'm not seeing how it deals with humans forgiving it.



I agree with you that we can forgive people's sins against us, but that does not erase their sin against God. "Whatever you do to any of these, you do unto Me as well," remember? Only God can truly erase sin. And for that, we need to go to him personally.

Actually, that John 20:23 passage supports my position and seems to contradict yours. Thank you for bringing it up, though. I can't believe I left it out. But you're going to have to do some major big-time explaining to show my why it's NOT Jesus giving them authority to forgive sins, because that certainly seems to be what he's doing there.

Douglas, I can understand your concern. It seems fair that only God can forgive sins. However, what you seem to be missing is that God can, and in fact does, use people to carry out what he does on earth. When someone is baptized in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, it may be a human agent doing it, but it is in fact God who is accomplishing it. The same is true when the Word of God is proclaimed. It may be a human agent who speaks, but it is God who uses it to reveal truth to those who hear. And, yes, when sins are absolved, as shown in John 20:23, it may be a human agent speaking the words, but it is God himself who works forgiveness in those who receive them.

_________________

Woah. You're right. I still think, though, that this is referring to a sort of accountability thing, where we can lay our sins out in the open for other people, and they can give encouragement, and bring them before God in prayer. In that way, yes, humans can help in the bringing of sins before God.



I agree with everything you're saying here. God works through people to bring about his will, and when someone preaches the Word, it's not the preacher who is changing the hearts of the people, but God working through the preacher.



I just want to add something here. As long as the human agent is not saying something like "I have forgiven your sins, they have been washed away" or something like that, it's alright. But the human agent should encourage the sinner to take it up with God as well, as this is what needs to be done to be truly and completely forgiven. You need to talk to God and apologize for your sin personally.

And I would agree with that. My point is that, by speaking the words of forgiveness, we can actually help to bring about that reconciliation.


I would say, instead, that as long as the person identifies that they do it only as an agent of God, then it is okay to say, "I forgive you." For example, on Sunday morning, during the Confession part of our service, I say, "As a called servant of God's Word, I forgive you all your sins in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit." I am in fact forgiving them, but I also identify that I do so as God's agent, not under my own right or power. Nevertheless, I do believe that real forgiveness takes place in the event.

Now if someon is still harboring unbelief or hidden sin, then they are continuing in their sin and are defiling themselves with it, in which case no amount of my absolving them will remove the sin. I will concede that. The forgiveness offered as well as the forgiveness received is not arbitrary.


That's where the "Where two or three are gathered in my name" comes to bear. If a person comes to me, whether individually or in the context of public worship, then they are indeed bringing it to God, because God himself is present in the event. It would be the same if a Christian friend came to you and confessed sins to you. Hopefully you can recognize that, as you are coming together for the sake of his spiritual welfare, that God is in fact there with you. I don't think a Christian friend would be coming to you confessing sins unless God was already at work in him, anyway.

I know that passage is most often associated with prayer, but I am not convinced that it's application is limited to vocalized prayer as most people understand it. And considering that the overall discourse of Matthew 18:10-35 is that of sin and forgiveness, I would contend that it's primary meaning should be understood in relation to forgiveness.

I know this might be hard for some people to understand. But I've actually seen God at work in this process before. I have actually been in a group of fellow Christians and confessed some deep, painful, and shameful sins in my life, and have known the joy of receiving forgiveness of them, not only from God himself, but from those people in that room. It is indeed a very powerful thing when a brother or sister in Christ says to you, "No matter how bad it is what you have done, I forgive you in Christ."

And to me, this isn't a mere matter of intellectual debate: it strikes the very heart of who I am as a Christian, as a minister, and as a pastoral caregiver. It strikes at the very core of who we are as God's Church and as fellow Christians. It's all a part of how we are to care for one another within the Body of Christ. And for that reason, I don't want to see us miss out on it.

_________________

Agree'd with everything, Didymus. It's a great thing when you confess sins to a group, and it can really help you with your relationship with Jesus Christ. There's just one thing I disagree with:



This is all good stuff, but, I believe that it would be beneficial to the individual to go to God with their sins as well as this group forgiveness. This form of group forgiveness seems a bit like an easy out for some of the people in there. Now, granted, this may actually be a great experience for some individuals between them and God, but some may just take it as an easy way to get forgiveness, and leave the service feeling great about themselves, even though no personal contact with God has been made.

Anyway, just my two copper coins.

And it might be. I recognize that. However, for me, the concern is whether or not we can trust God to be present, and for that, we have his promise. Now, if there's an individual out there who does not recognize his need for forgiveness, that I cannot judge. That's why we have that whole thing about confrontation in Matthew 18. If a person has unrepentant sin in their life, we are to confront them, and if they refuse to listen, then we refuse to offer them God's forgiveness (that is what is meant by "retaining sins" in the John passage--we turn them away, praying that they will be brought back by God's grace to repentance).

But for me the primary issue is this: is God present in this event or not? If he is, as he promised, then we have no reason to doubt that true forgiveness takes place (or, for that matter, true retention in the case of the unrepentant who refused to listen to his fellow Christians). It is my hope, as always, that this helps to open up a larger understanding of how God's grace is at work in his people.

_________________

For many sins, particularly small ones, confession to God is enough. For larger or more addictive sins, confession to a representative of God's church is necessary, in addition to confession to God, and not in place of confession to God.

Confession shows that we are humble and willing to repent of our sins. The representative of God's church should not summarily forgive every sin confessed, but should seek the will of the Lord in determining whether the Lord has forgiven the sin, and also to give encouragment, support, and love, and to guide the sinner on the path leading to repentance and forgiveness.

I agree, Dids. The main thing is whether or not God is present in the event, and that people or making contact with him.

I just wanna say, Dids: I have a lot of respect for you. Thanks for helping me understand where you're coming from. It's a lot clearer to me now.

EDIT: Racer_x: Agreed.

That makes perfect sense to me, Racer X.

I will say this: absolution is not available ONLY through the Church. That was one of the problems of late medieval piety, the belief that only a priest had the power to absolve. This was one of the many complications that led to the Reformation.

So when should one confess sins to another person or publicly? I would suggest the following:

1. When your sin effects that person directly (for example, if you said something nasty to them or took something that belonged to them).

2. When your sin becomes public, and you are confronted with it by others. It is necessary, then, for the sake of Christian community that you show yourself repentant to those who confront you.

3. When your struggle with a particular sin is too great for you to bear alone, and you need help from others to overcome it, as in the case of addictions.

I hope this is helpful.

_________________

Question: Are Christians who aren't Catholics allowed to sit in a confessional for confession? I've really been struggling with telling someone in person about this problem I've had, even my parents! So, I posted a blog about it here, & someone suggested I go to a confessional box.

_________________