The succession of popes and their questionable behaviour

jonathan_hili

Well-known member
This is where we it's better to be a protestant. See, we go directly to the the Source for our forgiveness AND we know there is only ONE unforgiveable sin.

God Speed.

P.S. Despite our differences, I really do appreciate your approach to us. It's refreshing. :)✝️
Thanks for the kind words.

How do you understand the unforgiveable sin (i.e. blasphemy against the Holy Spirit)?
 

illini1959

Member
If I were a priest hearing such a confession, I would make it a condition of absolution that the person report themselves to the police. Priests can refuse absolution if they think it prudent. However, I think the seal of confession is essential, or else nobody would confess anything if they know their trust is possibly going to be violated.
No one is obligated to confess to a priest for "absolution". Only God can absolve anyone.
 

Calsgal2

New Member
How do you know that God would never have evil men lead His Church? He certainly allowed evil men to lead the Davidic kingdom. At least one apostle Jesus chose could be described as evil and the rest weren't always crash hot on a moral level. I think if you can find 10/260 or so popes that were terrible, that's a better record than 1/12 of the apostles that was terrible.
Would God want a sinful man called "another christ"?
 

jonathan_hili

Well-known member

God speed
I think his response is pretty good but I think he's missed the crucial point about blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. It seems to me that such blasphemy occurs when one attributes a demonic/ungodly spirit to the work or actions of the Holy Spirit, as present in Jesus in the scene he notes. Consequently, this sin cannot be forgiven, not because it's especially to God, but because the person who commits it will not turn to God for forgiveness of it (considering it the work of a demon rather than the Holy Spirit). It's therefore ipso facto unforgiveable, kind of like if you thought nourishing food was poison you'd starve to death because the one thing that would save you, you think is dangerous to you. So, as good as his points are, I think the sin against the Holy Spirit does continue today.

Incidentally, I think what he says about Jesus speaking in parables to underscore the blindness of the Pharisees, etc. is a bit off, as Jesus directs these comments towards the people in general, not just the religious leaders.
 

balshan

Well-known member
I think his response is pretty good but I think he's missed the crucial point about blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. It seems to me that such blasphemy occurs when one attributes a demonic/ungodly spirit to the work or actions of the Holy Spirit, as present in Jesus in the scene he notes. Consequently, this sin cannot be forgiven, not because it's especially to God, but because the person who commits it will not turn to God for forgiveness of it (considering it the work of a demon rather than the Holy Spirit). It's therefore ipso facto unforgiveable, kind of like if you thought nourishing food was poison you'd starve to death because the one thing that would save you, you think is dangerous to you. So, as good as his points are, I think the sin against the Holy Spirit does continue today.

Incidentally, I think what he says about Jesus speaking in parables to underscore the blindness of the Pharisees, etc. is a bit off, as Jesus directs these comments towards the people in general, not just the religious leaders.
Stating the facts about your institution is not blaspheme. The father of lies is the devil and if we lied about your institution then we would be producing the fruit of this world. Your institution throughout the centuries has stood out because it flourishes in the fruit of this world, and those fruit show wolves in sheep's clothing.
 

Nondenom40

Super Member
Okay, fine, but how do you understand it?
Well, what it doesn't mean is confession to a priest. There is no auricular confession or a ministerial priesthood in the n.t. So what does it mean? Forgiveness comes through God. What Jesus did was pay the ransom for our sin. The word in Mark 10:45 means to pay a ransom, break the chains, loose the bonds. That only happens when one believes in Jesus as their savior. This is the purpose of the great commission in taking the gospel to the world. In the preaching of the gospel people either believe it and receive His forgiveness or they don't. If they do, their certificate of debt is nailed to the cross i.e. their sins are atoned for; Col 2:14. Their sins are taken by Jesus and He gives them His righteousness; 2 Cor 5:21. We, who share the gospel get the privilege of telling that person their sins are forgiven. Not that we did anything, but God. Here is Robertson on John 20:23

"Are retained (κεκρατηντα). Perfect passive indicative of κρατεω. The power to forgive sin belongs only to God, but Jesus claimed to have this power and right (Mr 2:5-7). What he commits to the disciples and to us is the power and privilege of giving assurance of the forgiveness of sins by God by correctly announcing the terms of forgiveness. There is no proof that he actually transferred to the apostles or their successors the power in and of themselves to forgive sins. In Matt 16:19; Matt 18:18 we have a similar use of the rabbinical metaphor of binding and loosing by proclaiming and teaching. Jesus put into the hands of Peter and of all believers the keys of the Kingdom which we should use to open the door for those who wish to enter. This glorious promise applies to all believers who will tell the story of Christ's love for men."

Robertson's Word Pictures

But in order to even be able to proclaim such a thing, the one sharing the gospel has to have a pure, true gospel in the first place. If your gospel is wrong, and romes is, then telling someone their sins are forgiven is simply lip service. Its meaningless to tell someone their sins are gone when you don't have the authority or the right gospel. One reason rc confession is such a useless thing to do.
 

illini1959

Member
What do you make of John 20:23?
Like mica said, it doesn't mean anyone confesses to a priest for absolution. Sometimes one has to look deeper at the meaning of words and structure of sentences. Since we know only God can forgive (absolve/remove) sin when someone sees a verse like John 20:23 which appears to contradict that, some deeper study should be warranted. It's dangerous to always take scripture at face value when it was written in languages with words that don't always translate well in English. The meaning can be totally different than at first glance.

The words "have been forgiven" is the single Greek word aphiami. It is the perfect passive. The perfect tense is "I have been" which designates an action that occurs in the past and continues into the present. The verse should translate more like: If you forgive the sins of anyone they are (some translations say "have been") forgiven [because of their faith]; if you retain the sins of anyone, they are retained [and remain unforgiven because of their unbelief].”

Look at the previous verses, Jesus was sending them out "As the Father has sent me, even so I am sending you." He gave them the Holy Spirit. Their job was to proclaim Christ and let people know that their sins have been forgiven for those who believe and they are not for those who don't believe - John 3:36 Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.

We are never told to confess to a priest (as in RCC priest which didn't exist then anyway) for absolution (for lack of a better word).
 

illini1959

Member
Well, what it doesn't mean is confession to a priest. There is no auricular confession or a ministerial priesthood in the n.t. So what does it mean? Forgiveness comes through God. What Jesus did was pay the ransom for our sin. The word in Mark 10:45 means to pay a ransom, break the chains, loose the bonds. That only happens when one believes in Jesus as their savior. This is the purpose of the great commission in taking the gospel to the world. In the preaching of the gospel people either believe it and receive His forgiveness or they don't. If they do, their certificate of debt is nailed to the cross i.e. their sins are atoned for; Col 2:14. Their sins are taken by Jesus and He gives them His righteousness; 2 Cor 5:21. We, who share the gospel get the privilege of telling that person their sins are forgiven. Not that we did anything, but God. Here is Robertson on John 20:23

"Are retained (κεκρατηντα). Perfect passive indicative of κρατεω. The power to forgive sin belongs only to God, but Jesus claimed to have this power and right (Mr 2:5-7). What he commits to the disciples and to us is the power and privilege of giving assurance of the forgiveness of sins by God by correctly announcing the terms of forgiveness. There is no proof that he actually transferred to the apostles or their successors the power in and of themselves to forgive sins. In Matt 16:19; Matt 18:18 we have a similar use of the rabbinical metaphor of binding and loosing by proclaiming and teaching. Jesus put into the hands of Peter and of all believers the keys of the Kingdom which we should use to open the door for those who wish to enter. This glorious promise applies to all believers who will tell the story of Christ's love for men."

Robertson's Word Pictures

But in order to even be able to proclaim such a thing, the one sharing the gospel has to have a pure, true gospel in the first place. If your gospel is wrong, and romes is, then telling someone their sins are forgiven is simply lip service. Its meaningless to tell someone their sins are gone when you don't have the authority or the right gospel. One reason rc confession is such a useless thing to do.
That's it!!!!!!
 

Bob Carabbio

Well-known member
no one is stating that popes are perfect and sinless.
But the Phony Roman Catholic Claim IS, however, that the "Pope" is: "The Vicar of Christ on earth" and YOU CLAIM that Jesus' "Vicar" can be openly EVIL.

And you actually WONDER why we don't take your Roman Catholic Church Corp. seriously???
 

Nondenom40

Super Member
But the Phony Roman Catholic Claim IS, however, that the "Pope" is: "The Vicar of Christ on earth" and YOU CLAIM that Jesus' "Vicar" can be openly EVIL.

And you actually WONDER why we don't take your Roman Catholic Church Corp. seriously???
As well as 'holy father'. Which to any normal christian is an offense.
 
Top