Forgiveness?

homer · Kitten Joined: 12 Feb 2003 Posts: 135

OK, this is a 2-part question. Catholicism has confessionals, where you go in, tell the priest you've sinned and then you're forgiven after doing some exercises. I'm a little fuzzy on this whole idea (I've gotten most of my information on this from tv and movies).

So, here are my questions. Are catholicism and christianity the same? Is catholicism just a part of christianity, like baptist, methodist, etc.?

This whole process seems very insincere to me. To think that you can go in after committing adultery, murder, etc. and just be forgiven, seems like it's not that much work. I would think that to be as true to the religion as one claims to be, they shouldn't be allowed to commit sin after sin and just get forgiven for it. Am I understanding this whole process correctly?
Thanks.

Phinehas · Posted: Mon Mar 03, 2003 12:55 pm Post subject:

Are Catholicism and Christianity the same? Wow, there's a doozy of a question. I'll give you my take on it and others are free to disagree.

No, they are not the same. Christianity, in its most fundamental essence, is a relationship with the Creator--pure and simple. The Catholic Church (CC) has a different system, which is that the priest is a kind of intermediary between an individual and God (Mary is considered another). So, in the CC, non-clergy generally have a relationship with the priests rather than with God. The no-brainer problem with this method is 1Timothy 2:5, which reads, "For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus."

As volumes have been written on this subject (e.g., "The Two Babylons" by Alexander Hyslop), I'll leave it at this.

Regarding the CC's practice of confession:

First, you won't find the idea of the confessional as it exists in the CC anywhere in the Bible. The three verses I've seen that some could loosely use to support the practice are Nehemiah 9:3, James 5:16, and 1John 1:9.

Neh. 9:3 - "They stood where they were and read from the Book of the Law of YHWH their God for a quarter of the day, and spent another quarter in confession and in worshiping YHWH their God."
James 5:16 - "Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed...."
1Jn. 1:9 - "If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness."

In Neh. 9:3, it was a day of general widespread repentance on the part of Israel and was far from being any ritualized practice as it became in the CC. In James 5:16, the command is to confess our sins to one another, not necessarily to a priest. This is speaking of accountability between brothers or between sisters in the Lord. 1Jn. does not give enough detail to justify the CC's specific rules regarding their concept of confession.

We are commanded, however, to forgive each other over and over without limit, but not to the point of forever making light of the sin. The idea is that we must consider all the times and all the things for which God has forgiven us. I don't like to think of how many times I've asked God to forgive me for the same thing over and over again,...for my arrogance, for my smugness, for my deceitfulness, for my sin of "x", for my sin of "y", etc. Generally, in the more "alive" protestant churches, the leadership will deal with a recurring problem in practical ways rather than the repeat offender being absolved by repeating x number of rote prayers and washing his hands in a particular basin or some other such activity without biblical precedent.

Phin
_________________
“When they chose new gods, war came to the city gates, and not a shield or spear was seen among forty thousand in Israel. My heart is with Israel's princes, with the willing volunteers among the people. Praise the LORD!” Judges 5:8-9

larryjf · Posted: Mon Mar 03, 2003 1:01 pm Post subject:

Catholics and Protestants have some serious differences in beliefs. However, they both believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and Saviour of the world.

The main differences are...

Catholics:
You are saved by faith and works
Protestants:
You are saved by faith alone, which produces works

Catholics:
Final authority is the Pope
Protestants:
Final authority is the Bible

Catholics:
Pope has the authority to change or add to God's law
Protestants:
No man can add or change God's law

Catholics:
Mary, the mother of Jesus, is a co-redemptrix
Protestants:
Only Jesus is the Redeemer

Catholics:
At communion, the blood and bread are actual blood and flesh of Jesus
Protestants:
At communion, the blood and bread are symbolic of the blood and flesh of Jesus

Catholics:
The church is built on the rock of Peter
Protestants:
The church is built on the rock of Jesus

There are many more differences, but these are the one's off the top of my head.

In Christ.

homer · Kitten Joined: 12 Feb 2003 Posts: 135

larry, phin,

Wow. Thanks. That clears it up quite a bit for me. You both mentioned Protestantism (is that the right way to say it?). Is that basic Christianity? Are we talking minimal differences between that and Presbyterian, Methodist, Baptist, etc? I know that is opening up a whole can of worms. I'm sure each has a number of differences to some degree or another.

It's primarily the confession thing, though, that really had me wondering. As I mentioned in my first post, I see these movies (I know, great source for information! Rolling Eyes

) and I see the guy in there saying, "Father, I killed a man." And he gets 100 hail marys and he's done with it. Boom, he's forgiven and on his way to heaven.

Phin, you mentioned first, that Jesus is the mediator (under Christian belief). You did also say that confession and forgiveness are parts of Christianity, just in different ways from the CC. So, since Jesus is the only mediator, how do you know if you are forgiven for your sins, and are there sins that are unforgivable?

Larry, I've got a few questions about the differences you cited. You mention that Mary (in the CC) is a co-redemptrix. So, what about Joseph (that was his name, right?)? Since Jesus was God's son, did Joseph have any important role at all. Was he basically insignificant in the grand scheme of things?

And my second question to you is, what is the rock of Peter, or the rock of Jesus? What do you mean by rock?

Thanks a lot.

larryjf · Posted: Mon Mar 03, 2003 3:03 pm Post subject:

homer,

there are many differences in belief among protestants, but not on most key issues. For instance they all believe Jesus is the only way to God the Father. And, we are saved by faith alone which brings about works. There are some denominations that may have different views on the works issue. But some of the other differences are...

Baptism as a baby
Baptism as a believing adult

Baptism by immersion (dunking)
Baptism by sprinkling

Sunday is the sabbath
Saturday is the sabbath

Some have very loose and free worship (singing, dancing, etc)
Some have very rigid worship

The gifts of the Holy Spirit have ceased
The gifts of the Holy Spirit are still in effect

Only a man can be a pastor
Men or women can be a pastor

And we could go on and on and on and on and on.....

Joseph is held in high respect among Catholics, but not in the regard of Mary - probably because Mary was the mother of Jesus; whereas, Joseph was only the stepfather of Joseph. They look at him as being important because God chose him to stand in and raise Jesus on earth. But, Joseph was probably older than Mary, and probably passed away before Jesus started His ministry - and, that's probably why we don't hear much more about him.

About the rock being Peter or Jesus, that comes from the bible...
Mat 16:18, "I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church"
This is where Jesus gives Peter his name. The greek word for Peter is "Petros" which means rock or stone. And, that's where the idea comes from that Peter is the rock...it basically says 'you are ROCK and upon this ROCK I will build my church'. The problem with this is that there are 2 different words used here. Peter is the greek "Petros", but the rock that Jesus says His church will be built on is "Petras". The main difference is that Petros means little rock and Petras means large foundation stone. So, we can see from looking into the greek that Jesus is really telling Peter that he will be part of His church, but that Jesus Himself will be the foundation. And, this of course matches up with the rest of scripture.

I hope this helps and doesn't just add to any confusion.

Phinehas · Posted: Mon Mar 03, 2003 5:59 pm Post subject:

homer · Kitten Joined: 12 Feb 2003 Posts: 135

Larryjf, your explanations absolutely helped. I'm far less confused about this than I was.

so, Phin, I'm intrigued about this notion of blaspheming the holy spirit and what that constitutes. Because if, let's say, someone who is thinks that they may be either atheist or agnostic says that there is no god, or your god isn't the true god, etc., etc. More than likely, that would constitute blasphemy. Right?

Now, let's say that this person, later on in life, decides to become a Christian and devote themselves to Christianity. However, since that person, at one point, has blasphemed god, they can never be forgiven. So, basically, they blew their chance, and converting to christianity at any point after that would be meaningless, at least as far as getting into heaven is concerned. Does that sound like I am interpreting it right?
Thanks.

Phinehas · Posted: Tue Mar 04, 2003 10:24 am Post subject:

I started to write my own explanation of this, but it occurred to me that I can find better on the Internet. I found this explanation that is shorter than what I could have written:

http://www.carm.org/questions/blasphemy.htm

Phin
_________________
“When they chose new gods, war came to the city gates, and not a shield or spear was seen among forty thousand in Israel. My heart is with Israel's princes, with the willing volunteers among the people. Praise the LORD!” Judges 5:8-9

homer · Kitten Joined: 12 Feb 2003 Posts: 135

phin,
thanks for the link. I read it, but I'm not sure that I agree with the assessment that the author made. I say that because I don't think the author addresses my specific scenario which, I think, is not all that uncommon.

I think that people who are in the process of defining themselves and their beliefs can go to extremes in order to support their beliefs. In fact, I usually find that the people that are the most extreme in professing what they believe, usually are the ones who are least secure in what they believe. That's where I come to the example of someone trying to convince themselves that they are atheist or agnostic by blaspheming.

So, I would still make the claim that someone could have blasphemed prior to changing their beliefs. And, what then?

Phinehas · Posted: Tue Mar 04, 2003 11:06 am Post subject:

homer · Kitten Joined: 12 Feb 2003 Posts: 135

phin,
no offense taken at all. I think that the claim I was making was based not so much on Christian doctrine, as it was on the statement of the author of the essay that you referred me to. But also, as you pointed out, I think my understanding of blasphemy may not be correct. I aplogize that I may have come across as trying to make a claim about which I know very little (i.e. christianity and the bible).

As I understood it, blasphemy essentially means to criticize god. So, I was thinking that if an atheist said that god does not exist, or someone of another religion said that there is no one true god, but multiple gods, I thought that may constitute blasphemy. So, when I said:

Phinehas · Posted: Tue Mar 04, 2003 4:21 pm Post subject:

Ron · Posted: Wed Mar 05, 2003 10:26 pm Post subject:

Hello all,
I have been gone for awhile but now am back into the swing. I found this post interesting. Also I found the questions and replies outstanding.

I read through all posts rather quickly so I may have missed this point.

Forgiveness also comes hand in hand with repentance. This is "to change course;to go the opposite direction from which you were traveling". We ask our Heavenly Father to forgive us our sins and the evidence of the sincerity on our part is that we truly strive to turn the opposite direction of that sin. This is very important. We will continue to sin as long as we wear this tent of flesh. As Paul said, we do the things we know not to and don't do the things we should! We should, however, become less involved in sinful ways the more mature we grow as Christians. So you see it is more than saying "woops! did it again! please forgive me!".

A few words on differences in churches:
Jesus taught of only one church ("And on this rock I will build My church..."). This word church has become defined as a place of worship whereas the Greek meaning is a compound word meaning the "called-out". That is everyone who has obeyed the Gospel. It is all believers in Christ. Also of importance is the fact that the Scriptures do not reference any denominations. The very meaning of the word means "divisions" and this is NOT what our Savior or His WOrd teaches. It teaches exactly the opposite! See 1 Cor. 1:10; John 15:21, both of which speak of oneness in the body of Christ.

I think a person seeking Biblical enlightenment should make certain that any information is Bible-based (2Ti 2:15 "Study earnestly to present yourself approved to God, a workman that does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the Word of Truth.")

I think you all have answered the questions posed here with grace and solid foundation of Christian doctrine. These are just some of my thoughts. I hope I did ok for my first post after a 3 month sabatical!

Yours in Christ with much love
Ron

Ron · Posted: Wed Mar 05, 2003 10:41 pm Post subject:

I meant to address the blaspheme. Sorry about this additional post.

My understanding about the "unpardonable" sin is that of a person who continually, repeatedly denies Christ and dies in that state. This is "unpardonable" because they did not accept Christ before they died.

One other addition: in regard to atheists
I read an interesting point of view in Josh McDowell's book "A Ready Defense" that took this position: For a person to make the dogmatic statement that there is no God, he would have to know the universe in its entirety and to possess all knowledge. If anyone had these credentials, then by definition he would be God. Since he cannot accurately make this statement on the existance of God he must give way to the agnostic view of uncertainty.

I found that particularly hard-hitting, as I considered myself an atheistic evolutionist for over 25 years! (who ,by the way, blasphemed uncountable times!) Thanks to our loving God for His forgiveness!!

Yours in Christ with much love,
Ron

larryjf · Posted: Thu Mar 06, 2003 5:58 am Post subject:

On blaspheming the Holy Spirit...

If you read this in context, we find that Jesus was just accused of working in the power of Baalzebub (lord of the flies). So, I've always taken blaspheming the Holy Spirit to mean attributing the work of the Holy Spirit to demonic or non-Godly influence and power.

Also, something else to throw out there - it says that you won't be forgiven, it doesn't say that you will lose your salvation. And, other places in scripture it talks about different levels of rewards in Heaven for believers. Do you guys think that blaspheming the Holy Spirit un-saves someone, or do you think there is a difference between not being forgiven and salvation in a broader sense?