Absolution

[Dan Perez]

Essentially, priest comes from a German word. They are the elders of the new covenant.

You still , have not given a verse where there are elders IN THE NEW COVENANT at all !!

dan p

 

[The Liturgist]

You still , have not given a verse where there are elders IN THE NEW COVENANT at all !!

dan p

Acts 14:23 is perhaps the definitive example, although there are many others, but Acts 14:23 shows with particular clarity how presbyters serve in the hierarchy of the church, and also happens to be located in Acts, which is a book I should like it if you reread together with a history of the early church or one of the early books of church order**.

“Paul and Barnabas also appointed elders in every church. With prayer and fasting, they turned the elders over to the care of the Lord, in whom they had put their trust.”

In the original Greek the word used is πρεσβυτέρους (presbyterous), which means “elders” and which was Anglicized first as Prester, and later as Priest and Presbyter (hence the name of the Presbyterian denomination.*

I lament how the various English translations caused confusion by translating the Hebrew word Kohanim and the Greek words hierus and sacerdos as Priest, because this causes confusion with the Priesthood of All Believers, which should be translated as the Sacerdotalism of All Believers, in that every Christian is royal and hieratic, superior to the Jewish Kohanim because we are followers of Christ, a Hierus forever after the order of Melchizedek, but not all Christians are presbyters (elders) or bishops (superintendents).

This confusion was not due solely to Protestant translations of the Bible such as the KJV, but also Roman Catholic translations such as the Douai Rheims. This may be because Roman Catholics at the time regarded their clergy as being specifically sacerdotal in a manner in which the laity are not; I don’t know what the history of the doctrine of the Priesthood of All Believers is within the Roman Catholic Church, but I believe their understanding of it at present aligns with that which I have presented here (aside from their assignment of the title “VIcar of Christ” to the Pope of Rome).

I would note just about everything one needs to know about the early church can be found in Acts (for this reason, the persecuted Coptic Orthodox of Egypt call it the Praxis, meaning “Practice,” for their church is still governed according to the model of the early church. Acts documents all key functions of the early Church, including its ability to consecrate Apostles and their successors (Acts 1, where the Apostle St. Matthias was ordained to replace Judas Iscariot, and later the consecration of St. Paul), the ordination of the seven deacons including St. Stephen the Protomartyr, the first Christian who died for Christ, also documented in Acts, martyrdom being a major factor of the life of the early church, and also St. Philip, the casting out of heretics and the prohibition against purchasing ecclesiastical offices, a sin called Simony, because of the episode in Acts regarding Simon Magus, and the existence of synodal or conciliar governance, as demonstrated by Acts 15, as opposed to rule by an autocratic system of Papal Supremacy, and the inspiration of the leadership of the church through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit (see the Paschal and Pentecostal accounts in Acts 1).

It is my experience that most low church evangelicals, fundamentalists, non-denominationals and Sabbatarians who object to the Orthodox Church and the traditional liturgical Protestant churches like Anglicanism, Methodism, Lutheranism and so on, or who adhere to Nestorianism, Quietism or certain other theological errors, have not adequetely read the Gospel according to Luke and the Acts of the Apostles, also written by Luke (scholars frequently refer to these two books as Luke-Acts), just as those who deny the Incarnation demonstrate a lack of familiarity with the Gospel According to John (or in some cases, reject it or rely on intentional mistranslations of it, the latter being the approach used by the Jehovah’s Witnesses). I would be interested to know if my Orthodox, Methodist, Lutheran and Anglican friends @prodromos @FenderTL5 @jas3 @MarkRohfrietsch @ViaCrucis @JM and @Shane R agree.

*The Presbyterians unlike the New Testament church does not have superintendents (in Greek, ἐπίσκοπος or epískopos, Anglicized as Bishop, and later the basis for the names of the non-Juring Anglicans and Scottish Anglicans, who called themselves Episcopalians, because they had bishops whereas the established Presbyterian Church of Scotland did not, and also the Protestant Episcopal Church (now the Episcopal Church USA), the Methodist Episcopal Church (which was formed around the same time, in 1786, independently, since John Wesley was unaware of the efforts of American Anglicans to organize, and the bishops of the American Anglicans were ordained by the non-juring Episcopalians of Scotland and Northern England), which later merged with the Evangelical United Brethren to form the United Methodist Church, and finally the Reformed Episcopal Church, which separated from the Protestant Episcopal Church in a schism in the late 19th century and later joined the Anglican Church in North America, which I regard as the remnant of the Episcopal Church (one could argue that ACNA left the Episcopal Church, but my position is that the Episcopal Church left ACNA, by adopting unacceptable doctrines concerning human sexuality, abortion and other issues, which have caused a devastating decline in the membership of that denomination).

** These include first century books of church order such as the Didache or the Didascalia*** or the letters of the martyr St. Ignatius of Antioch, who was fed to lions in the Coliseum around the year 100, and whose writings, along with the sole letter of the first century bishop St. Clement of Rome, and likewise, the second century letter by St. Polycarp of Smyrna, and other second century writings such as those of St. Ignatius of Lyons and St. Justin Martyr, which all provide us with a great deal of information about the early church, its organization and its manner of worship. There are also two noteworthy books of church order from the third and fourth century: the Apostolic Tradition of St. Hippolytus, written in the early third century and the Apostolic Constitutions, written in the mid fourth century. Finally, there is the Divine Liturgy of the church of Alexandria, which the Greeks call the Divine Liturgy of St. Mark, and the Copts, who use it much more frequently, regularly using it in Lent, call the Divine Liturgy of St. Cyril. This is the oldest surviving liturgical text in continual use in Christianity, with a substantial amount of it preserved in the second century fragment known as the Strasbourg Papyrus. It is also found in the oldest intact liturgical service book, the Euchologion of St. Serapion of Thmuis, which dates from the fourth century and belonged to a colleague of the extremely important church father and defender of the doctrine of the incarnation against Arianism, St. Athanasius, who insisted, against Emperor Constantius and many others, and who endured exile and much persecution for this insistence, that our Lord, God and Savior Jesus Christ is fully God and fully Human. He also insisted on the canonicity of the Apocalypse of St. John, also known as Revelation, and certain other books, and was the first to publish the 27 book canon for the New Testament we all know and love, in his 39th Paschal Encyclical (a letter he wrote to all the bishops of Egypt telling them the date of Pascha, the Feast of the Resurrection, occasionally called Easter in English, but in most languages referred to as Pascha or a derivative thereof (for example, the Dutch word is Passen), and in his 39th such letter he also provided guidance on what scripture should be regarded as canonical and therefore read in church.

*** The Ethiopian Tewahedo Orthodox Church and the Eritrean Tewahedo Orthodox Church still make use of the Didascalia, which I haven’t read, but I have heard it is very similar to the Didache.

 

[The Liturgist]

Just excellent.

Oops I forgot to list you among my Lutheran friends in the previous post, and I also forgot to mention my Orthodox friends @HTacianas and @dzheremi , but I love all of you very much. I am a bit scatter-brained right now it seems.

Please remember my health in your prayers, as today I am beginning the use of Propanol to attempt to reduce my blood pressure to a safe level.

 

[The Liturgist]

I don't know all the particulars, but ultra-dispensationalism is best known for teaching that there are two gospels.

The Gospel of the Kingdom aka Gospel of Jesus aka Gospel of Law which only applied to the Jews prior to the resurrection.

And Paul’s Gospel aka Gospel of Grace which is only for the Gentiles after the resurrection.

I had wondered what all of those strange posts about “The Gospel of the Kingdom” were about.

 

[Ceallaigh]

I had wondered what all of those strange posts about “The Gospel of the Kingdom” were about.

That's funny I was thinking of asking you what it was all about but then I tracked it down.

 

[The Liturgist]

That's funny I was thinking of asking you what it was all about but then I tracked it down.

Actually I believe @MarkRohfrietsch and I discussed it a while back, and either he or someone else briefed me, so had you asked me I probably would have remembered, but I have found those posts strange and disorienting, but also not particularly interesting. I don’t really want to debate anyone who believes that. I also don’t want to debate any non-Trinitarians, because in my experience they cheat during debates. I am mainly interested in debating those who are causing such damage to the liturgical churches of the west through false teaching concerning human sexuality and abortion.

 

[RileyG]

I have nothing else regarding saying absolution and elders in the NT. I've made myself clear.

RP

 

[Guojing]

I had wondered what all of those strange posts about “The Gospel of the Kingdom” were about.

Would you consider Matthew 4:23 as a strange verse then?

 

[The Liturgist]

Would you consider Matthew 4:23 as a strange verse then?

Of course not. What I reject is your interpretation of it, which makes no sense even from a nuda scriptura perspective. And of course from a sola scriptura perspective, or if one takes into account the writings of the early Church Fathers, along with reason, which is the approach taken by the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox, the Ancient Church of the East, the Anglicans, Methodists and indeed the Lutherans (for Sola Scriptura is not Nuda Scriptura and Martin Luther did not reject tradition in formulating his doctrine), there is no basis for it at all, since precisely none of the Apostolic Fathers or ante-Nicene Fathers or post-Nicene Fathers gives any hint there are two Gospels.

Indeed the very idea of there being two Gospels, one taught by the Holy Apostle St. Paul, and one taught by our Lord for the exclusive benefit of the Jewish people, is refuted by Galatians 1:8-9.

Additionally, the Book of Acts makes it clear that the Holy Apostle Paul was on the team and an active member of the Apostles after his conversion on the Road to Damascus, and we even see in the Pauline epistles a dispute between himself and St. Peter along with certain other Jewish apostles; St. Peter was persuaded by St. Paul fairly quickly, and the remainder of the dispute was settled by St. James the Just, the founding bishop of Jerusalem and one of the brethren of the Lord.

 

[Guojing]

Of course not. What I reject is your interpretation of it, which makes no sense even from a nuda scriptura perspective. And of course from a sola scriptura perspective, or if one takes into account the writings of the early Church Fathers, along with reason, which is the approach taken by the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox, the Ancient Church of the East, the Anglicans, Methodists and indeed the Lutherans (for Sola Scriptura is not Nuda Scriptura and Martin Luther did not reject tradition in formulating his doctrine), there is no basis for it at all, since precisely none of the Apostolic Fathers or ante-Nicene Fathers or post-Nicene Fathers gives any hint there are two Gospels.

There is nothing to interpret in Matthew 4:23.

Jesus was preaching "the gospel of the kingdom" in the various synagogues.

You can then ask yourself the following follow-up questions.

Who visits synagogues, Jews or Gentiles?

What was the content of that "gospel of the kingdom"?

Why was that gospel preaching accompanied by those signs and wonders of healing?

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

What I reject is your interpretation of it, which makes no sense even from a nuda scriptura perspective.

I agree, I am not familiar with what @Guojing 's theology is, but the posts I have read leave me disagreeing with the hermeneutic behind the post's interpretations.

 

[Guojing]

I agree, I am not familiar with what @Guojing 's theology is, but the posts I have read leave me disagreeing with the hermeneutic behind the post's interpretations.

If you understand scripture literally, there is not much interpretation required.

You can see in the next post I made to him.

 

[Dan Perez]

Acts 14:23 is perhaps the definitive example, although there are many others, but Acts 14:23 shows with particular clarity how presbyters serve in the hierarchy of the church, and also happens to be located in Acts, which is a book I should like it if you reread together with a history of the early church or one of the early books of church order**.

“Paul and Barnabas also appointed elders in every church. With prayer and fasting, they turned the elders over to the care of the Lord, in whom they had put their trust.”

In the original Greek the word used is πρεσβυτέρους (presbyterous), which means “elders” and which was Anglicized first as Prester, and later as Priest and Presbyter (hence the name of the Presbyterian denomination.*

I lament how the various English translations caused confusion by translating the Hebrew word Kohanim and the Greek words hierus and sacerdos as Priest, because this causes confusion with the Priesthood of All Believers, which should be translated as the Sacerdotalism of All Believers, in that every Christian is royal and hieratic, superior to the Jewish Kohanim because we are followers of Christ, a Hierus forever after the order of Melchizedek, but not all Christians are presbyters (elders) or bishops (superintendents).

This confusion was not due solely to Protestant translations of the Bible such as the KJV, but also Roman Catholic translations such as the Douai Rheims. This may be because Roman Catholics at the time regarded their clergy as being specifically sacerdotal in a manner in which the laity are not; I don’t know what the history of the doctrine of the Priesthood of All Believers is within the Roman Catholic Church, but I believe their understanding of it at present aligns with that which I have presented here (aside from their assignment of the title “VIcar of Christ” to the Pope of Rome).

I would note just about everything one needs to know about the early church can be found in Acts (for this reason, the persecuted Coptic Orthodox of Egypt call it the Praxis, meaning “Practice,” for their church is still governed according to the model of the early church. Acts documents all key functions of the early Church, including its ability to consecrate Apostles and their successors (Acts 1, where the Apostle St. Matthias was ordained to replace Judas Iscariot, and later the consecration of St. Paul), the ordination of the seven deacons including St. Stephen the Protomartyr, the first Christian who died for Christ, also documented in Acts, martyrdom being a major factor of the life of the early church, and also St. Philip, the casting out of heretics and the prohibition against purchasing ecclesiastical offices, a sin called Simony, because of the episode in Acts regarding Simon Magus, and the existence of synodal or conciliar governance, as demonstrated by Acts 15, as opposed to rule by an autocratic system of Papal Supremacy, and the inspiration of the leadership of the church through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit (see the Paschal and Pentecostal accounts in Acts 1).

It is my experience that most low church evangelicals, fundamentalists, non-denominationals and Sabbatarians who object to the Orthodox Church and the traditional liturgical Protestant churches like Anglicanism, Methodism, Lutheranism and so on, or who adhere to Nestorianism, Quietism or certain other theological errors, have not adequetely read the Gospel according to Luke and the Acts of the Apostles, also written by Luke (scholars frequently refer to these two books as Luke-Acts), just as those who deny the Incarnation demonstrate a lack of familiarity with the Gospel According to John (or in some cases, reject it or rely on intentional mistranslations of it, the latter being the approach used by the Jehovah’s Witnesses). I would be interested to know if my Orthodox, Methodist, Lutheran and Anglican friends @prodromos @FenderTL5 @jas3 @MarkRohfrietsch @ViaCrucis @JM and @Shane R agree.

*The Presbyterians unlike the New Testament church does not have superintendents (in Greek, ἐπίσκοπος or epískopos, Anglicized as Bishop, and later the basis for the names of the non-Juring Anglicans and Scottish Anglicans, who called themselves Episcopalians, because they had bishops whereas the established Presbyterian Church of Scotland did not, and also the Protestant Episcopal Church (now the Episcopal Church USA), the Methodist Episcopal Church (which was formed around the same time, in 1786, independently, since John Wesley was unaware of the efforts of American Anglicans to organize, and the bishops of the American Anglicans were ordained by the non-juring Episcopalians of Scotland and Northern England), which later merged with the Evangelical United Brethren to form the United Methodist Church, and finally the Reformed Episcopal Church, which separated from the Protestant Episcopal Church in a schism in the late 19th century and later joined the Anglican Church in North America, which I regard as the remnant of the Episcopal Church (one could argue that ACNA left the Episcopal Church, but my position is that the Episcopal Church left ACNA, by adopting unacceptable doctrines concerning human sexuality, abortion and other issues, which have caused a devastating decline in the membership of that denomination).

** These include first century books of church order such as the Didache or the Didascalia*** or the letters of the martyr St. Ignatius of Antioch, who was fed to lions in the Coliseum around the year 100, and whose writings, along with the sole letter of the first century bishop St. Clement of Rome, and likewise, the second century letter by St. Polycarp of Smyrna, and other second century writings such as those of St. Ignatius of Lyons and St. Justin Martyr, which all provide us with a great deal of information about the early church, its organization and its manner of worship. There are also two noteworthy books of church order from the third and fourth century: the Apostolic Tradition of St. Hippolytus, written in the early third century and the Apostolic Constitutions, written in the mid fourth century. Finally, there is the Divine Liturgy of the church of Alexandria, which the Greeks call the Divine Liturgy of St. Mark, and the Copts, who use it much more frequently, regularly using it in Lent, call the Divine Liturgy of St. Cyril. This is the oldest surviving liturgical text in continual use in Christianity, with a substantial amount of it preserved in the second century fragment known as the Strasbourg Papyrus. It is also found in the oldest intact liturgical service book, the Euchologion of St. Serapion of Thmuis, which dates from the fourth century and belonged to a colleague of the extremely important church father and defender of the doctrine of the incarnation against Arianism, St. Athanasius, who insisted, against Emperor Constantius and many others, and who endured exile and much persecution for this insistence, that our Lord, God and Savior Jesus Christ is fully God and fully Human. He also insisted on the canonicity of the Apocalypse of St. John, also known as Revelation, and certain other books, and was the first to publish the 27 book canon for the New Testament we all know and love, in his 39th Paschal Encyclical (a letter he wrote to all the bishops of Egypt telling them the date of Pascha, the Feast of the Resurrection, occasionally called Easter in English, but in most languages referred to as Pascha or a derivative thereof (for example, the Dutch word is Passen), and in his 39th such letter he also provided guidance on what scripture should be regarded as canonical and therefore read in church.

*** The Ethiopian Tewahedo Orthodox Church and the Eritrean Tewahedo Orthodox Church still make use of the Didascalia, which I haven’t read, but I have heard it is very similar to the Didache.

And you gave Acts 14:23 as a proof text , BUT ??

in Acts 14:23 it was Paul that was appointing ELDERS and never did Paul appoint Priests .

dan p

 

[The Liturgist]

And you gave Acts 14:23 as a proof text , BUT ??

in Acts 14:23

Yes, that is correct, because I was answering your previous post, which did not include the word “Priests”, but instead appeared to discount the existence of Elders in the New Covenant. So I fear you might be engaging in the fallacious debate tactic known as “raising the goalposts”, which is related to strawman arguments.

You still , have not given a verse where there are elders IN THE NEW COVENANT at all !!

dan p

Thus, my intention was to show you that there are in fact elders in the New Covenant, and apparently I succeeded:

it was Paul that was appointing ELDERS and never did Paul appoint Priests .

dan p

So firstly, it is good to see that you have accepted the New Testament reality that elders, or Presbyters, are a part of the New Covenant, having been ordained by various apostles including St. Paul.

Now, regarding the word “Priest”, I specifically addressed the confusion surrounding this word:

In the original Greek the word used is πρεσβυτέρους (presbyterous), which means “elders” and which was Anglicized first as Prester, and later as Priest and Presbyter (hence the name of the Presbyterian denomination.*

I lament how the various English translations caused confusion by translating the Hebrew word Kohanim and the Greek words hierus and sacerdos as Priest, because this causes confusion with the Priesthood of All Believers, which should be translated as the Sacerdotalism of All Believers, in that every Christian is royal and hieratic, superior to the Jewish Kohanim because we are followers of Christ, a Hierus forever after the order of Melchizedek, but not all Christians are presbyters (elders) or bishops (superintendents).

This confusion was not due solely to Protestant translations of the Bible such as the KJV, but also Roman Catholic translations such as the Douai Rheims. This may be because Roman Catholics at the time regarded their clergy as being specifically sacerdotal in a manner in which the laity are not; I don’t know what the history of the doctrine of the Priesthood of All Believers is within the Roman Catholic Church, but I believe their understanding of it at present aligns with that which I have presented here (aside from their assignment of the title “VIcar of Christ” to the Pope of Rome).

As explained, the word Priest is an anglicization of the word Presbuteros, which means Elder. This word had previously been Anglicized as Prester, and was later Anglicized as Presbyter (hence Presbyterian).

It was also confusingly used by English bible translations to translate the Hebrew and Greek words Kohanim, Sacerdos and Hierus, and this leads to some of the confusion.

I made it clear that in terms of the sacerdotal priesthood, as opposed to priest, meaning presbyter or elder, all of the faithful comprise a Royal Priesthood led by our Lord, God and Savior Jesus Christ, in contrast to Judaism, where only a small hereditary group descended from Aaron, the Kohanim, were able to act as sacerdotal priests. This is the scriptural doctrine of the Priesthood of All Believers.

However, the word Priest is also a valid anglicization of Presbuteros, although my own preference is to use Presbyter in formal writing for the simple reason that it is less likely to be confused.[/quote][/QUOTE]

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

English speaking Catholics say "priest" because they said it that way for 600 years in English.

 

[JM]

Acts 14:23 is perhaps the definitive example, although there are many others, but Acts 14:23 shows with particular clarity how presbyters serve in the hierarchy of the church, and also happens to be located in Acts, which is a book I should like it if you reread together with a history of the early church or one of the early books of church order**.

“Paul and Barnabas also appointed elders in every church. With prayer and fasting, they turned the elders over to the care of the Lord, in whom they had put their trust.”

In the original Greek the word used is πρεσβυτέρους (presbyterous), which means “elders” and which was Anglicized first as Prester, and later as Priest and Presbyter (hence the name of the Presbyterian denomination.*

I lament how the various English translations caused confusion by translating the Hebrew word Kohanim and the Greek words hierus and sacerdos as Priest, because this causes confusion with the Priesthood of All Believers, which should be translated as the Sacerdotalism of All Believers, in that every Christian is royal and hieratic, superior to the Jewish Kohanim because we are followers of Christ, a Hierus forever after the order of Melchizedek, but not all Christians are presbyters (elders) or bishops (superintendents).

This confusion was not due solely to Protestant translations of the Bible such as the KJV, but also Roman Catholic translations such as the Douai Rheims. This may be because Roman Catholics at the time regarded their clergy as being specifically sacerdotal in a manner in which the laity are not; I don’t know what the history of the doctrine of the Priesthood of All Believers is within the Roman Catholic Church, but I believe their understanding of it at present aligns with that which I have presented here (aside from their assignment of the title “VIcar of Christ” to the Pope of Rome).

I would note just about everything one needs to know about the early church can be found in Acts (for this reason, the persecuted Coptic Orthodox of Egypt call it the Praxis, meaning “Practice,” for their church is still governed according to the model of the early church. Acts documents all key functions of the early Church, including its ability to consecrate Apostles and their successors (Acts 1, where the Apostle St. Matthias was ordained to replace Judas Iscariot, and later the consecration of St. Paul), the ordination of the seven deacons including St. Stephen the Protomartyr, the first Christian who died for Christ, also documented in Acts, martyrdom being a major factor of the life of the early church, and also St. Philip, the casting out of heretics and the prohibition against purchasing ecclesiastical offices, a sin called Simony, because of the episode in Acts regarding Simon Magus, and the existence of synodal or conciliar governance, as demonstrated by Acts 15, as opposed to rule by an autocratic system of Papal Supremacy, and the inspiration of the leadership of the church through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit (see the Paschal and Pentecostal accounts in Acts 1).

It is my experience that most low church evangelicals, fundamentalists, non-denominationals and Sabbatarians who object to the Orthodox Church and the traditional liturgical Protestant churches like Anglicanism, Methodism, Lutheranism and so on, or who adhere to Nestorianism, Quietism or certain other theological errors, have not adequetely read the Gospel according to Luke and the Acts of the Apostles, also written by Luke (scholars frequently refer to these two books as Luke-Acts), just as those who deny the Incarnation demonstrate a lack of familiarity with the Gospel According to John (or in some cases, reject it or rely on intentional mistranslations of it, the latter being the approach used by the Jehovah’s Witnesses). I would be interested to know if my Orthodox, Methodist, Lutheran and Anglican friends @prodromos @FenderTL5 @jas3 @MarkRohfrietsch @ViaCrucis @JM and @Shane R agree.

*The Presbyterians unlike the New Testament church does not have superintendents (in Greek, ἐπίσκοπος or epískopos, Anglicized as Bishop, and later the basis for the names of the non-Juring Anglicans and Scottish Anglicans, who called themselves Episcopalians, because they had bishops whereas the established Presbyterian Church of Scotland did not, and also the Protestant Episcopal Church (now the Episcopal Church USA), the Methodist Episcopal Church (which was formed around the same time, in 1786, independently, since John Wesley was unaware of the efforts of American Anglicans to organize, and the bishops of the American Anglicans were ordained by the non-juring Episcopalians of Scotland and Northern England), which later merged with the Evangelical United Brethren to form the United Methodist Church, and finally the Reformed Episcopal Church, which separated from the Protestant Episcopal Church in a schism in the late 19th century and later joined the Anglican Church in North America, which I regard as the remnant of the Episcopal Church (one could argue that ACNA left the Episcopal Church, but my position is that the Episcopal Church left ACNA, by adopting unacceptable doctrines concerning human sexuality, abortion and other issues, which have caused a devastating decline in the membership of that denomination).

** These include first century books of church order such as the Didache or the Didascalia*** or the letters of the martyr St. Ignatius of Antioch, who was fed to lions in the Coliseum around the year 100, and whose writings, along with the sole letter of the first century bishop St. Clement of Rome, and likewise, the second century letter by St. Polycarp of Smyrna, and other second century writings such as those of St. Ignatius of Lyons and St. Justin Martyr, which all provide us with a great deal of information about the early church, its organization and its manner of worship. There are also two noteworthy books of church order from the third and fourth century: the Apostolic Tradition of St. Hippolytus, written in the early third century and the Apostolic Constitutions, written in the mid fourth century. Finally, there is the Divine Liturgy of the church of Alexandria, which the Greeks call the Divine Liturgy of St. Mark, and the Copts, who use it much more frequently, regularly using it in Lent, call the Divine Liturgy of St. Cyril. This is the oldest surviving liturgical text in continual use in Christianity, with a substantial amount of it preserved in the second century fragment known as the Strasbourg Papyrus. It is also found in the oldest intact liturgical service book, the Euchologion of St. Serapion of Thmuis, which dates from the fourth century and belonged to a colleague of the extremely important church father and defender of the doctrine of the incarnation against Arianism, St. Athanasius, who insisted, against Emperor Constantius and many others, and who endured exile and much persecution for this insistence, that our Lord, God and Savior Jesus Christ is fully God and fully Human. He also insisted on the canonicity of the Apocalypse of St. John, also known as Revelation, and certain other books, and was the first to publish the 27 book canon for the New Testament we all know and love, in his 39th Paschal Encyclical (a letter he wrote to all the bishops of Egypt telling them the date of Pascha, the Feast of the Resurrection, occasionally called Easter in English, but in most languages referred to as Pascha or a derivative thereof (for example, the Dutch word is Passen), and in his 39th such letter he also provided guidance on what scripture should be regarded as canonical and therefore read in church.

*** The Ethiopian Tewahedo Orthodox Church and the Eritrean Tewahedo Orthodox Church still make use of the Didascalia, which I haven’t read, but I have heard it is very similar to the Didache.

As a Lutheran I make private confessions and receive Holy Absolution on a regular basis.

It is a true blessing.

 

[hislegacy]

Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, 'Your sins are forgiven,' or to say, 'Rise, take up your bed and walk'? (Mark 2:9 ESV)

This is why context is so very important - read the next two verses:

Mark 2: 9 Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, ‘Your sins are forgiven you,’ or to say, ‘Arise, take up your bed and walk’? 10 But that you may know that the Son of Man has power on earth to forgive sins”—He said to the paralytic, 11 “I say to you, arise, take up your bed, and go to your house.”​

​

Jesus is referring to Himself.

 

[hislegacy]

I beg you, O Lord, that you may absolve me from the chains of this reproach, or at least take me away from the earth.
[Tob 3:15]

Tobit is an apocryphal book - it was written in Hebrew - not Greek.

 

[The Liturgist]

Tobit is an apocryphal book - it was written in Hebrew - not Greek.

In your church, maybe. In Roman Catholicism it is deuterocanonical, and it is effectively canonical in the Episcopal Church and in the high church Continuing Anglican churches of North America, and in other Anglican churches it is effectively deuterocanonical, although they call it apocrypha, but what they mean by it is different from what you mean. And in the Orthodox Church Tobit is protocanonical.

Like most books omitted from the Masoretic Text, Tobit was found among the Dead Sea Scrolls, which also attested to the validity of the Septuagint, which is the version of the Old Testament primarily quoted by the New Testament, which makes sense, given that the New Testament is written in Greek. The most recently compiled book some regard as deuterocanon or apocrypha, the collection of prophecies known as the Wisdom of Solomon or as The Book of Wisdom, dates from 66 BC and contains a direct prophecy of the Passion of Christ our True God.

 

[The Liturgist]

This is why context is so very important - read the next two verses:

Mark 2: 9 Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, ‘Your sins are forgiven you,’ or to say, ‘Arise, take up your bed and walk’? 10 But that you may know that the Son of Man has power on earth to forgive sins”—He said to the paralytic, 11 “I say to you, arise, take up your bed, and go to your house.”​

​

Jesus is referring to Himself.

When Pastors (whether Presbyters or Bishops) pronounce absolution whether following a general confession of an entire congregation, such as in the Anglican divine office or Holy Communion service, or an individual auricular confession as practiced by Anglicans, Lutherans, Orthodox, Catholics and many other denominations, they do so in the name of our Lord, God and Savior Jesus Christ, because it is Christ who is actually forgiving the sins. Indeed when engaging in auricular confession in Eastern Orthodoxy, one faces an icon of Christ, and venerates the cross after the Absolution.

What the Pastors are doing is using the “Office of the Keys” as some Calvinists call it, that is to say, the ability to bind or remit sins, to remit them, as per Matthew chapter 16, etc. But the people confess to Christ and are forgiven by Christ, for it is through His redemptive Passion on the Holy Cross their absolution and renewal is possible. And not only that, but also their sanctification, for Christ restored and glorified our human nature, and sent his Holy Spirit to be our Paraclete and Comforter, to dwell within us and enable us to attain Theosis. This is the faith clearly expressed by the early church, which is still taught by the Orthodox, and which was also taught by John Wesley, and also apparently Martin Luther expressed views favorable to it (and I recall @hedrick stating that John Calvin expressed some views akin to Theosis). One might also argue that the Roman doctrine of the Beatific Vision is something akin to Theosis, although I am not at all sure about that, as much as I love the Catholic Church, I feel the Beatific Vision is an innovation of Scholastic Theology and a departure from Patristic theology, if I am understanding it correctly, and is underwhelming compared to Theosis, or Entire Sanctification as John Wesley called it.