Can a Catholic Priest forgive sins???

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), October 26, 2003

Answers

No.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), October 26, 2003.

Catholicism teaches that sins must be confessed to a priest to be forgiven.

"Who has the power to forgive sin today? All bishops and priests of the Catholic Church can forgive sin ? What do you have to do to have your sins forgiven? You have to be truly sorry for them and confess them to a Catholic priest ? Does the priest merely pray that your sins will be forgiven? No, acting as God's instrument and ordained minister, he truly forgives the sins" - Catechism, pp. 78.

But the Bible teaches:

1. ONLY God can forgive sins (Mark 2:7-12).

2. "The words 'priest,' 'priesthood' ? are never applied in the New Testament to the office of the Christian ministry. All Christians are priests (1 Pet. 2:5,9).

3. All Christians can pray to God through Christ for forgiveness of their own sins (Acts 8:22; Matt. 6:12).

4. Any Christian can pray for the forgiveness of another Christian; but they only pray - they CANNOT actually forgive the sin. And all righteous men (not some special priestly class) do this for one another (James 5:16).

5. The ONLY mediator between us and God is Jesus (I Tim. 2:5).

We must conclude that, despite its claims, the Catholic church is NOT the true, original church since it does NOT FOLLOW the teaching and practice of the original church as revealed in the New Testament.

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), October 26, 2003.

The method that you have provided is an interpretation that demands the sinner to identify the sin. Many times the sinner may not realize that a sin has been committed or is in denial of the sin. How can the sinner be absolutely certain that his sins are confessed for forgiveness by God through Jesus Christ? Some Protestants and Catholics believe that birth control can be restricted to only a few methods or any method, yet some perceive no sin being commmitted. This problem of interpretations exists among many believers. Who's interpretation would be correct? Which interpretation is easier to live with? Which interpretation is without a sinful consequence? Who would admit to such a practice and still consider the practice to be without sin?

rod..<

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), October 26, 2003.

The priest, as I perceive, does not forgive the sins, but he brings the sinner to the point of confession and redemption in Christ. By understanding Confession as a Sacrament, this brings a commandment to the sinner to confess his sins. If he is faithful, he can't go putting off confession. If he is weak, the more this Sacrament is vital for his Salvation. While in the confessional, the sinner cannot deny his chance to confess. The priest has a way of asking questions that can enlighten the sinner in his sins. The average friend may not be able to pull those confessions out for various reasons, mostly because of shame or harm to others. In a secret confinement in both vow of secrecy and anonimity from others, the sinner can reveal his soul to himself and to God as the priest being the catalyst. In this way, my perception, the priest provides the conditions for absolution from God through Jesus Christ our Saviour.

rod.

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), October 26, 2003.

Here you go again rod, arguing FOR the Catholic Church.

Yes, the Catholic Church DOES BELIEVE that a Catholic Priest CAN FORGIVE SIN. To claim that is not the case is NOT what the Catholic authorities have been stating now is it rod??? Catholics CLAIM that a Priest can ABSOLVE someone from sin and that is NOT what the Word of God teaches.

There is NOTHING WRONG with using birth control. The Catholic Church does ERR in this doctrine.

One CAN know what sin is because the Word of God EXPLAINS what sin is now doesn't it rod???

You wrote, "Many times the sinner may not realize that a sin has been committed or is in denial of the sin."

Obviously if this is the case then they have not been reading God's Word now have they?

You wrote, "How can the sinner be absolutely certain that his sins are confessed for forgiveness by God through Jesus Christ?"

Because that is EXACTLY what the Bible teaches!!! Go back and re-read 1 John 1:9.

You wrote, "Some Protestants and Catholics believe that birth control can be restricted to only a few methods or any method, yet some perceive no sin being commmitted."

The Word of God is SILENT on the issue of birth control. There is NO sin involved in not wanting someone to have a baby now is there?

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), October 26, 2003.

Then who is saying that it is permissible to evacuate sperm for an intentional disposal? You, your church, the Catholic Church, or God?

rod..

..

..It just so happens that when I search for truth it becomes associated with defending the Church. I'll defend the truth when I see it.

..

..

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), October 26, 2003.

SACRED TRUTH :

THE MAGISTERIUM OF THE 2000 YEAR OLD MOST HOLY CATHOLIC CHURCH SAYS :

THE KEYS OF THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN

Jesus entrusted a specific authority to Peter: "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." The "power of the keys" designates authority to govern the house of God, which is the Church. Jesus, the Good Shepherd, confirmed this mandate after his Resurrection: "Feed my sheep." The power to "bind and loose" connotes the authority to absolve sins, to pronounce doctrinal judgments, and to make disciplinary decisions in the Church. Jesus entrusted this authority to the Church through the ministry of the apostles and in particular through the ministry of Peter, the only one to whom he specifically entrusted the keys of the kingdom.

ONLY GOD FORGIVES SIN

Only God forgives sins. Since he is the Son of God, Jesus says of himself, "The Son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins" and exercises this divine power: "Your sins are forgiven." Further, by virtue of his divine authority he gives this power to men to exercise in his name.

Christ has willed that in her prayer and life and action his whole Church should be the sign and instrument of the forgiveness and reconciliation that he acquired for us at the price of his blood. But he entrusted the exercise of the power of absolution to the apostolic ministry which he charged with the "ministry of reconciliation." The apostle is sent out "on behalf of Christ" with "God making his appeal" through him and pleading: "Be reconciled to God."

RECONCILIATION WITH THE CHURCH

During his public life Jesus not only forgave sins, but also made plain the effect of this forgiveness: he reintegrated forgiven sinners into the community of the People of God from which sin had alienated or even excluded them. A remarkable sign of this is the fact that Jesus receives sinners at his table, a gesture that expresses in an astonishing way both God's forgiveness and the return to the bosom of the People of God.

In imparting to his apostles his own power to forgive sins the Lord also gives them the authority to reconcile sinners with the Church. This ecclesial dimension of their task is expressed most notably in Christ's solemn words to Simon Peter: "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." "The office of binding and loosing which was given to Peter was also assigned to the college of the apostles united to its head."

The words bind and loose mean: whomever you exclude from your communion, will be excluded from communion with God; whomever you receive anew into your communion, God will welcome back into his. Reconciliation with the Church is inseparable from reconciliation with God.

THE MINISTER OF THE SACRAMENT OF PENANCE AND RECONCILIATION

Since Christ entrusted to his apostles the ministry of reconciliation, bishops who are their successors, and priests, the bishops' collaborators, continue to exercise this ministry. Indeed bishops and priests, by virtue of the sacrament of Holy Orders, have the power to forgive all sins "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit."

-- james (elgreco1541@hotmail.com), October 27, 2003.

rod,

Nothing was said about what you wrote in your latest reply to my post.

Why do you see the need to change the subject once again instead of answering what has been written?

There is NO TRUTH in the Catholic Church so you are wasting your time trying to defend it.

This CORRUPT organization has NEVER had the TRUTH of God's Word, NOR will it ever abide in God for they have long departed from the doctrine of Christ. (2 John 9).

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), October 27, 2003.

Birth control has alot to do with what I mentioned earlier. I'm not trying to defend the Church. If I am, it is by coincidence. I'm trying to understand the Church. The more I understand, the more it will seem as if I will not be able to return, unless I take drastic measures in my life. I wonder if you understand my motives, Kevin?

rod..

..

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), October 27, 2003.

Kevin, I have met many different people, as I'm sure you have too. There are some people who are extremely intelligent that they have become atheist. I have met people who are extremely dense that they have no idea what the Scriptures mean. Both can sit and attempt to read the Scriptures and interpret what they have read with drastically wrong answers. One with continue to be an atheist and the other a supersticious wreck. It will take someone with an inspired wisdom to lead such people as I've mentioned. The toughest to lead are the atheists. The ignorant have a far better chance than the arrogant. So, not all men can get the Gospel. We can lead some men to water, but they'll dare not get wet; we have to push them in. Then, maybe, they'll believe.

rod..<

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), October 27, 2003.

ROD, REGARDING BIRTH CONTROL ...

THE ROCK ~ THE 2000 YEAR OLD MOST HOLY CATHOLIC CHURCH SAYS :

PLANNING A FAMILY THE NATURAL WAY

Catholicism doesn't teach that married couples must have as many children as biologically possible. It does, however allow for NATURAL FAMILY PLANNING (NFP), which is not the old, archaic, and unreliable rhythm method. So responsible parents can morally decide how large or small a family they can reasonably afford, raise, and maintain, as long as moral means are employed to do so.

Contraceptive sex, the Church says, divides the bond of love and life, unity and procreation ~ isolating the dimension of human sexuality that unites two people from the possible procreative level. Likewise, any form of human and surrogate mothers, sperm banks, in vitro fertilization, and human cloning, and all methods of artificial conception are equally sinful because they isolate and separate the God-intended bond of the unitive and procreative. Sex outside of marriage and conception outside of sex are considered violations of the unity within human sexuality.

THE NATURAL ALTERNATIVE TO CONTRACEPTION

Because no two women are exactly alike, no two menstrual cycles are exactly alike, either. But science does show that women are infertile more times during the month than they are fertile. Each woman has a cycle unique to each woman in which she goes from producing eggs to being infertile and vice versa. By using natural science ~ taking body temperature, checking body fluids, and using some computations ~ a woman can determine with 95 PERCENT ACCURACY when to have sex and not get pregnant.

Unlike artificial methods, NFP doesn't require foreign objects to be inserted into the woman's body. This method is completely natural, organic, and 100 PERCENT SAFE, with no chemical side effects, no recalls, and no toxic complications. And it's a Team Effort. When using the pill or the condom, one person takes responsibility for spacing the births and regulating conception. But Both the Husband And the Wife practice NFP. This makes sense in the eyes of the Church, because Both get married on the wedding day, and Both are involved if a baby comes along.

When practiced properly NFP is as effective as any artificial birth control method. And it's not difficult to learn. Mother Teresa taught illiterate Indian women from the gutters how to effectively use NFP. In addition, no prescription and no expensive devices are involved, so it's easy on the budget. Birth control pills, on the other hand, are commodities bought and sold for profit. Pharmaceutical companies have a vested interest as well. ~ Father Trigilio

-- james (elgreco1541@hotmail.com), October 28, 2003.

rod,

The apostle Paul wrote in Eph. 4:4?6, "There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all."

This passage has been aptly labeled God's platform for unity. Seven planks of unity are listed here and they are: one body, one Spirit, one hope, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, and one God. I now ask you to focus on the term one faith. The faith mentioned by Paul is not the personal belief that one has. Instead, it is the one body of faith that God has revealed in the scriptures. I am convinced that this one faith is the same that Jude wrote about in Jude 3 where he said, "Beloved, while I was very diligent to write to you concerning our common salvation, I found it necessary to write to you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints." There is one faith that has been delivered once and for all, and this one faith is the gospel of Christ.

Romans 1:16?17 says, "For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Greek. For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, the just shall live by faith." This means that the one body of faith (the gospel of Christ) is the means used by God to produce faith in the hearts of men and women.

Today's society prides itself on being open-minded to the point that there is no such thing as a single body of truth. According to some, there is no absolute standard of truth. This position that there is no definitive truth has given rise to accepting anything taught regardless of whether it is based in fact. That is, truth becomes relative and subject to the personal likes and dislikes of everyone. This is disturbing indeed, but it especially troubling whenever it filters into the area of religion. However, this concept has been alive in Protestant and Catholic churches for years.

But I did not realize how far we had gone in this country in eliminating the concept of truth until I read an article written by John Leo, who writes for the Universal Press Syndicate. Leo?s article, entitled "A Disappearing Consensus about Truth," discussed Jay Leno's new book Leading with My Chin. It seems that Leno tells about an incident that happened to him on the old Dinah Shore Show. The problem, however, was that it really did not happen to Leno. Instead, it happened to another comedian named Jeff Altman. Leno confessed that he paid Altman $1000 for the right to say that it happened to him. Does Leno lie when he says that the incident happened to him when it really happened to another man? Not according to some! To many of his fans this is no big deal. "So, he stretched the truth a little, what does it hurt?" This is where we are going when we develop such a contemptuous view of truth. We can't hope to influence America's casual disregard for truth, however, until religious leaders and teachers begin to respect truth. Not only does truth not matter much to Leno ? but it doesn't matter very much to many religious, churchgoing men and women.

Truth not only meant something to Christ, but He was the embodiment of truth. He said in Jn. 14:6, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me." Furthermore, all that Jesus spoke or commissioned to be taught was truth. He said in Jn. 8:45, "I tell the truth." In Verse 46, Jesus asks a very cutting question: "And if I tell the truth, why do you not believe Me?" The reason people don't believe the truth might be because they have been conditioned to dismiss truth as comparative. That is, people are being taught that there is no such thing as absolute truth because truth depends upon who is relating what!

For example, two schools in Milwaukee, Wisconsin are teaching children that black Egyptians once had wings and flew freely around the pyramids until the Europeans arrived, killing off all the natural fliers. Where is the outrage? Where is the demand for facts and truth?

The word truth is a noun, and it is defined as "that which is true or according to the facts of the case." Truth does not depend upon whether it provides us with self-esteem. Truth is the stating of facts. Then there was the case of correspondent Pierre Salinger's claim that the United States Navy shot down TWA Flight 800. His position was that the Navy shot down the plane even though he had no evidence to prove his contention. And you know what? Forty-one percent of Americans polled said they believed the government was conducting a cover-up about Flight 800. How can we be so ready to believe anything that is reported without any evidence? Because we have strayed far away from the belief that truth (based on provable facts) is important. Joel Achenbach, writing about all this in The Washington Post, said: "The danger is that we are reaching a moment where nothing can be said to be objectively true, when a consensus about reality disappears." My only comment to Mr. Achenbach would be: "Sir, we have already reached this point because years ago our religious teachers and leaders abandoned truth in favor of relativism."

For example, how can we expect schoolteachers teaching history to get the facts straight if preachers, pastors, rabbis, and priests have been saying for years that truth is relative, that it does not matter what you believe as long as you are sincere? This is what preachers have been telling people for years. That is, it doesn't matter what is taught and it doesn't matter what doctrine is being followed. You must just be honest with your own set of principles. Therefore, it shouldn't surprise us that so many people believe without evidence Pierre Salinger's assertion that the United States Navy shot down TWA Flight 800. After all, he believes it ? and he is sincere in his beliefs, and they are in theirs. Furthermore, he said if he was wrong, it would be the first time in 30 years. Well, that should be good enough everybody! If good old Pierre said it, he can't be wrong. This is the attitude that most church going people have toward their preachers. If good old Reverend So-and-so says it, it must be true. It doesn't make any difference to many average pew-sitting churchgoers whether the Bible says it or not. Just as long as their beloved and kindly preacher says it, they will accept it as truth.

The Roman scholar, Seneca, once observed that religion's morals follow the ebb and flow of society, rising and lowering as society's rises and lowers, staying only a little above the status-quo. However, in this matter of dismissing truth as absolute and definitive, religion has led the way. Preachers, priests, and rabbis have been the frontmen and frontwomen in this effort to undermine and dismiss truth. If preachers can simply make up things and preach them as truth, then it is a small thing for Jay Leno to make up something in his life and say that it happened. That is, if preachers can dismiss, say, the apostle Paul's statement in 1 Cor. 14:34?35 as irrelevant and chauvinistic, why can't Jay Leno fictionalize his life? In 1 Cor. 14:34?35 the apostle says, "Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says. And if they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is shameful for women to speak in church."

But since this does not bode well with feminists and with those who wish to ordain women as preachers and bishops, this passage is simply dismissed. If we can read this passage and decide that it does not speak to us the truth, then it is certainly no big deal when Jay Leno lies in his autobiography. Now, to be fair with Leno, I need to tell you that he justifies using Altman's story as his own because, in his words, "something similar" happened to him. He was just molding his story with Altman's to achieve a better ending. This is precisely how preachers deal with 1 Cor. 14:34?35: They don't like the ending, so they set out to change it. They will tell you that Paul didn't mean what he said, or that he was dealing with a unique Corinthian problem because of the way things were then. Or they will remind you that these verses cannot be true because of the Old Testament judge, Deborah.

None of what they are saying removes these verses from God's book of truth. It can be correctly stated that we have reached the point where nothing can be said to be objectively true. Egyptians had wings, the holocaust is a myth, the United States government had John Kennedy killed, the CIA is trying to ruin urban America by flooding the inner cities with crack, and our government created AIDS in an attempt to kill undesirables. The lists goes on ? just say that it's true and to you it is true. Convince others of your version of truth and you have a following. Facts and established doctrines do not seem to matter to many people, because truth is not absolute to them. Truth has become a disposable commodity in the world. It is being discarded with a wave of the hand and is being replaced by assertions.

But again I must point out that this is what has occurred in religion for many, many years. Preachers have been exempt from giving an account for what they are teaching or for what they claim the Bible teaches. If a preacher asserts it, then it becomes truth.

Why don't we lead a change in religion that encourages all men and women to again respect the Bible as God's absolute standard of truth?

And, why don't we begin advocating that men and women prove their doctrines by the word of God? If we did this, then not only would we be helping the cause of Christ, but we would be helping steer the future of our children back on the course of reality with moral and historical absolutes.

Jesus is the embodiment of truth. The Bible tells us in Jn. 1:14, "And the Word [This refers to Jesus Christ, who was and is God ? He] became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth. "Also, verse 17 says, "For the law was given through Moses, but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ."

Now let me ask you a question. Is the grace of Christ relative?

That is, can I understand that grace to mean one thing and you another, and we both be right? If not, then by what logic can we view the truth as relative?

Both grace and truth came ? and were revealed by Christ Jesus. And whatever Jesus revealed was truth. It was absolute and unbending truth. Every statement he made, every command He gave, every assertion He offered was truth. Everything He revealed either Himself or through his selected representatives was truth. For example, when Jesus told a man in Matt. 19:21, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell what you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me," you can be absolutely sure that this man would not have treasure in heaven unless he did exactly what Jesus demanded of him. That is, if this man expected to have heavenly treasure laid up for himself, then he had to (1) sell everything he had, (2) give the proceeds of that sale to the poor, and (3) come follow the Lord. I cannot tinker fast and loose with the truth of God as Jay Leno does with his autobiography because fiction plays better than fact.

Jesus said it, and that made it the truth. Jesus told Pilate in Jn. 18:37, "I have come into the world, that I should bear witness to the truth." Whatever Jesus spoke was truth ? and that truth is not some modern definition of truth. The truth revealed by Christ is exclusive, it is perfect, and it is ultimate. And that truth does not depend upon our willingness to believe it. For example, God exists, and He exists even if every college professor on the face of the earth says that He doesn't.

And, what Jesus spoke is truth and it remains the truth whether you I and believe it or not. But the truth of Christ is not confined to merely that which He spoke personally. It would include all that he inspired the writers of the Bible to record. However, you and I already knew that ? didn't we?

Because, Jesus promised that His apostles would be led (or guided) in all the truth, upon receiving the controlling power of the Holy Spirit. Jesus said to the apostles in Jn. 16:13, "However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come."

Did the Holy Spirit do what Christ said that He would do?

Did He guide the apostles into all truth?

Jesus said that this would be what the Spirit would accomplish when He came upon these apostles.

Either He did or He didn't.

The facts show this is precisely what the Holy Spirit did. Paul wrote in Eph. 3:3?5: "How that by revelation He made known to me the mystery (as I have briefly written already, by which, when you read, you may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ), which in other ages was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to His holy apostles and prophets."

This is why Paul could boldly affirm as he did in 1 Cor. 14:37, "If anyone thinks himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things which I write to you are the commandments of the Lord." This was because Paul was being led into divine truth, and his writings were the commandments of God.

The Bible is the one body of divine truth that God has given to the world. Furthermore, the Bible is said to be the "word of truth." Listen to what is said in 2 Tim. 2:15: "Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth."

What is the Bible called? It is called the "word of truth." There is such a thing as the "word of truth," and it is the Bible. The Bible is God's absolute body of truth. It alone is our standard.

This is not difficult to understand, but do you know why we can't get preachers to accept this?

It isn't because they don't know that the Bible is an absolute volume of truth. It is because they cannot afford to admit that the Bible is the word of absolute truth. If they begin to admit that the Bible is an absolute standard of truth, to be understood and followed by all men everywhere, then they know they will soon find themselves without a denomination because the Bible does not speak of denominations. These preachers cannot afford to have their power and authority dissolved. Their very existence and livelihood depend upon there being no consensus of truth. Once a Presbyterian preacher said to a group of men seeking to justify their beliefs by the Bible. "Let us speak where the Bible speaks and remain silent where the Bible is silent," he said. "Another preacher said to him, "If we adopt this policy then we will not have infant baptism." This is what would happen not only to infant baptism, but to many of the things that find their homes in denominationalism.

Let me show you how this works. The Bible says in 1 Pet. 4:11, "If anyone speaks, let him speak as the oracles of God." That is, if anyone is going to preach let him give book, chapter, and verse for what he is preaching. Let a man give book, chapter, and verse for what he is doing in religion. This is saying the same thing that was said a moment ago: "Let us speak only where the Bible speaks, and let us remain silent where the Bible is silent."

What's wrong with such a request?

What is wrong with wanting truth in religion?

After all, if we are claiming to serve Him Who is the personification and incarnation of truth, why shouldn't we expect all that is said and done to be truthful? If we were to give up everything for which there is no permission given in God's book of truth, there would be a wholesale shakeup in the area of religion.

If you discover something that I believe and teach that is not found in God's book of truth, then please bring it my attention. All I am trying to accomplish is to encourage everyone to speak and practice only what is found in the Bible. Now, if we abandoned all that is not taught in the scriptures, this would eliminate all the human names that have been given to the church built by Christ. We would immediately stop referring to the church as Nazarene, or Baptist, or Methodist, or Wesleyan, or Mormon, or Catholic, or Pentecostal, or Presbyterian, or Lutheran. If we are interested in speaking only as the words of truth, why can't we begin here? When it is pointed out to people that Rom. 16:16 says, "The churches of Christ greet you," people are quick to denounce us by saying, "You people think you are the only ones going to heaven." Why become so aggressive when it is discovered that we are simply trying to call ourselves by what the Bible calls local churches? Why not just designate the church where you are a member as a church of Christ as indicated by Rom. 16:16? After all, this is what the book of truth calls local churches. In the New Testament, the church was called after the Supreme Deity of heaven and earth and not after man or procedures. My question is, why can't we do this again? This would help to eliminate the deplorable division existing today. If, as we are told, the Lutheran denomination is actually the visible church of Christ, then why not call it that? If the Wesleyan denomination is a visible branch of the church of Christ, why not call it that? I believe the answer to this question is obvious. No denomination can afford to eliminate its name, because that is the single most detectable identifying mark available. The word denomination (which, by the way, is not a Bible word) comes from denominating, which means "to name."

And, frankly, many people are more loyal to their denominational name than they are to the word of truth. What else would we abandon if everyone begins to speak only what the Bible speaks? Well, in worship we would dispose of choirs, orchestras, and every instrument of music that is found perched in the most prominent of places in most churches.

We all can agree that the word of truth ? the Bible ? tells Christians in Eph. 5:19 that we are to be "speaking to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord." Now, let's just look closely at this verse and see if we can agree on what it says. First, it tells us that all are to sing. It says one another, and that eliminates a smaller group such as a choir or a chorus. Also, this would not allow us to play on an instrument. It says sing, not sing and play. You might be thinking that this seems petty and insignificant, but let me ask you: Is truth petty and insignificant? Does it matter that school children are taught that black Egyptians had wings until white Europeans killed off the natural fliers? It does if we are concerned with truth! Also, it matters greatly whether we add pianos and other instruments of music if we are interested in truth as God revealed it. Eph. 5:19 says that we are to sing. This is something upon which all can agree. Therefore, why not simply stop right there? This would remove this point of division. If all would just agree to do what is stated in the Bible, then we would not have the problem of dividing over adding the instrument into worship.

You see the problem is not with those who oppose the introduction of instruments of music. Many of you may believe that it is a quirk of those in churches of Christ to cause trouble over music. But the opposite is true. All we are wishing to do is abide within the revealed will of God, that is outlined in the Bible ? God's book of truth.

Just remember the words of Christ, when He said, "And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." It is the truth, not what we might feel, that sets us free. It is the truth, not the explanation of truth, that sets man free.

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), October 28, 2003.

Only God forgives sins! YES! TRUE! But ... Does He not have the freedom to forgive sins in whatever manner He chooses to do so? He is not bound to forgive men's sins according to modern traditions of men. In John 20:22-23 He revealed the manner in which He intends to forgive men's sins - through the ministry of His ordained priests. This is the manner in which Christ forgave the sins of every Christian on earth until the Protestant Rebellion of the 16th century. It is still the manner in which He forgives men's sins in the One Church He founded for all men.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 07, 2003.

Well Paul (aka Catholic Moderator),

Why don't you go back to your Catholic forum where you belong!!!

Don't you have more people to ban??? LOL!!!

You wrote, "Only God forgives sins! YES! TRUE! But ... Does He not have the freedom to forgive sins in whatever manner He chooses to do so? He is not bound to forgive men's sins according to modern traditions of men. In John 20:22-23 He revealed the manner in which He intends to forgive men's sins - through the ministry of His ordained priests. This is the manner in which Christ forgave the sins of every Christian on earth until the Protestant Rebellion of the 16th century. It is still the manner in which He forgives men's sins in the One Church He founded for all men."

Paul, please explain HOW the Apostles "forgave" men of their sins???

The Word of God is SPECIFIC in HOW the Apostles "forgave" men of their sins"!

In your reply, please give Scriptural references how they were able to "forgive" sin.

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), November 07, 2003.

Paul,

May God bless you and your entire family always.

Your presence is most welcome in this forum.

I am very happy to learn from your wisdom.

Do visit us here often.

Many thanks.

-- james (elgreco1541@hotmail.com), November 07, 2003.

Since it is NOT likely that Paul will give an EXAMPLE of HOW the Apostles "forgave" sin, let's hear what God says on this subject.

The Apostles remitted sins ONLY in the sense that they PREACHED to sinners the doctrine of Christ or the gospel, which when those sinners BELIEVED and OBEYED, GOD REMITTED or FORGAVE their sins. The GOSPEL is God's power to Salvation. (Romans 1:16).

The Apostles remitted sins (forgave sin) by bringing people to a KNOWLEDGE of what God REQUIRED OF THEM in order to have their sins forgiven.

The apostles DID NOT work through something called the "sacrament of confession" or any other so called "sacrament."

The apostles DID NOT have any "special power" within themselves to remit (forgive) sins in the sense that Catholics FALSELY teach.

They could ONLY forgive or remit sins in the sense that they preached the doctrine of Christ which when obeyed (See Hebrews 5:8-9), brought God's forgiveness and Salvation to the Obedient. (Romans 6:17-18).

How did the Apostles retain sins?

"Then those who gladly received his word were baptized;" (Acts 2:41).

This implies that some did not receive the word and were NOT BAPTIZED for the remission of their sins.

Therefore their sins were retained.

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), November 07, 2003.

Hello Paul.

You've found me out here in the desert. I'm trying my best.

rod..

..

..

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 07, 2003.

"I'm trying my best."

To do WHAT rod???

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), November 07, 2003.

Hi Kevin. Why would someone go out into the desert? Why would someone like me step outside the Church? Perhaps to make sense of everything? Perhaps to weigh everything that I've learned against other points of view? Perhaps to learn what it is that I truly believe? Could it be that I am thinking for myself? I know that you think that I am probably here to defend the Catholic beliefs or something. No. It sure does seem like it, but only because when the truth is revealed, it just so happens that the Catholic Church had it all along. I'm trying my best to think clearly and weigh the truth from the un-truth. Surely, I'm not here to convert you, Kevin.

rod..

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 07, 2003.

Hi Paul,

Welcome to our forum.

"Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ" (Colossians 2:8).

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), November 08, 2003.

CLASSIC CATHOLIC QUOTES:

"It soon became clear to me that the protestant evangelical and fundamentalist church worship services were not in line with the worship practices of the early Christians. Justin Martyr wrote one of the first descriptions of Christian worship. He described the reading of sacred writings, a talk on the readings, and then the breaking of the bread as commanded by Jesus at the Last Supper and the presentation of gifts. Any Catholic or, for that matter, any non-Catholic with a liturgical tradition such as Anglican, Episcopalian, Lutheran, or Orthodox will recognize in Justin Martyr's description the outlines of the Mass.

A quote from Cardinal Newman (ex-Protestant who became a Catholic Venerable) struck me during my studies. He said that "to be steeped in history is to cease to be Protestant," and, conversely, To Be Ignorant Of History Is To Become Protestant. It is very clear to me that Newman knew what he was talking about and that those people today who leave the Catholic Church do not know that they are leaving the one, true Church of Christ." ~ Anne Krach, A Catholic Revert

-- james (elgreco1541@hotmail.com), November 08, 2003.

Good point James. One of those instances I will agree with you. Justin's words on the celebration of the Lord's day(Jesus) agree with the way Catloics, Ortodox, Syrians, Copts, Lutherans, and Episcopelians have their services. I think this is also in the Didache.CHAPTER 9 9:1 But concerning the Eucharist, after this fashion give ye thanks.

9:2 First, concerning the cup. We thank thee, our Father, for the holy vine, David thy Son, which thou hast made known unto us through Jesus Christ thy Son; to thee be the glory for ever.

9:3 And concerning the broken bread. We thank thee, our Father, for the life and knowledge which thou hast made known unto us through Jesus thy Son; to thee be the glory for ever.

9:4 As this broken bread was once scattered on the mountains, and after it had been brought together became one, so may thy Church be gathered together from the ends of the earth unto thy kingdom; for thine is the glory, and the power, through Jesus Christ, for ever.

9:5 And let none eat or drink of your Eucharist but such as have been baptized into the name of the Lord, for of a truth the Lord hath said concerning this, Give not that which is holy unto dogs.

CHAPTER 10 10:1 But after it has been completed, so pray ye.

10:2 We thank thee, holy Father, for thy holy name, which thou hast caused to dwell in our hearts, and for the knowledge and faith and immortality which thou hast made known unto us through Jesus thy Son; to thee be the glory for ever.

10:3 Thou, Almighty Master, didst create all things for the sake of thy name, and hast given both meat and drink, for men to enjoy, that we might give thanks unto thee, but to us thou hast given spiritual meat and drink, and life everlasting, through thy Son.

10:4 Above all, we thank thee that thou art able to save; to thee be the glory for ever.

10:5 Remember, Lord, thy Church, to redeem it from every evil, and to perfect it in thy love, and gather it together from the four winds, even that which has been sanctified for thy kingdom which thou hast prepared for it; for thine is the kingdom and the glory for ever.

10:6 Let grace come, and let this world pass away. Hosanna to the Son of David. If any one is holy let him come (to the Eucharist); if any one is not, let him repent. Maranatha. Amen.

10:7 But charge the prophets to give thanks, so far as they are willing to do so.

11:3 But concerning the apostles and prophets, thus do ye according to the doctrine of the Gospel.

11:4 Let every apostle who cometh unto you be received as the Lord.

11:5 He will remain one day, and if it be necessary, a second; but if he remain three days, he is a false prophet.

11:6 And let the apostle when departing take nothing but bread until he arrive at his resting-place; but if he ask for money, he is a false prophet.

11:7 And ye shall not tempt or dispute with any prophet who speaketh in the spirit; for every sin shall be forgiven, but this sin shall not be forgiven.

11:8 But not every one who speaketh in the spirit is a prophet, but he is so who hath the disposition of the Lord; by their dispositions they therefore shall be known, the false prophet and the prophet.

11:9 And every prophet who ordereth in the spirit that a table shall be laid, shall not eat of it himself, but if he do otherwise, he is a false prophet;

11:10 and every prophet who teacheth the truth, if he do not what he teacheth is a false prophet;

11:11 and every prophet who is approved and true, and ministering in the visible mystery of the Church, but who teacheth not others to do the things that he doth himself, shall not be judged of you, for with God lieth his judgment, for in this manner also did the ancient prophets.

11:12 But whoever shall say in the spirit, Give me money, or things of that kind, listen not to him; but if he tell you concerning others that are in need that ye should give unto them, let no one judge him.

CHAPTER 12 12:1 Let every one that cometh in the name of the Lord be received, but afterwards ye shall examine him and know his character, for ye have knowledge both of good and evil.

12:2 If the person who cometh be a wayfarer, assist him so far as ye are able; but he will not remain with you more than two or three days, unless there be a necessity.

12:3 But if he wish to settle with you, being a craftsman, let him work, and so eat;

12:4 but if he know not any craft, provide ye according to you own discretion, that a Christian may not live idle among you;

12:5 but if he be not willing to do so, he is a trafficker in Christ. From such keep aloof.

CHAPTER 13 13:1 But every true prophet who is willing to dwell among you is worthy of his meat,

13:2 likewise a true teacher is himself worthy of his meat, even as is a labourer.

13:3 Thou shalt, therefore, take the firstfruits of every produce of the wine-press and threshing-floor, of oxen and sheep, and shalt give it to the prophets, for they are your chief priests;

13:4 but if ye have not a prophet, give it unto the poor.

13:5 If thou makest a feast, take and give the firstfruits according to the commandment;

13:6 in like manner when thou openest a jar of wine or of oil, take the firstfruits and give it to the prophets;

13:7 take also the firstfruits of money, of clothes, and of every possession, as it shall seem good unto thee, and give it according to the commandment.

CHAPTER 14 14:1 But on the Lord's day, after that ye have assembled together, break bread and give thanks, having in addition confessed your sins, that your sacrifice may be pure.

14:2 But let not any one who hath a quarrel with his companion join with you, until they be reconciled, that your sacrifice may not be polluted,

14:3 for it is that which is spoken of by the Lord. In every place and time offer unto me a pure sacrifice, for I am a great King, saith the Lord, and my name is wonderful among the Gentiles.

CHAPTER 15 15:1 Elect, therefore, for yourselves bishops and deacons worthy of the Lord, men who are meek and not covetous, and true and approved, for they perform for you the service of prophets and teachers.

15:2 Do not, therefore, despise them, for they are those who are honoured among you, together with the prophets and teachers.

15:3 Rebuke one another, not in wrath but peaceably, as ye have commandment in the Gospel; and, but let no one speak to any one who walketh disorderly with regard to his neighbour, neither let him be heard by you until he repent.

15:4 But your prayers and your almsgivings and all your deeds so do, as ye have commandment in the Gospel of our Lord.

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), November 08, 2003.

David and Kevin, I think Paul needs more action.

Banning him like he banned you will just make you like him.

What he couldn't answer there in the forum, he could answer here.

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), November 08, 2003.

I believe, Kevin and David, that only God can forgve sins.

A priest cannot forgive sins.

Like Rod said, it is not the forgiveness of sins which we could expect from a priest, rather, we must be at peace with our maker all the time. That way the sin won't last.

-- Elpidio gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), November 08, 2003.

David-

You did not banned those anit-Christs and Satanists from this forum, yet you dare to bring a threat of banning to a person who has embraced a life of being Christ-like that Paul is? Don't play such a game. Have you no soul to think about, David?

rod..

..

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 08, 2003.

rod,

You said,"You did not banned those anit-Christs and Satanists from this forum, yet you dare to bring a threat of banning to a person who has embraced a life of being Christ-like that Paul is? Don't play such a game. Have you no soul to think about, David?"

What are you talking about? I have yet to make a threat of banning Paul. I am not playing any game and I do not know what made you draw this conclusion.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), November 08, 2003.

"The Apostles remitted sins ONLY in the sense that they PREACHED to sinners the doctrine of Christ or the gospel, which when those sinners BELIEVED and OBEYED, GOD REMITTED or FORGAVE their sins"

A: False. The gospel clearly quotes Jesus Himself as saying "whose sins YOU FORGIVE, they are forgiven them. A clear, straightforward statement. Nothing about preaching. Nothing about GOD forgiving sins after the Apostles preach. The Apostles THEMSELVES are given the power here to minister God's forgiveness to men.

"The apostles DID NOT have any "special power" within themselves to remit (forgive) sins"

A: Wrong again. In the verse immediately preceding the verse quoted above, Jesus BREATHED on the Apostles, and said "Receive the Holy Spirit". It is obvious that He is specially empowering them here, for a particular reason. The reason follows in the very next verse. What could be clearer? Jesus specially empowers the Apostles to do something that even they could never do before; and then immediately reveals the nature of that new ministry. Note however that Jesus does not give them the power to read men's minds and hearts, as Jesus Himself did. Therefore, the only way they could use this new power and fulfill this new ministry is for people to confess their sins, which they have been doing ever since.

"How did the Apostles retain sins?"

A: The same way preists still do today. If a person does not give evidence of genuine contrition and repentance - or more to the point, if a person gives evidence of a lack of genuine repentance - then a priest may withhold absolution. Forgiveness cannot happen in the absence of repentance, and fulfilling the special ministry Jesus imparted to priests on this occasion is no light matter.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 08, 2003.

Elpidio,

more on Justin Martyr ...

TESTIMONY OF A CATHOLIC REVERT:

Justin Martyr, around 155 A.D. was one example of the Church Fathers. He wrote: "We call this food Eucharist; and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except the one who believes our teaching to be true and has been washed in the washing which is for regeneration, and is thereby living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the Word of God and has both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change by which our flesh and blood is nourished, is both the flesh and blood of that incarnated Jesus."

In this one passage, St. Justin explained that baptism regenerates us and that, after the Eucharistic prayer, Jesus truly becomes present under the appearances of bread and wine. After reading this and many other passages from the early Fathers, I began to realize that the teachings I heard at Protestant Calvary Chapel didn't look much like the beliefs of the early Church. I started wrestling with this dilemma. Either the early Church started becoming polluted and heretical almost immediately after the time of the apostles, or all these distinctively Catholic doctrines were not really "inventions" after all. ~ Joseph Ranalli

-- james (elgreco1541@hotmail.com), November 09, 2003.

Dear readers,

I stated earlier, "Since it is NOT likely that Paul will give an EXAMPLE of HOW the Apostles "forgave" sin, let's hear what God says on this subject."

Please take a look at Paul's recent post above and notice how Paul does NOT provide ONE EXAMPLE of how the Apostles "forgave" sin in the New Testament. This does not surprise me as Catholics will NOT provide this answer for when they do, then their whole false idea of "confession to a priest" will FALL!!!

For EXAMPLES of how the Apostles "forgave" and "retained" sin, please take a look at my last post.

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), November 09, 2003.

Kevin fabricated, "Since it is NOT likely that Paul will give an EXAMPLE of HOW the Apostles "forgave" sin, let's hear what God says on this subject. The Apostles remitted sins ONLY in the sense that they PREACHED to sinners the doctrine of Christ or the gospel, which when those sinners BELIEVED and OBEYED, GOD REMITTED or FORGAVE their sins. The GOSPEL is God's power to Salvation. (Romans 1:16). The Apostles remitted sins (forgave sin) by bringing people to a KNOWLEDGE of what God REQUIRED OF THEM in order to have their sins forgiven. The apostles DID NOT work through something called the "sacrament of confession" or any other so called "sacrament." The apostles DID NOT have any "special power" within themselves to remit (forgive) sins in the sense that Catholics FALSELY teach. They could ONLY forgive or remit sins in the sense that they preached the doctrine of Christ which when obeyed (See Hebrews 5:8-9), brought God's forgiveness and Salvation to the Obedient. (Romans 6:17-18). How did the Apostles retain sins? "Then those who gladly received his word were baptized;" (Acts 2:41). This implies that some did not receive the word and were NOT BAPTIZED for the remission of their sins. Therefore their sins were retained."

Sounds like fanaticism to me.

-- james (elgreco1541@hotmail.com), November 12, 2003.

I think what Kevin is looking for James, is a fomula that says how the apostles forgave sins. That formula is not in the Bible.

What we have is only Matthew's formula.

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), November 12, 2003.

If I am guilty of "fabricating" as James asserts, then I don't see him making any attempt to correct me??? Simply asserting and then not proving where I am guilty is no way to prove someone wrong. Please go back and re read in the book of Acts how the Apostles forgave and remitted sins. In Acts chapter 2, the first gospel sermon was preached by the Apostle Peter and in Acts 2:38 this passage tells EXACTLY how the Apostles "forgave" sin!!!

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), November 12, 2003.

Elpidio,

What Kevin is looking for is a peculiar piece that fits snugly into his own esoteric concoction.

-- james (elgreco1541@hotmail.com), November 13, 2003.

Elpidio,

That proof IS in the Bible however, Catholics do NOT want to acknowledge this for when they do, their whole FALSE doctrine of having a priest forgive and retain sin FALLS!!!!

The ONLY way the Apostles were able to "forgive" sin was when they "baptized" people INTO Christ for this is the ONLY way one can have their sins forgiven!!!

There are ONLY 2 ways to get into Christ and they are as stated in Romans 6:3-4 and Galatians 3:26-27.

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), November 14, 2003.