(Continued from previous message)
Bob previously said:
It is at the Rev 20 great white throne judgment that mankind is tossed into the Lake of Fire.
This is the second death.
And I previously said:
And all this time, I thought Heb. 9:27 said "it is appointed unto man ONCE to die"!
Rev 20 says that the SECOND death is the lake of fire.
The FIRST death is followed by the judgment according to Heb 9 -- and then comes the SECOND death according to Rev 20.
The problem is, does the occurrence of death in Heb 9.27 automatically mean death? What of the thief of the cross, is he still in "soul sleep" or is he in heaven already, like Christ promised? All of us are "appointed once to die," but not all of us will be "cast into the lake of fire."
As for Rev 20:14, my NAB does speak of this "second death," as also seen in Rev 2:11, situation seems to be to those sinners who are condemned in the first place, as at their initial time of death (the
Particular Judgment immediately after death, where indeed, those condemned go to hell.) The "second death" refers to these so condemned come forth once again at the
General Judgment in that they are then condemned before the whole assembly, and then cast into the "Lake of fire" for the last and final time.
This has been the teaching of the Church for the first 1500 years of church history, Bob. So where did the Church go wrong that the SdA's had to "correct things"? (Are there others who teach as you do in this "soul sleep" business?)
I previously said:
I gotta look more closely into the "soul sleep" business, but so far, I reject it comply out of hand and just another "fruit" of Sola Scriptura
Well you are right about one thing - it comes from the Bible - not man made tradition. But some see that "as a good thing".
I totally agree, Bob. But I will agree that it came from
your interpretation of what you think the Bible says.
Again, the "Fruits of Sola Scriptura…"
Bob then previously posted the following:
"Let Us come BOLDLY before the throne of Grace" due to the ministry of our ONE High Priest - Heb 4:14-16.
Direct and immediate forgiveness of sins is the only model that scripture gives. Never do we see any Christian going to a single NT saint and saying "please ask God to forgive me - because you are my best and only source of forgiveness"
Rather Christ declared that "IN HIS NAME" forgiveness of sins was to be "proclaimed" and that this was the "mission" of His followers - to proclaim that message (Luke 24:47)
This leaves no room for reworking the text of John 20 to mean "you need to go to someone other than Christ for forgiveness of sins".
And I replied:
Again, do a very careful study of John 20:22-23 and give my your best exegesis of those verses. As you do this, you may want to consider the immediate context of what Jesus says when He immediately appeared to the apostles, through a locked door, to say this to them.
I totally and completely disagree with your assertion that you see the "only model that scripture gives" when John 20:22-23 is staring you right in the face! And you have yet to see one thing from me about that scripture as I have yet to give you my exegesis! I want to see yours first!
Bob, going a little far for context here, there is a foretaste of what is to come when the Jesus forgave the sins of the paralytic in Matthew 9:2. What was the response from the scribes who witnesses all of this?
"
This man is blaspheming." (verse 3) They are questioning the audacity of Jesus to do such a thing! And we know the rest of the story when Jesus said, " which is easier to forgive the sins of man or to say get up and walk?" (paraphrased here) And of course, the man is cured and he walks! This foretaste at least proves that Jesus has the power to forgive the sins of men! Being God, Christ can obviously do that, can he?
Now, after coming through that door that was locked, and after He showed them His hands and His side, we read in John 20:19:
"
Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you." This is the beginning of what I call the
Preamble to what Christ is about to do here. This is the beginning of an interesting build-up to something important, Jesus is about to say.
To continue in this
Preamble, we read in verse 22: "
And when He said this, he breathed on them…"
As I understand, the only other time we see God "breathing" on anyone is when He breathed the breath of life into Adam, the first man, so to see this written here, it continues a build-up to something really big.
Then Christ continues in verse 22: "
Receive the Holy Spirit."
The ending phrase of the
Preamble that brings Christ to the edge of an awesome pronouncement here. What a let down it would be if it were
not such a build up!
Finally, in verse 23, He says, "
Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sin are retained are retained" (NAB)
Who is the "you" He is speaking to here? The apostles of course. It is to them that He is giving the power we see He possessed back in Matthew 9:2 to the apostles!
Mere fallible men! How can this be, as certainly they are not worthy! (The objections I often hear.)
Let me state it again but a bit differently:
"
Whose sins YOU forgive (cause)
are forgiven them (effect),
and whose sins YOU retain (cause) they are retained them (effect.)
I have had a good laugh when I see others post ole' Matthew Henry's commentary on that set of verses as, "When you forgive sins, it only ratifies what has already been forgiven by God in heaven, etc" (paraphrased from memory) Good ole' Matthew Henry has the cart before the horse!
Let me put it this way: When you turn on the switch (cause) the light goes on (effect); when your turn off the switch (cause) , the light goes out (effect).
Never can it be that the light goes on
before the switch is turned on, or go out
before the switch is turned off. Get the point here?
What the apostles do in forgiving sins, is thus ratified in heaven! The cause comes before the effect!
On the issue of "worthiness," was Christ worried about it? Now, it is obvious that worthiness is certainly desirable, but again, can any man be worthy of such a power? No, and it seemingly did not bother Christ one bit when He gave the power to forgive or retain sins!
Finally, I have seen the objection that Jesus is simply saying that we must all forgive each other's sins. He has done that already in His
Lord's Prayer and other places in scripture. We certainly must forgive each other of our sins against one another. But if you take the John 20:21-23 passages that that, then how can you account for the fact that Christ also says that "sins you retained are retained"? Does that mean that we by choice choose
not to forgive another sins against us? If I plead with you, Bob, to forgive me of a transgression against me, are you not
obligated to forgive me?
What is different here is, the power to forgive or retain sins Jesus gives to His apostles is a
judiciary power; that then hear the confessions of a Christian sinner and choose to either forgive or retain that persons sins. Why retain them? It's simple:
The apostles (later priests and bishops who succeed them) hear the confession of a person, and makes a judgment as to whether the person is sincere or not. He also determines of the person is willing to make amends for the sin. For example, of the person confesses to a theft, and the priests makes the condition for absolution to return the stolen goods or otherwise make restitution, and he refuses,
the priest will retain the sin! The man is obviously not sincere in his remorse for the sin he is confessing!
I could go on, but it will give you something to chew on…
John 20 is showing a corporate judgment - as we see in the process of Matt 18 (and as we see in 1Cor 5) where the open sin of a member in the church is dealt with corporately by church leadership.
Yes, Matthew 18:18 does indeed give the power to "bind and loose" in the judgment of an obstinate sinner who does not recant of his sin or error, and thus be excommunicated from the church! It indeed reinforces the authority of the Church as given by Christ, but the John 20"22-23 quote is mostly
judicial in that individual apostles, priests and bishops can absolve or retain the sins of a penitent which, by the way, can indeed be meted-out "corporately" as you imply. That was also done in the early Church. But from the earliest times, confession to a priest was developed to the method we see today. And by the way, the Catholic Church does indeed, allow for a general absolution of a group, but only under strict circumstances to avoid possible abuses.
That in no way provides "Another avenue of forgiveness" beyond the 1John 1:9 direct connection to God who is HIMSELF "Faithful AND just to Forgive US our sins".
There is indeed, another way, and I have just explained it to you!
The ONLY examples that we see in scripture of saints going to the church for issues about sin - is in cases of open rebellion by a church member that refuses to take correction. (1Cor 5 for example).
Forgiveness is always the role of God alone. There are NO cases in the NT where anyone says "I absolve thee" or "your sins ARE forgiven" IF that person is not GOD.
But what do you do if "God alone" give the power to men to forgive or retain the sins of men? It is before you, in black and white, in John 20:22-23!
And this was the practice for the firsrt 1500 years of church history! But Luther and others knew better in the 16th century?
I don't think so…
God bless,
PAX
Rome has spoken, case is closed.
Derived from Augustine's famous
Sermon.
THER foundation can be laid" by any teacher. It then goes on to describe the TEACHING of the various evangelists as their work - and shows that it is their TEACHING that is tried and burned acccording to its "value".
